But if you go by the weight of the civilizations in history in a historical game then I believe Asia Europe Africa (Old World) should always come before Americans (New World). That’s just my opinion. And we should also try to divide the massive umbrella before moving on to include exotic civs with extinct populations.
5 Likes
i mean if you want to go by weight of history,
this civ shouldn’t even be in the list of considerations, seeing as they weren’t any sort of major power until well after the AoE2 timeline.
3 Likes
I have already mentioned the fact in a comment in this thread.
2 Likes
either way, you guys have fun, were already seeing a lot of overlap with civ bonuses as is. i don’t realistically seeing India getting 4 new civs, let alone more then 10 new civs being added to the game maximum.
3 Likes
In history we bave no data of Missippians or Polynesians fighting a war on the scale of those from India or other Old World civilizations. It makes no sense to consider them before the subcontinent.
People just mention them because they are from United States and rest you can guess.
American civs don’t even have wheels yet people argue to give them horses because they stole a bunch of horses from Spanish (yes I am referring to Mapuche) in 18th century. Indians had multiple huge distinct cultures with different empires with largest GDPs. It isn’t comparable to the Americans.
6 Likes
yeah well the game has always been historically influenced over historically accurate. it does this thread no justice though that the creator of the thread happens to be twisting what one of the original devs said to fit his own agenda.
completely agree with this. i laugh every time i see a wheel in meso civs.
2 Likes
I have no problem with moving into the exotic native American Civs but it is our duty to prioritise on underrepresented Old World civs first and focus on only those new world civs that were actually involved in medieval era battles and wars rather than picking Polynesians just because someone watched a movie on their migration or why he/she thinks it is cool. Iroquois and Mapuche are good but they shouldn’t have horses in their tech tree because they stole some Spanish horse.
2 Likes
not a fan of native american horse civs anyway as proposed on these forums, as most i have seen posted seem very gimmicky, which isn’t a good design of a civilization.
for a good example of this look at how protoss is currently designed in SC2, it makes it very hard to balance with the other races and has been bandaided with even more gimmicks to try to fix it, only making the situation worse.
so yeah. totally not a fan of horsey meso civs.
1 Like
Ridiculous claim. There were significant cultural differences throughout chinese history. Even in modern times, there are distinct cultures like the Uyghurs, and that’s the most monocultural state china has ever been.
Why do we have a ‘duty’ to do anything other than make the game more fun? The game will be actively worse by adding a bunch of recolors of the same civ.
2 Likes
Talk about mainland Chinese not Uyghur or Tibetans, we all know they are different.
1 Like
They’re all lumped together as chinese ingame, so clearly we need civs for them too. Given their state of oppression in the world today, wouldn’t you say representing them is far more important?
1 Like
Then go add the Assyrians, Aboriginals or Neanderthals to the game just because it is fun
Have you seen my map posted on poll?
I have already mentioned the Tibetans and Uyghurs. While Uyghurs can be represented by Tatars to some extent. Tibetans clearly need a new civ.
Modern politics should not influence a historical game.
1 Like
Those would not be historically accurate to the time period, and would therefore not fit in the game. Therefore they are unacceptable regardless of whether or not they would be fun.
By contrast, while the many civs you suggest would be contemporary to the game’s time period, they would be bland rehashes of a culture we have already experienced ingame, and would therefore be boring. They’ve made this mistake before, with civs like the Slavs compared to the Teutons. I hope they have learned from these errors and will not make them again.
That’s a cop out and you know it.
i fixed this for you, video games are an escape from the real world, we need this fix to video games.
3 Likes
But wouldn’t it be fun. The Assyrians and Aboriginal existed in the timeline with very small population and no significance in wars. But you can say they are fun afterall the Aboriginals represent Australia and they would have a bone club fighter.
1 Like
Afghans, Indians, Dravidians, Bengalis would be sufficient. The latter three would represent the Tripartite Struggle for Kannauj.
5 Likes
Yeah 3 will be sufficient. One each from Northwest, East and South India. Since those particular regions had similar military tactics.
1 Like
Then the name “Indians” would be rebundant, in Realms they have a Dravidian civ and the current Indians are called “Hindustani” which is very confusing for some people.
Indians or Hindustani will suffice.
3 Likes
The term Hindustan is historically used by the Persians to refer to Indo-Gangetic planes.
1 Like