Yes, I have already seen controversy about it. But according to one thing I saw, the Delhi Sultanate was a power for much of the Middle Ages.
Regardless of the controversy and we like it more or less The Sultanate of Delhi is India in the game
5 Likes
Thanks for the comment! You said exactly what I’ve been thinking for years.
2 Likes
Maya, Aztecs and Ethiopians if campaigns are a concern 
They said anyway that there will be only 4 campaigns.
Not surprising.
Both History Buffs and RTS players are majorly Western.
Let me clear a few misconceptions in this discussion:
-I am reading too much talk about “White” civilizations. Would the same people be comfortable if African civs started being called Black civs? Or Asian civs be called Yellow civs?
The same language you use is the one you invite to be used upon youself.
-The English participated in the longest war ever in History, the 100 Years War, which also shaped the Medieval Period to the extreme. Gunpowder weapons saw greater evolution in the 116 years of that conflict, than in 500 in China. It also completely defined the modern nations of Western Europe, to a great degree, and shattered many traditions of the time.
Not only that, but the English had some of the most success in the Crusades. Even Saladin considered only Richard and Barbarossa, as actual opponents, from the West.
The English are SYNONYMOUS with the Middle Ages, aswell, having suffered both the Danelaw, the Norman Invasion, created the Magna Carta, and having some of the most successful Peasant Revolts in the timeframe. England went from being a Roman colony, to a battlefield, to a legitimate crown with imperial ambitions it could actually realize, in the very period.
-Middle Ages is European by default. Europe is where the Middle Ages actually happened, and where most of the period’s technological and social innovations occurred.
I saw no one complain that AoE1 was too Asian-centric, as it only has 4 European civs, and 1 African.
-Abbasids were not an African civilization, they are Persians. Capital was Baghdad, language was heavily persianized, and culture was Iranic.
Just because they occupied North Africa, does not make them an African civilization. Otherwise, better kick out the Chinese civ, because the Mongols occupied and ruled the whole place for hundreds of years, so Chinese are already represented by Mongols.
4 Likes
Very good, I only say European or Caucasian (which is Europe + Mid East/N. Africa). It is very cringe hearing ‘white’ and ‘black’ whatever.
And yes to all your other points, but we both know this will end up in a circlejerk
6 Likes
Personally, I hope they put in Ethopians as the last civ. But Japan would work
That doesn’t mean I want the game to have mostly European civs, they can totally add others in DLCs, I just said that I understand why they would want to focus on Europe for the base game
This forum rarely has things stop at that, lol
Meh. I wouldn’t call them more worthy. I don’t see the issue of having a DLC of 4 MesoAmerican civs after the release of a game
You spend a few hours reading the whole thread and then comment.
PHEW, done reading that, lol
Also as for the argument of overpriced DLCs, the DLCs are not overpriced, when you get new content for $10 that is a steal nowadays, even for RTS. What did you expect them to do? 10% of the base game at $2? They would be losing money!
1 Like
Also, I still can’t find a source that officially states," No American civs!"
Just saying…
History never changes, only its interpretations do.
Dunno what ‘hope’ you mean but ok .
It was not the fad back then 
So you prefer stereotyping? seems odd of you seeing those charged comments of yours.
4 Likes
overpriced or not, that depends on the person. tell me how that invalidate my point of inflation when compared to expansions from 15-20 years ago.
1 Like
By definition, any possible Age game either (1) over-represents Europe, (2) under-represents Europe, or (3) perfectly represents Europe. There’s no fourth choice.
There have been five previous Age games. They all have over-represented Europe.
I find the whole conversation a bit silly because we all know why there are no Mesoamericans in the game. And it has nothing to do with history.
But let’s entertain the thought, shall we? So some folks here claim that English are simply that much more important than poo-poo Indians and because they interacted with many people.
The game supposedly cares about 2 things: uniqueness and interaction (through a conflict or cultural exchange) with the world. So let’s chart the latter and see where it gets us:
Huh, it looks to me as if Delhi and English are seemingly the Aztecs of the exhange. They’re kinda off to the side and hide in their own corner of the world. But wait, so there’s also the assymetry argument. The devs even said themselves, they wanted to have elephants in the game. And yo and behold, Delhi is a pretty unique Indian culture which used elephantry. So applying this sort of policy, we’d have to axe the English and put in HRE and Byzantines instead. But we can already safely guess that one of those is not making it in after all, having their spot usurped by none other than perfidious Albion. And you’d seriously expect Byzantines more than the HRE, so we’ll see how that one pans out. 
In reality, the chart is much simpler:
Why English? Because…
1 Like
AoE 1 - false
AoE 2 - false (can’t over represent it when most of Eastern Europe is non existent 
)
AoM - false
Aoe3 - underrepresented still
Aoe4 - currently ok, will need more Europe in future
4 Likes
2 Likes
AoE1 only had 4 Euro cuivs, and 1 African civ, all others were Asian or colonies of Asian cultures.
How was AoE1 eurocentric?
Furthermore, the “Middle Ages” is eurocentric by default.
Most of History is eurocentric by default, since europeans were the best ones at keeping records without purges or overgloryfying.
5 Likes
Franks represent Franks
Britons represent britons
Lithuanians represent lithuanians
Get out of your
“Britons represent Europe
Italians represent Europe
Teutons represent Europe” mindset
6 Likes
It also involves forcing other civs to have European units, such as the infamous Yamato Hoplite. But that may be a discussion for another time around here.
2 Likes
this is a lot of fun watching you move the goal posts
Yes, because the Minoans, in an island that lacked even horses, were known for their extensive use of Camelry…
Composite Bowmen are Asian too, and so are all the Chariot and Elephant units. The only European units are the Hoplite and Swordsmen lines. Everything else is clearly Asiatic, but the game gets called “eurocentric” because of 2 units?
4 Likes
Let’s agree to narrow the topics of our dispute. You and I both know that Axemen, Swordsmen, Bowmen, Slingers, and Cavalry existed all over the place and were not historically from Asia any more than from Africa or Europe. Camels and Elephants are both African and Asian.
And you and I both know that Hoplites are associated explicitly with the Greeks and Centurions and Legions with the Romans. Any other civ that ever had anything under those names were directly influenced from those European civs.
We can have different opinions but we can’t have different facts.
1 Like
Yet they all look Asian. The Heavy Cavalry is even called a Cataphract.
Even if you make the argument that Clubmen/Axemen, Scouts, Bowmen and Slingers are universal, that still only leaves you this:
-European- Swordsmen and Hoplites.
-Asian- Elephant Archers, Improved Bowmen, Cavalry Archers, Chariots, Chariot Archers, War Elephnats, Heavy Cavalry, Camel Riders.
There are 2 clearly European designs, and 8 clearly Asian designs. Further enforced by upgrade names, like Composite Bowmen (Asian Steppe) Scythe Chariot (Persia) and Cataphract (also Persia).
AoE1 is asiacentric, to the extreme!
Does this look like an european man to you?
3 Likes