Iraq and Yemen were generally independent from most of the Arab empires in medieval times so Yemenis and Abbasids could be options.
Egypt, Syria, and Hejaz were often controlled by one empire, but there were periods where they were divided such as Egypt under the Fatamids and Syria under the Zengids. I think you could make the case for a separate Egyptian/Mamluk civ and have Saracens just covering Syria, Hejaz, and the Kurds.
It would also be cool to see a Kingdom of Jerusalem civ along with an Arab split.
Donât ever add Moldavians, up to this day Romania and Moldova consist of the same people.
Mixtecs and Zapotecs together are redundant. They were the same people almost but Mixtecs did a lot more.
Wari and Tiwanaku shouldnât be there. The former can be the Chimus. A third major Andean civ could be the Chankas
Yoruba should also be removed as they did nothing in the Middle Ages and replace them with the Mossi.
That is a broader term for Tagalogs, including more people in the Phillipines.
I disagree about Mixtecs and Zapotecs because in terms of gameplay they would play very differently. The former would be an aggressive civ focusing on siege and also navy, because they were a coastal civilisation with connections to South America. Zapotecs on the other hand would be more defensive with focus on Towers.
So in an ideal world Iâd like to see both because they interacted closely with each other (campaign potential), and I donât think one civ can accurately represent the other due to cultural/military distinctions. Even though they were closely connected ethnically/linguistically, that doesnât make them the same as civilisations in my opinion.
Edit: also Wari can cover Chankas and saying the Yoruba did nothing is incorrect
Swiss were part of the Holy Roman Empire and arguably German, (Teutons) so already in the game.
Venetians are Italian, Italians are in the game, so no need for them as it would be the third Italian civ.
Slavs are already in the game, so no need for Serbians, although its true its a umbrella civ, so at one point it perhaps could be split up, but there are too many Euro civs already.
this map doesnt include like half of Indonesia/other parts of Asia and Africa. If you meant important civs then say so. Also if it was, some of these werent important at all. Like Swiss.
I was told Egypt, Iraq and Syria had pretty much the same army traditions and composition during this time period. If itâs true, I guess they could be kept together in a âLevantineâ civ (although I would really like to see Egyprians with their own armies). Anyway, Levantines (or Egyptians if they exist) would pretty much be the continuation of Saracens, keeping most of their tech tree, bonus, UU, UT and campaign.
Yemeni would make sense as a separate civ, they were culturally independent from the rest of the Arab world and pretty much did their own thing.
I think Hejaz and Najd could appear as a âBedouinsâ civ, with a huge focus on land mobility and a Khalid ibn al-Walid campaign.
For South East Asia I would recommend to add the Mon civilization.
They will go perfectly in a DLC with the Thai.
The Mon were important in the first half of the medieval period in their region. Until they got taken over by the Burmese and Thai in the latter half.
I can at least confirm that as a French person, there are quite a few Frank lines I donât understand or that sound old timey, so I hope itâs Old French and not just extremely inaccurate.
Thereâs quite a few missing and a few that shouldnât be on here.
The Haudenosaunee didnât unite until 1450 which is way too late.
The best options for North America would be:
Puebloans (huge fortresses and desert cities)
Mississippians (mound builders with great cities)
Algonquins (represents the Skraelings of the Viking sagas)
Thereâs also the Polynesians that could be represented by the Tongan empire. The Polynesians developed pretty advanced equipment such as catapults, ballistae, and rams so theyâd be a surprisingly good pick.
That isnât known. Itâs widely believed the Iroquois (I prefer that name, because itâs easier to remember and say) have been around since at least the 1000s. No one really knows when they united, but it was probably at least before the 1400s.
I have brainstormed both of those on the wiki (I called the Puebloans the Anasazi, because that was the Navajo name for them, and it was also widely used by historians until recently).
I came up with an Inuit civilization that I called the Skraelings. It has a unique architecture set based on summer and winter buildings, with certain buildings based on stone structures.
I came up with a Polynesian civ that does partially represent the Tongans, yes, but also the Hawaiians, the Rapa Nui residents, and others.
I didnât know this! Do you have a different source? That one wonât load, and doesnât seem all that scholarly to begin with.
Tibetans! Theyâre one of the largest empires on the map as you can see. Unique architecture for their castle and they could be an Asian civ with a heavy cavalry UU.
I want them too, but unfortunately, Chinaâs issues with modern Tibet could create problems. They supposedly have no problem with depictions of historical Tibet, but none of the devs want to risk the game getting banned over there, as the Chinese fanbase is very large.