I love how he says lithuanians were a mistake and should have just been Poles first as if his opinion is fsct
3 Likes
You mean the “primitive Stone Age tribes” that built pyramids? During the Middle Ages, there were people living everywhere on Earth, not only in Europe, otherwise they wouldn’t have made a Saladin or a Genghis Khan campaign back in 1999.
4 Likes
That’s what bothers me the most. The game has no obligation to teach anything, but ends up having a (negative) influence on people by (unintentionally) propagating ethnocentric ideas refuted from the colonial period. Logical fallacies like “my people are big today, so they’ve always been like that”, “they don’t wear the same underwear as me, so obviously they’re inferior savages” etc. Europeans only became power in the 19th century, when gunpowder, steam engines and vaccines became a* thing. Before that, they were just like everyone else.
Well, that’s because the devs are breaking the umbrellas that Ensemble has set up. Portuguese from Spanish, Burgundians from Franks, Bohemians from Teutons, Poles from Slavs, Sicilians as bastards from Vikings and Italians, etc.
As you can see, I think it’s totally unnecessary. But now that it’s happened, let’s see it through. Did they split the European umbrella civs*? Split also the Chinese into Manchus and Thais, Burmese into Tibetans, Persians into Sogdians, Malians into Ghanaians and Songhai, Ethiopians into Nubians and Somalis, Saracens (Arabs) into Levantines and Indians into at least Tamils and Bengalis. So there is consistency.
Or add new medieval civs like Kanem, Mutapa or Kongo for example.
Edit: fixed mistranslations (*)
5 Likes
I didn’t forget, I just don’t think it’s relevant, Mongolian and Chinese are different civs. Did China have any battles against Europeans in the Middle Ages? Did they know anything about Europeans other than “barbarians living in the ends of the earth”? I checked and what I found was that the contacts took place mostly in the 17th century, outside the medieval period.
So the suggestions in my other answer meet all these requirements.
1 Like
You could also say that Goths represented both Portuguese and Spanish, which means Ensemble started breaking the umbrellas before Forgotten Empires.
2 Likes
I was referring to especially Northern America with that statement.
Well they didn’t - that’s probably why we got the Poles after all.
1 Like
That only partly makes sense. Bohemians are Slavic so them being a subgroup of the Germanic Teutons makes little sense.
Some umbrellas were (and still are) just too comprehensive compared to others and failed to represent important sub-civs within them - expansions were welcomed there.
1 Like
I think most of the umbrella civs should be renamed, mainly Slavs and Indians and maybe Italians too.
This question can be asked the other way around as well did Kanem, Mutapa or Kongo fight with Europeans?
Funny thing is goths were the stand in civi for slavic factions which later got replaced with correct civis.
1 Like
Yes. And this was totally unnecessary imo
1 Like
I know, but if I said that, someone would sprout out of nowhere just to tell me “but bohemians were culturally closer to Teutons” lol
Ok. But would you like to elaborate which ones are too comprehensive?
Kongo and Mutapa waged war against the Portuguese. Kongo even allied with the Dutch (±Burgundians) against them. Kanem waged war against neighboring peoples who can be represented by Malians and Ethiopians (although not ideal).
My point is that isolated depends on the reference point. For the sinosphere the Europeans were isolated. For the Vikings, the Japanese and Koreans were isolated because they didn’t interact with each other. So this argument is weak.
3 Likes
Reference point is current ingame civis,tonga had no connections to any of them.
1 Like
Yes. But if we find any civ like Mongols that link Tonga to Southeast Asia for example, could they join?
Minimum could should be two but if tonga or anyone else has some connection to the rest of the civis its perfectly fine to have them.
1 Like
Chimus are moche people. Saying they are similar is like saying that Japanese and Koreans are “chinese” people just because they are asians and may be similar. In that same vein, Waris are chanka people. Aztecs are nahua people. Mayans are maya people. Incas are quechua-puquina people.
I also see it this way. For America, I posted suggestions about Chimus and Waris because both were continental powers with bronze weapons and large empires during their timeline. On top of that, their history is interesting and makes you wonder how the New world would have been if they hadn’t fallen, or had fallen 50 years later. For Asia, I suggested Tibetans and Thais because they were prominent regional powers and their history is amazing. Both became powerful empires even though historically they were the underdogs for centuries. Tibetans and Thais defeated their lifelong rivals the Chinese and the Khmer respectively.
On another note, these are my suggestions. Even if you disagree with the civs, at least read the history part:
Tibetans
Thais
Wari
Chimu
5 Likes
If think if there was another empire around the same region as the Tonga it would be enough
1 Like
Thanks for the suggestions. I’m going to read about Waris and Chimus. Tibetans and Thais I already know about.
2 Likes
Samoa would be an option. They’d do the same thing like they did with SEA and Central America. Adding a bunch of them at the same time. Maori would be awesome but kinda late.
By the way, we already have plenty non-Empires in the game. Even the latest additions are not really empires ironically.
Anyway, there’s plenty of options left everywhere in Africa and America like the Kanem Bornu Empire, the Swahili, the Hausa, the Yoruba, the Songhay, the Munhumutapa/Zimbabweans, the Kongolese the Chimu, the Muisca, the Chichimecs, the Pueblo, the Mississippians, the Haudenosaunee and plenty others.