The Mongols go from The Huns>Mongol tribe, Mongol Empire, then divides into 4 regions, but still one empire and these are: The Yuan Dynasty, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, Chagaatai, later divides>Then another famous one is Timurid Empire.
1 Like
While I donāt agree with most things said on this topic, the way the different civs of AoE IV are named (and thus designed) is utterly problematic indeed. Here some thoughts about it.
1 Like
Yeah but that wasnt my point.
My point is that the devs should use the same logic for naming the factions. Go for the names of specific states (Delhi Sultanate) or go for broader ethno-cultural names (Mongols), but not both at the same time.
3 Likes
Yea, I discussed it with many people here and the devs were kinda confused a lot. They chose The Mongols or Chinese etc generalisation bcse it is widely known or popular, so people can recognise. I just feel it is not fair to have a single period like the Delhi Sultanate. The Chinese have 4 periods and 4 unique units and bonuses. It is just crazy.
1 Like
It would be in Age2s timeline and devs have said that Age4 timeline will go farther than Age2
Etnical Mongol state Yuan was established in 1206 and was conquered by Manchu in 1635. The last independent Mongol Khanate was Dzungar Khanate which collapsed only in 1755. And now Mongols have an independent state. Moreover, Rouran and Khitan khanates were ethnical Mongols.
I agree that there are inconsistencies with naming that need to be addressed, but Iām actually in favor of being more specific. Another good example are the Franks, it doesnāt mean much, and with the introduction of full names rather than countryās people names, it should because āThe Kingdom of Franceā.
But my case is not specifically about France, itās about naming in general. Either you stick with nationās people names, or you switch to something more specific, but you need coherency.
Most of the civs in the game are about Forts, cavalry, swordsman and gunpowder. Considering that we have the english longbowman and towers, french crossbowman and knights - there is space for war elephant civs and rajputs etc. Its def not all about gunpowder and really India (whether represented through Marathas, Rajputs, Vijayanagara empire, sikhs or a combination) should be in this game. Delhi Sultanate were really foreign invaders.
Also 100% Sikhs and Marathas used war elephants in their armies. Proof: Elephants In Battlefields (swarajyamag.com)
They need to add in a multicultural India based faction into the game. Marathans were known for Archers and boats so their civ design could fit perfectly.
This really makes me not want to try or get AOE4 to be honest.
My point perfectly stated. In AOE3 Akbar was a muslim ruler and Mughals were muslim but the civ was called India and had access to Nepali Gurkha, Persian Zamburacks, and Indian Sepoys, Hindu Rajputs, and Tamilian Urumi - imo having a āfederation Indiaā is better than a strict cultural one. If they want Delhi Sultans fine - but give us Vijayanagar or Maratha Empire to counterbalance.
5 Likes
BE wars of what you Wish for. The civ is already Designers, campaign probably too.
If the devs weāre to Accept your wishes, only the Name of the civ would Change to India.
Ist that what you want, playing Delhi sultanate History AS āIndianā ?
Why they NEED to add a hinduist faction to the game? What would they gain from that?
1 Like
Inconsistency isnāt an inherently bad thing.
India not made my British, British have no Idea about indian history , india known as aryvarta and bharat also ,donāt do any misconceptions,bharat have a history way much older than britain ,we have kingdom like chola,cherya,chalukya,maurya,Gupta and many more
Because in Aoe2 india represent as Mughal that is wrong and also now delhi sultanate representing in aoe4 ,if dev add delhi sultanate then they also include vijyanagar empire , rajpoot kingdom, why only muslim sultanate
1 Like
those are empires not kingdom.
no they used it for ceremonial purposes only, war elephants were useless outdated technology by their time period.
1 Like
You have no idea on what you are saying those are empires.
And yes the british made india there was no unified Indian nation or nationality before that.british forced a multi cultural people in to one group.
5 Likes
Yes we United against British colonial in1857, you donāt know indian history go on Google and search about king ashoka who unified india , you donāt know about indian kings go learn some history
This game is not about the colonial age now is it? Ashoka is from the classical age 11111
3 Likes
Then why you mention British make india,