You know, people get mad when there’re some kind of changes with names. Do it right since the beggining and nobody will be upset.
Edit: I don’t really think that they will be a full civ. Just in case if they appears as a minor civ, unit, map description, campaign or whatever.
Edit II: Jesus, I forgot to explain why they should be called Amazighs and not Berbers, the whole point of this topic. Berber comes from Barbarian. Amazighs have been asking to be called as Amazighs to ditch that name.
Personally I’d prefer to see Morocco, as I like the idea of civs representing actual states and not a group of people. If they dont see it this way, then I agree with your suggestion.
The problem with representing states is that the state might have only existed a small amount of time or only came into existance later on in the timeline.
When using people groups you dont have this problem as successor states and being conquered didnt change the people. This is why Aztecs can be a thing as they kept on living even tho conquered by the Spanish. This is why the Dutch arent considered to be a stupid addition compared to the US (as they got independence in 1648) because the people group existed long before that.
Well, I will edit the post. I was thinking more about units or minor civ, not a full civ.
Well, when I say state, it is more in the broader sense as a political entity, not necessary an independent country.
Morocco (probably named Moroccan to keep the nomenclature of the game) has a capital and a political organisation that would fit the orientation of the game (Home city and colonization). Berbers would encompass people from Morocco, the Ottoman Empire as well as independent tribes, etc. It would be a bit weirder in my opinion.
Oh I see. Most people assume we will get them as a new civ, pointing as the jingle already in the game files and the relatively complete roaster of units (at least 5 models).
As a minor civ, then yes I agree with you, they should just use Amazighs.
I didn’t realize that all the Barbary pirates units were labeled as “Berber”. IDK if there was a North African faction, if should be an Amazigh Kingdom or an Arab one.
A country is a political entity and in both situations my point stands the same.
O god I hope not if Morroco gets added that those are the units as they are basic as fuck. Also the naming is just so lazy. Berber this berber that. How original.
I’m not sure why you brought that point anyway, as Morocco exits during pretty much all of the game time frame anyway. Moroccan would fit perfectly in the game.
Irrelevant. Renaming and changing stats is the easiest thing to do.
The important point is that there are enough models created to hint more at a full civ than a minor one.
Because you said this:
Its not, their model, their look and all are mostly copied from the other units. When you look at Japan they have a unqiue samurai unit with its own animations and all, if you look at India they have rajput and camels + elhepants. Sioux have clubman, etc. All of the berber ones are just copies and generiq unit models animation and style.
Jesus, I forgot to explain why they should be called Amazighs and not Berbers, the whole point of this topic.
Berber comes from Barbarian. Amazighs have been asking to be called as Amazighs to ditch that name.
Perhaps it would be safest to call this civ Maghrebians? Maghrebians are both Berbers and Moroccans.
The topic is not about the relationship between Arabs and Amazigh poblation, or getting a broader culture or an empire that encompasses both, it’s about if there any “berber” reference (unit/minor civ/tech/description/major civ) it should be called amazigh because berber word comes from the word barbarian.
Related to what civ could be named, it could be either Saadi Sultanate (we have United States) or just Morocco.