In that case we could further divide the regions although I think Southern China can only be divided into the aforementioned 5 regions.
Maybe we could further divide Indochina into several regions as well, such as Lanxang Highlands, Mekong River, Red River, Annamite Range, etc.
My map already has Yungui in that area. So overall it’s the same layout you are suggesting but different names.
6 minor civs of ethnic minorities concentrated in southern China seems like massive overkill especially when most of these are very geographically restricted.
Adding a Taoist Temple would fit in with the current religious settlements so that’s fine. A Forest Monastery that represents Theravada Buddhism would be a great fit for southeast Asia. A Kongsi settlement could be a great option for breaking the mold of religious settlements without needing to pick highly concentrated ethnic minorities.
Cool, I got that.
It’s actually only 3, the Hmong, the Zhuang, and the Tanka. The Hui are for maps in North and Northwest China, whereas the Tai and the Chams are for maps in SE Asia or Indochina though they could also occur on maps for southernmost Southern China (Lingnan and Yungui).
The geographical restriction issue can be solved if we could further divide Indochina cause many of the tribes in Southern China are also found in the northern parts of Indochina. Instead of having one map for nearly the entirely of Indochina, we could for instance have the Red River Valley, Lanxang, Plain of Jars, Tonle Sap, Mekong River, Annamite Range, etc.
Honestly minor civs based on religious sects are more suitable for places like Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia, given that historically religion has played a major role in those areas.
However, for East Asia, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, and Siberia, I think minor civs based on native settlements are far more appropriate and suitable. It’s not the case that religious sects never existed in these places, however their influences were comparatively minor and not as significant. IMO only the main sects such as Shaolin, Taoist, Zen, Tengri, and Theravada need to be represented, whereas most other minor civs on maps in these regions should be native settlements.
I have some ideas for potential maps in North China as well. Instead of just having Central Plains, Yellow River, and Manchuria there could be more subdivisions:
Gulf of Bohai: a large semi-enclosed gulf or bay with shallow and murky water
Minor Civs: Shaolin Temple, Jurchen, Ming Garrison
Shandong Peninsula: a cone-shaped peninsula jousting out towards the eastern sea and surrounded by water on 3 sides. Towards the base of the peninsula there’s a sacred hill (representing Mount Tai) with a Taoist Temple on top
Minor Civs: Taoist Temple, Ming Garrison
Great Wall: a rolling ridge divides the north and south of the map, and the players would start at opposite sides of the ridge. The northern part of the map would be the Mongolian Steppe with relatively few trees but more mines and treasures, and the southern part of the map would be the fertile North China plain with more trees but fewer mines and treasures. And on top of the central ridge there would be outposts, castles, and walls that could be captured by either player
Minor Civs: Tengri Shrine, Mongol, Ming Garrison
Loess Plateau: a sandy plateau crisscrossed with several ravines, with abundant treasures and mines, and chokepoints easy for defense
Minor Civs: Hui, Mongol, Ming Garrison
Hexi Corridor: a narrow canyon enclosed by cliffs and hills on both sides, and players would start at opposing sides of the canyon. At the center of the canyon there’s an ancient rammed earth fortress that could be captured by either player
Minor Civs: Tengri Shrine, Hui, Mongol
Great Khingan Ridge: another divided map similar to Great Wall, this time it would be a divide between the left and the right side of the map, with a central ridge running across. Players would start at opposing sides. The left or the western side would be the Mongolian Steppe with few trees but more mines, and the right or the eastern side would be the Manchurian conifer forest with abundant trees and wildlife
Minor Civs: Tengri Shrine, Jurchen, Mongol
Other regions that deserve to be split are India (Deccan), Honshu, Siberia, Amazonia and the Andes. All these maps cover too much territory.
Maybe Scandinavia as well, given England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland all became separate maps, but I don’t think we’re desperate for more European maps.
I agree with your suggestions, however the Indochina peninsula also has diverse landscapes and deserve to be subdivided as well.
I don’t have a lot of knowledge about the region, so I wouldn’t be able to help with that.
Personally I think the game should move away from religions as minor civs, or at least add more minor civ types to Asia given holy sites now show up in every other region as well but nothing else shows up in Asia.
This bothers me because due to this they don’t want to add more minor civs to South America. No other minor civ fits the region because the maps cover way too much territory (even some of the DE ones like Minas Gerais and Bahia) and they refuse to split older maps into smaller territories. Instead, Maya and Zapotecs get pushed into South America even though they never lived here because they don’t fit even two maps and FE also refuses to add more Mexican maps which is where they belong.
No worries I have quite a lot of knowledge regarding the geography and ethnic composition of Southern China and SE Asia, and yes Indochina definitely needs to have some subdivisions can’t just have 1 map covering the entire area.
100% agree, I think there should be more native minor civs for East and SE Asia, Siberia, Mongolia, Africa, and South America, and the maps need to be subdivided further for these regions.
A while ago I tried suggesting more maps but I couldn’t find names for potential subdivisions of the Andes. And for India, I was only able to find modern state names (someone suggested other stuff to me but I unfortunately forgot).
Edit: Oh yeah, another region that should be split is the Caucasus.
This is not desperation. Europe is truly very diverse in terms of natural landscapes. There is a lack of quite a few European maps that could be based on regions famous for their natural beauty - Scandinavian Fjords, Provençal Lavender Fields, Dubrovnik, Tuscany bathed in sunlight and many other interesting regions of Europe.
Unfortunately, currently there are many maps based on administrative boundaries instead of regions. Maps like Spain, Italy or Scandinavia are huge umbrellas that cover many potential beautiful maps.
Norwegian Fiords
Provençal Lavender Fields
Dubrovnik
Tuscany
Sicilia
Lower Silesia
Heaps in Upper Silesia
Prussian Lakes
Catalonia
Andalusia
Lappland
Bosnia
Bavaria
Brittany
Brandenburg
Thuringia
Lotharingia
Napoli
Lazio
Venice
Crimea
Gorgeus land and cityscapes
I’m grateful that KOTM was as expansive as it was (it had more maps and minor civs than African Royals did), but it always seemed strange that of the featured civs, Malta did not appear as a map and still does not despite appearing on some of the loading screens, and the Italians only have one map representing the actual Italian Peninsula. Sicily and Tuscany as maps would have been much appreciated.
I’m trying to keep my expectations realistic for the Baltic DLC, but adding the missing loading screen maps, plus adding a few more does not seem at all unreasonable, so I hope that happens.
That’s still 5 in southern China. So you’re going to get maps with 5+ options for natives that appear nowhere else. Creating natives that are only seen 20% of the time on a couple maps is not a good use of resources.
I would disagree. Minor civs need to be dispersed widely enough to feature on a variety of maps and there aren’t many peoples this applies to in Asia. Most that would work are on the fringes like Bedouins, Kurds, Armenians, or Ainu. Some that might work are strongly associated with a particular religion (Hui, Tibetans, etc) so they aren’t much different from a holy site anyways. The remaining cultures are either in a very restricted territory, or significant enough to be a full civ. Maybe one ethnic minor civ for southern China is realistic, but 5 isn’t.
Asking for any and every minority is like saying the British Isles need minor civs for Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, and Manx.
We already have European maps related to cities, so I think we can create a few more like Venice or Dubrovnik.
What I like about African maps is that they refer to regions, not national borders. I miss more African Minor Civilizations there.
Adding more Italian and Spanish maps would open the way for Royal Houses from those areas.
It would be difficult. It’s a good thing they invented Royal Houses which are very good at representing different nations… but many Royal Houses are still missing.
In the case of the British Isles, the Tudors and Stuarts Royal Houses would have been perfect.
The most problematic situation is with Asian maps. There are too many empty places like Thailand or South China. Still missing are Minor Civilizations adapted to Asia. The Holy Sites in the game have long since been no longer reserved exclusively for Asia - which is very good because it should only be a universal supplement to the map content for all continents.
Asia is so diverse that there are three different categories of Minor Civilizations:
I think you either haven’t read thoroughly what I wrote earlier, or maybe I didn’t explain myself well. Never mind I’ll explain myself once again.
I never said that these 5 minor civs would only occur on 1 map each, and nor did I mention that their distribution would be restricted to Southern China. In fact all of them historically speaking are distributed across Southern China and Indochina.
Let’s take the Zhuang for instance. They would occur on at least 3 maps, Lingnan, Yungui, and Indochina. And if we subdivide Indochina even more (which I think is necessary since the diversity of this region cannot be captured by just 1 map) then I can easily see them attaining the 5 map threshold. Even today Zhuang and related groups Tay and Nung can be found in Vietnam and Laos. The same would be true for the Hmong they would occur on at least 3 maps Dongting, Yungui, and Sichuan, and with the division of Indochina they would easily attain the goal as well. The Tanka boat people can also be found in Vietnam from what I’m aware, hence they could appear as minor civs in Jiangnan, Lingnan, and potential maps for coastal Indochina.
The Chams and the Tais can appear on even more maps. After the 1471 Vietnamese conquest of their kingdom the Chams dispersed across the region some fled to Hainan and Guangdong others went to Siam, Cambodia, Aceh, and Johor, so they could appear as minor civs on a bunch of maps. And the Tais would appear on maps for Siam, Indochina, Burma, Yungui, and even potential map or maps for Northeast India given that a branch of Tai called Tai Ahom went there and established a kingdom.
So in brief all 5 of them are valid minor civs and I could see them being introduced with a new DLC for SE Asia.
A lot of peoples in Asia would apply to this actually. Apart from the 5 that I mentioned there’re some others, like the Austronesian seafarers in insular SE Asia or the Mons who spread across Indochina with their Theravada religion. If East and SE Asia could be divided with maps in more detail based on geography or history instead of having maps that lump everyone together, then I can definitely see a lot of Asian natives viable as minor civs.
Bedouins and Kurds would be viable minor civs for potential maps in the Middle East judging by what I know about them (although my knowledge regarding Middle Eastern history is quite limited). Armenians I’m not that sure maybe someone with better knowledge about them can help.
The Ainu wouldn’t be viable if we apply your criteria. Based on their historical distribution (at least in the AoE 3 relevant time period), I can only see them occurring on Hokkaido and maybe on a potential map about the Sakhalin Island and that’s about it, at most only 2 maps. Their distribution is a lot more restrictive than the ones I proposed, and if you’re okay with adding them as a minor civ then I see no reason or logic why you would refuse my 5 minor civs for Southern China and SE Asia.
Well the majority of East and SE Asians aren’t that religious to begin with (saving for a few exceptions like the Hui and the Tibetans), hence having religious sects as minor civs for these regions feels kind of awkward and having Asian natives as minor civs is far better and feels far more natural for me as an individual with background from the region. Of course you’re free to have your own opinion on this I’m not trying to convince you, I just like to share my honest opinions and my knowledge about these regions.
Not really like I said many of the ethnic minorities from Southern China can be found in Indochina. Their distribution is wider than you think. I know words in Zhuang and in Hmong (I can hold a simple conversation in those languages) and I have friends from those ethnic groups, so you can trust me on this.
And historically some of them are quite significant. The Hmong, the Zhuang, and the Yao were known for their unruly and rebellious spirit and they often revolted against the ruling dynasties (such as Ming and Qing). The ruling court or dynasties, in addition to quenching their rebellions, had also realized their combat capabilities (they were especially adept at using poisoned crossbows, javelins, and sword + shield) and would often employ them as auxiliary troops. The Chams were known as capable traders and seafarers and they even served as mercenaries for the Johor Sultanate and for the Ayutthaya kingdom of Thailand. They were renowned for their naval combat and were instrumental in defeating the Spanish attempt at colonizing Cambodia in the late 16th century.
We may even add Cantonese or Hokkien merchants as minor civs for Southern China and SE Asia, given that they traded with many kingdoms across the region, however this risks getting the game into the murky waters of current politics.
So in brief the potential is huge for Southern China / SE Asia, and 1 minor civ or 1 map definitely won’t capture its diversity and history.
They’re not problematic at all there’re ample historical records to work with, it depends on whether the devs are willing to make the effort or not.
Asian natives would be the most suitable as minor civs for East & SE Asia, Northeast Asia, Siberia, and Mongolia.
It has more maps than even vanilla.
Yeah, three minor civs exclusively representing India (Bhakti, Udasi and pre-rework Sufis) are definitely better than actual minor civ diversity. Technically Royal Houses also represent playable civs, but they don’t have holy sites’ problem of having only one unit that speaks only one language.
Not to mention there are a lot of groups wouldn’t fit as holy sites (unless you wanna mimic Wars of Liberty’s Actolatrist bullshit).
And again, Holy Sites now show up in every other continent, why should they continue being the only minor civ type in Asian maps?
My carpal tunnel still hurts.
Your explanation was clear, I just disagree.
The reason for the rule of thumb of at least 5 maps per minor civ is twofold. Firstly it’s not an efficient use of resources to make things that are barely seen, and secondly, gameplay features need to be common enough that players are exposed to the feature and get familiar with them.
Overlap is also a major issue. Even if a bunch of areas are added/split, so these minorities all appear on 5+ maps, you would still hardly see them because each time you load the map you’re only going to get a couple of the 5+ options per map.
You also can’t just split areas ad infinitum to accommodate more minor civs. For example Hmong only live in the northern region of Indochina. So if you split the area into 3 maps (say Tonkin, Annam, and Mekong Delta), you haven’t added any more maps for Hmong to appear on.
The various ethnic groups you mention are overwhelmingly concentrated in the mountainous regions around Yunnan. So there is a ton of overlap in a very restricted region.
They’re definitely on Hokkaido, the fringes of Honshu and Kamchatka, and arguably present in Manchuria. So all you need is one more map like Sakhalin or Kurils and that’s a good enough distribution. Unlike southern China they aren’t overlapped by dozens of peoples so you’d actually see them every time you play a map.
I’m not against adding ethnic minor civs for Asia, but adding half a dozen overlapping ones is not reasonable.
