Campaigns. We also have the Huns and the Turtle Ship representing the span of the timeline if you want to look at non campaign content
The thing is that thats not completely true. We have rthe whole colonization thing and the last yearsof the Romans as very important parts of the game.
I think we discuss different things here.
I speak about the civ has to exist until 600 to be “in timeframe” - ofc if a civ only exists until 600 all events depicted in the game have to occur at earlier dates.
That’s what I mean with 100 years of overlap. middle ages go from 500 to 1500. So I want the civs to be existing later than 600 so there are at least 100 years of overlap witht the middle age period.
Otherwise we add a civ that ends before 600 than there will be events in 300 so we can add the romans aswell and if we add the romans we can also add the greek and then the aegyptians…
Do you see what the problem is if we argue like this?
But ofc we can say that a civ needs to be existent in a 500-1600 timeframe if this is the general perception. But we can’t go further cause then we have to include civs like the romans.
No we dont have to. The game is from the 5th to 16th century. We dont need a Chinese campaign in the 200s just because they are in the game
And we already have Romans as Byzantines.
But Huns disappeared before the 500s
True.
But again, we can’t argue like this cause then everything would be ok. We need to set a boundary.
The concepts are also not gone, they are just in the “out of timeframe” category.
But the timeline should include everything thats in the game (so both Huns and the Turtle ship should fit) as well as be coherent with the campaigns. We could establish the split to be the division of the Roman Empire in western and Eastern
What is the timeframe you would chose?
Cause we have no other option. we have to set a timeframe. Otherwise everything is in and out simultanously.
Last division of the Roman Empire and beggining of the Reign of Alaric (395) to Imjin War (1598) or maybe the fall of Toungoo (1599)
Personally I would extend it until 1648 because of the Eighty Years war and fall of Ming but the other two make more sense
And how much overlap with this timeframe a civ should have? 50 years? 100?
I would personally say 100 years, but Huns lasted less than that
In general tbh I think qny civ that fits in the period could be added but rhe need to be added will always be deeply subjective (I try to mostly be objective but I still have some love for civs that really shouldnt be added like Vandals)
Actually they came back to Asia and troubled the Gupta empire in India
Hey! Thanks for the mention in the Poles concept, definitely my best post here. I suggest you that whatever civ is implemented (like Poles, Tamils as Dravidians etc) mentions this in the notes.
Why? They were the same militarility. Taking the full Roman Empire into consideration, it was pagan till 3rd century and Christian after that, which is the only cultural difference.
They came back to Asia and troubled the Gupt empire in India
If we are extending till 1648, we might as well extend till 1683 to see the Winged Hussars arriving!!
Thpse werent the same huns
Because it is a gpod point to establish as the beginning of the end of the western part
That would be too big of an stretch from the current 1598 limit
other question:
Polynesians - put in Asia or make a new page for “Oceania” civ concepts?
Daylamites are from Daylam region of Persia. It should be added to Persian category together with Alans, Sogdians and Afghans.
Isn’t it in the right category?
I named it “fertile crescent” but mean is the region between anatolia and the indus.
I didn’t wanted to separate too much but it was clear to me that i have to put something “in between” europe and east asia.
Fertile Crescent span only small west part of Persia. It doesn’t include Daylamites, Alan, Sogdian and Afghan lands. This hub needs Persia and Eurasian Steppe regions. I don’t see any civ proposal that belongs Fertile Crescent btw.
I named it fertile crescent cause the other names that came to mind were politically incorrect.
I rather prefer using a name that isn’t geologically accurate than using a name some people may find offensive.
I asked for a different naming before I opened this but nobody came along so I sticked with it.
But if you have a better name please tell me.
New page for Oceania concepts. I also have a Micronesians civ I’m going to post at some point.
Now I see why it isn’t linked.
Thanks a lot for your mention! These links will be so useful to me!
My next concept will be Swedes 