LoL ever read the history page of Bengalis? Pala Empire had more wealth than all of Europe put together. Go check.
3 Likes
Thatās true, it was copy-paste mistake.
This isnt true. Berbers and Burmese had multiple very powerful kingdoms and the Cumans were just other type of state (and either way they were also the successor of the Khazars)
2 Likes
Yes, Berber kingdom lasted 130 years, as well as Burmese 100 years or so.
My point is why are the Croatians of a smaller worth than Berbers or Burmese for example?
Using word laughable and disparaging history of a nation in that way is not very nice thing to do.
2 Likes
Burmese: Toungoo Empire, Pagan Empire
Cumans were a waste of civ slot, but that doesnāt mean weak kingdoms have a place in this game
Berbers: Almoravid Dynasty, Saadi Dynasty, Wattasid Dynasty etc
Kingdoms like Croatia held zero significance. In fact they were easily wiped out when a strong power came.
Berbers and Burmese had very big empires and conquered many kingdoms/empires, unlike Croatia which was a village compared to them. In fact Burma and the Berbers had major kingdoms/empires for almost the whole medieval period.
1 Like
Which kingdom are you referring to?
1 Like
Kingdom of Altava, and Myinsaing Kingdom.
and you ignore the fact burma was an empire for 500 years in the middle ages
1 Like
Ah you edited your post to delete Bengalis. (from your list of non-european non-empire civs)
Where did you copy paste this from by the way?
1 Like
Interestingā¦ Christian Berbersā¦
Berbers and Burmese had multiple very powerful and indpendent kingdoms through the timeline of the game. The two kingdoms I think you are talking about (Toungoo and Almoravids) were just their peak.
Burmese also represent other peoples that could be added separatedly like the Mon (which tbh I dont see ever being added anyway)
Toungoo Empire and Saadi Sultanate are from post medieval period.
Well, if you are for more Sino-Tibetan, Turkic and African ethnic groups and their Kingdoms.
Itās your choice.
I think the disagreement comes from wording here. The point was that Kingdom of Serbia was minuscule compared to other kingdoms or whatever, but not that the requirement for adding a civ was that it had to be a kingdom/dynasty/sultanate.
Because they were kingdoms, arenāt they?
Well, donāt be indecisive.
1 Like
The gameās timeline goes up to the 16th century as many campaigns take place there, even Bayinnaung, a Toungoo Emperor. Also you should stop nitpicking and ignoring the fact the Pagan Empire existed for 400 years.
So is the kingdom you mentioned for Burmese, and either way AoE2 includes the 16th century
But they arent all they had
Those civās should suit more for AoE3.
I thought that AoE2 was set primarily in middle ages, maybe i was wrong.
Iām not ignoring the fact.
Iām personally not for more civs outside Europe except Georgia and Armenia, thatās it.
???
That doesnt make any sense
Ok, but having an opinion doesnt justify ignoring stuff to make an argument. You can say other stuff but saying that Berbers and Burmese are only relevant for barely more than a century is wrong. You just picked one of the many kingdoms they had and decided to say that they represent all the civ is worth
3 Likes
Why exactly? Are you more in favour of adding some basically extremely minor city states from Europe instead?
1 Like
It is called Euro nationalism or Euro supremacy
2 Likes