Even though the Chams and Malays/Javanese are both Austronesians, they are still different. The Chams locate at Indochina, the mainland of SEA, instead of the isles, and their historical development, technologies and the competitors they had faced are also different from the Malays/Javanese.
The history of the Siamese goes way back than what you mentioned. The Siamese Lavo, Sukhothai Kingdom and Ayutthaya Kingdom can be completely valid in AoE2.
In the historical texts of the Khmer and Vietnamese in the game, Siamese and Chams are considered as enemies and competitors, not as part of themselves. Siamese and Chams are also absent from the AI leader list. In civilization design, the Khmer and Vietnamese also have no obvious take from the Siamese and Cham designs, except for the SEA architecture set for the Vietnamese, which has been canceled.
I’m not going to convince you that the game needs new SEA civilizations. But if we were to discuss a new DLC for SEA, they would be the top two. The third could be Nuosu/Lolos/Yi who could also belong to East Asia DLC due to the historical and geographically reasons.
Well in that case, we could do a campaign on Ramkhamhaeng (Siamese leader in civ 5) (1237-1298) (there is no Southeast Asian campaign set in the thirteenth century and would be contemporary to Ivaylo and William Wallace) and voila…
And about the Chams, a twelfth-century campaign (there is none from Southeast Asia in this century) on Po Klaung Yăgrai (1151 - 1205) (being a contemporary of Barbarossa and Prithviraj…Then you would have a Southeast Asian campaign in every century from 1000 to 1500:
Lol, I get that you might not recognize the differences between Italians and the actual states that populated the republic at that time, and so you don’t want more civs of that region, but what do the romans have to do with?
Like, we are talking of completely different time periods and the roman republic/high empire not the papal Rome.
Idk if they fit AoE2’s timeline but Ensemble did consider them.
Besides, a civ being represented in AoE3 isn’t relevant to it being represented in AoE2 or not (otherwise a lot of civs already in the game wouldn’t qualify), so idk why you keep bringing that up.
The issue is that the Habsburgs became strong from the Renaissance onwards…the only thing that could connect them with AoE 2 would be Maxilimilian of Habsburg…
I kinda want Persian and Berber splits mostly to justify them getting more fitting architectures
Or maybe it’s the middle eastern architecture set that needs to be redesigned? The civs in it all lived super far from each other (and I assume all of them had unique-ish architecture) but their shared architecture is all based on medieval egypt specifically.
I think it’s not necessary. Just give the Persians the Central Asian set and make some adjustments to the African set to fit the Berbers with the Malians (their architecture has more in common than the Ethiopians on the other side of the continent). The Saracens set is fine as it is imo.
I want all them equaly, it’s one of the most unrepresented regions and with the most potential for the game.
If we could only have a couple of more DLCs for the game, IMO at least one should be for the Caucasus and the other for Africa. Other regions fo the world should also have way more content, but at least they have something.
These two regions are basically barren in aoe2, despite their historical relevance and potential flavor for the game.
Yeah, exactly roman republic/empire of before late antiquity and the fall of wester roman empire, which isn’t the same thing as papal rome or other Italian city states.
For SE Asia, Siamese and Chams are definitely the top priorities since they both fit with the AoE 2 timeline and they aren’t represented by any other civs in the game yet.
Javanese and Sundanese, I feel they are already covered by the in-game Malays. Mons are another potential civ to add in this region, though I feel they are largely covered by in-game Khmers.
Another two potential civs to add in this region are the Moluccans and the Visayans. For the Visayans, they had the Rajanate of Cebu (1400 - 1565), and for the Moluccans they had the Sultanate of Ternate (1257/1486 - 1914). Both could still fit in AoE 2’s timeline (albeit a bit late), but AFAIK they weren’t very powerful or influential at that time (I could be wrong though), hence are lower in priority compared to Siamese and Chams, though could still be added.
For East Asia, I hope that the Dians/Baipus could be added. They would primarily represent the Nanzhao and Dali kingdoms (738 - 1253), and they would also cover numerous other native peoples in South/Southwest China like the Raeu, the Bo, the Li, the various Mans, etc. I prefer to use the historical terms of Dians or Baipus to call them rather than naming them as Yi, Lolos, Nuosu, or Bai.
The Ryukyuans could also be added into the game. The early history of their Ryukyu Kingdom (1429 - 1879) fits with AoE 2’s timeline. With the Ryukyuans added, they and the Japanese could share a unique Japanese set of architecture, whereas Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Dians/Baipus, Jurchens, and Khitans could share a new continental East Asian set. Mongols, Tanguts, Gokturks, and potentially the Tibetans could share a new Inner Asian steppe architecture set.
In my opinion, the Mon people are covered by the Burmese well.
The Mon people believed in Theravada Buddhism, in contrast to their Hindu contemporaries like the Khmer and Cham peoples. After 1000 CE onwards, the Mon were under constant pressure with the Tai peoples (Siamese) migrating from the north and Khmer invasions from the Khmer Empire in the east. The Mon were killed in wars, transported as captives, or assimilated into new cultures. The Mon as an entity virtually disappeared in Chao Phraya Valley. In 1057 CE, King Anawrahta of Pagan Kingdom conquered the Mon’s Thaton Kingdom in Lower Burma. The Mon culture and the Mon script were readily absorbed by the Bamar (Burmans) and the Mons, for the first time, came into Bamar hegemony. The Mon remained a majority in Lower Burma.
Today, the Mon are still one of the major ethnic groups in Myanmar.
Tell me why they can’t be covered by Malays?
Chinese or Japanese.
IMHO, on the timeline of AoE2, most of the records of the Moluccans, Visayans and Ryukyuans are after the 15th century, which is quite late, and they did not have very important influence. I even feel that the Venetians and a new Indian civ have priority over these. In AoE3, we can perhaps expect them to be introduced into the game, represented by some mercenary or native warrior units. But in AoE2, maybe scenario editor units.
Dian (滇) is another name for the province of Yunnan, which comes from the ancient kingdom before BC – “Dian Kingdom”.
Baipu (百濮) is also a pre-BC ethnic group that inhabited southwest China, including present-day Yunnan and Guizhou. The Pu people were distributed in a vast area and had been in the state of scattered tribes for a long time, so they have the title of Baipu. (“Bai” literally means “hundreds”, which means that they had many small branches and were widely distributed.) Their last record is probably the 6th century BC war in Chinese sources, which is even older than the 2nd century BC Dian kingdom. The Dian people are believed to be one branch of Baipu.
Sorry, there seems to be almost no information in English on the Internet about the Baipu.
Have you noticed? Neither of these would be appropriate for a game featuring the Middle Ages. In contrast, as possible descendants of Dian peoples or Baipu peoples, the Cuanmans (爨蠻), Lolos (倮倮), Nuosu, Yi, or Bai are all valid terms, and the first three also have rich historical significance.
If Ryukyuans were added to the game, I think they would fit this continental East Asian architecture set than the current one. Emishis would probably fit better for another civ in a Japanese architecture set. They were defeated eventually but so were the Huns and Goths.
So were Huns and Goths.
I seriously don’t get why “they were defeated/assimilated” is considered an argument against civ implementations.
Their language is closer to Khmers, while their civ can be covered by both the Khmers and the Burmese.
From my understanding, the in-game Malays covers the Srivijaya and the Majapahit kingdoms that existed in western Malaya and western Indonesia, whereas Visayans and Moluccans are not covered by them.
I’m not saying they necessarily have to be introduced, I’m merely providing suggestions. I’d say that Moluccans, Visayans, and Ryukyuans have a lower priority than civs like Siamese, Chams, Dians/Baipus, Jurchens, Khitans, Tanguts, etc. Though it’s unfair to say that they did not have any influence or interactions. The Visayans interacted with Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, the Moluccans with Portuguese, and the Ryukyuans with Chinese and Japanese, all of which are civs currently in the game.
From my understanding about the criteria for civ selection, it doesn’t matter if the people who created the said civ had an origin before the Middle Ages, as long as they still existed and built influential kingdoms or empires in the Middle Ages, they are qualified to be added. There are many in-game civs that had an origin before the Middle Ages, the Celts, the Chinese, and the Persians being the most noteworthy examples, even the Berbers and the Ethiopians were quite ancient. If you ever bother to check the history section of AoE2 you’ll read that the Berbers originated from more than 2,000 BC, whereas the Ethiopians were first mentioned around 1,200 BC.
Now turning back to Dians or Baipus, it’s true that these peoples existed before the Middle Ages, but they left descendants and those went on to build the Nanzhao and Dali kingdoms, hence they are qualified to be added. I don’t see how they cannot be used as names referring to the civ. If these names really bother you, then you could also use more period-fitting names such as Cuanman (爨蠻) or Zangke (牂柯). Using modern ethnic names like Yi, Nuosu, or Bai has a potential political risk, and plus there’s nothing that proves the elites of the Nanzhao were necessarily Yi or Bai.
