The Chinese are divided into the Tang , Sang , Yuan and Ming so I see no problem
As for the others , I guess they used French , Rus and English as a catch all representing various different entities while the HRE , Abbasid Empire and Delhi Sultanate only represent the specific empires but it’s too early to judge .
But I do have suspicion that the Chinggis Khan Campaign would use Delhi to represent Khwarezmiem .
Here I’m trying to defend that:
Look at for example Total War: Attila. Western/Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Empire are specific political entities.
However for the “tribal” people like Saxons, Franks, Goths, etc., they were not a single political entity. They were a number of tribes, hordes and small kingdoms, either forming some sort of confederacy, or even being totally unrelated. You cannot call the Saxons in that period “Saxony”.
When it came to campaigns set in later periods (I consider Thrones of Britannia as an expansion to Attila as well), they became “Wessex/Mercia.”, “Kingdom of Charlemagne”, “Visigothic/Ostrogothic Kingdom” because there were specific political entities.
Back to AOE4:
The “Chinese” included several dynasties, otherwise they can be called in the same fashion as “Shang” in AOE1. The “Rus” had several independent states, and each one of them (Kiev, Novgorod, Moscow, etc.) were not big enough to represent the whole people in that period. The Holy Roman Empires and the Abbasid Caliphate, however, were one single political entity and encompassed several different nations of peoples. You cannot call the Abbasid Caliphate as “Arabs”, “Saracens” or “Persians”.
BUT I’m not saying this is the best way of naming or faction choices, especially considering the “traditions” of this series.
The Chinese are divided into who now? Are you referencing the Dynasty game mechanic? That’s totally unrelated to civ naming and identity.
At any rate, the names of AoE4 civs feel arbitrary and slapdash like they were chosen by people who didn’t really think things through. Every other Age game follows the same convention. This is not some area of the game that needs someone to reinvent the wheel. Just fit in, please.
I am also starting to wonder if Dehli sultanate, Abbassid dinasty and Holy Roman Empire is more a response to the always criticised Indian / Saracen / Teutons names, than any other specific choice (while no one complains about the others) and it resulted in this discrepancy later in development.
And also to avoid religious issues changing Abbassid Caliphate to Dinasty, which again is another additional inconsistency.
Sure, I certainly agree that any unique mechanic is related to a civ’s identity, but this mechanic does not change anything about the Chinese to somehow turn that one general civ into smaller ones. It’s basically just an ability for the Chinese to build multiple Landmarks, as I understand the publicly announced information.
I agree that quibbling over details can certainly feel like that. The challenge is for those quibbling to establish that the entire body of criticism rises to a larger problem exceeding more than just a few unrelated, insignificant issues.
I hope to play a game that’s only mistakes are arbitrary civ names. And if we are not so lucky, it is helpful to collect all of these thousands of papercuts and be prepared to explain how they collectively impact the game.
In my opinion it has to do with the Kingdoms and its now representation. Example:
Delhi Sultanate —> As we know, they will and another Indian nation in a later dlc.
Abbassid Dinasty → Can be described with a specific country?
Holy Roman Empire → It refers to more than 1 country. It is mostly the German nation, but it took and a kingdom from France and Italy. It is like the Roman Empire or Byzantium. Roman Empire started from Italy, but it was not Italy for example.
It’s not just civ names ranks and names for Units and building are also weird.
Chamber Of Commerce, Council Hall, house of Wisdom sounds bit different than usual.
Rank like “HARDENED” For military units, I know some languages would have this kind of term but it’s English they should use Battle Hardened instead of Just Hardened. Hardened Khan or Hardened Men at Arms will sound awful(accept you use German).
Those are all good examples, and Chamber of Commerce sounds particularly sterile to my ears. Of all the things to talk about in a civ, the creation of an advocacy group for the local business community doesn’t exactly put me in the frame of mind to train some archers and cavalry and run across the map and attack.
Like, seriously, that is on the short list of reasons to include the French in this game? Was there nothing more charismatic available?