Please don’t generalize, I never said I don’t want others to reply to my thread, I specifically don’t want you to reply to my thread, since you have a condescending attitude and like to make sweeping generalizations based on flimsy evidence, like Tibetans were all slingers and infantry, Khitans had crossbow cavalry, etc.
You can search for it if you like, why asking me to search for it? If you really think Tibetans should have slingers then you should provide the evidence and not me or another person.
You have your right, but I also have my right to ask you to stop replying to my posts. We don’t share the same opinion and if you keep replying then the debate will drag on forever.
Even if we’re communicating through text, tones and attitudes can still be felt. And I don’t really like your attitude as well as your sweeping generalizations.
If you find my posts weird then why bother replying to me? Just continue with whatever you’re doing or post your posts in another thread or make your own thread, and I thank you for doing that.
I don’t want to drag on with you any longer, let’s stop here shall we?
I don’t understand how I’m “condescending”.
I’ve been on this forum for at least three or four years, and have replied to countless posts during the time, and no one else seems to have expressed this feeling yet.
Since I first replied to your post, every sentence is a feedback on your ideas and suggestions, just discussing the matter. The feedback is based on what I’ve observed in the game and the community, indicating if the ideas work or don’t work in my opinion, why, and perhaps if there are other solutions and ideas. The same way, the same attitude, I have never treated you harsher than others.
I don’t like to accidentally hurt people. So I wish you know that none of this tension is intentional. I’m sorry for making you feel that way.
But indeed, it is easy to go wrong between my communication with you. The feeling on my side is that you might easily miss the point I want to express so I repeat. Then you would became sensitive and overreacted to me, sometimes overinterpreting the points I made.
For example, I didn’t ask you to do anything, to search for anything, to agree with me on anything. Indicating what terms are searchable does not mean asking you to search.
I didn’t mean that Tibetans were “all” slingers and infantry, and Tielin were “all” cavalry and use crossbows on horseback.
I also haven’t forgotten that you once slandered me as a nationalist who wanted to force you to change your national identity, even though I only discussed with you and explained to you whether the terms used by nationalism are important in the game, which has nothing to do with you personally. This especially hurts me because my country has been increasingly threatened by Chinese nationalists for decades.
The game and real history are different. There may not be any conclusive records for them, but the signs are undeniable, and folklores about them are popular on the web, which means that the design for them is not without any basis, but also has marketing potential. Such a view is not equivalent to “making sweeping generalizations based on flimsy evidence” as I didn’t generalize at all. Again, I didn’t mean that Tibetans were “all” slingers and infantry, and Tielin of Khitans were “all” cavalry and use crossbows on horseback. So please don’t get me wrong again.
I respect you for liking and sticking with your UU which changes the class, and Tibetan War Dogs. I’m also only giving feedback on possible shortcomings of these designs, just as how others have given feedback on my ideas. Please don’t think it’s malicious to reply to your post when I disagree with you. This is just normal interaction in the forum.
You and I are a small number of users who are highly interested in East Asian content, so the only person who will discuss this topic with you in depth and with interest may be probably only me. Maybe you may rarely discuss with people in the forum on balance other than history topics (because I rarely see you in that kind of thread), but if you have seen other people post ideas about balance, maybe it can be showed to you that discussions like this are quite normal and there is nothing “condescending”. In that kind of thread, a lot of people use ironic tone, but I basically always express my opinion directly.
Fine, let’s stop here.
In my opinion, Nubian can be the top 1, built on their popularity and the strong theme of archer and religion. Even if other new African civilizations may be another umbrella, the Nubians may be their own civilization.
reply to the OP.
I just now noticed that there is no Skræling.
They are already in the game, and due to the interaction with the Vikings, there is no doubt about the timeline.
Or are they already included in the Iroquois?
I already said stop replying to me yet you replied once again. You want this to go on? Fine.
I’m not sure how you interacted with others, but you gave me a condescending attitude or feeling.
U know what? I feel the same way when talking to you, it’s easy to go wrong when communicating with you.
Like I said earlier, you may not have such intentions, but you sound like you have. Maybe it’s because of the words you use or your attitude when talking to me. I’ve been on this forum for over 2 years yet I didn’t have such a hard time when communicating with others.
You misinterpreted what I said then. I never said anything about you wanting to change my national identity, and I couldn’t care less about whether you’re Taiwanese or what your political inclinations are. I was merely criticizing on the fact that you’d always want to bring up the term “Han Chinese” or “Han ethnic group” into the discussion about a game that is set in medieval times, and such a term did not exist back then. Hanzu or the Han ethnic group was only created around 100 years ago by late Qing and early Republican revolutionaries. And I also remember you said that South China is Han and had always been Han in another thread (couldn’t remember whether it was in this forum or in the AoE 3 forum I think we had a debate there as well), and that hurt my feelings. I’m Chinese but I don’t really identify with the Han, I’m of Southwest descent and my heart and soul lie with the native Tai-Kradai, Hmong-Mien, and Austroasiatic peoples of South and Southwest China. And if you bother to read some history you’ll understand how the southern natives suffered under the oppressive rule of the Sinitic dynasties. And now you say that we’re all Han and had always been Han? Nah, I really don’t buy into your Han ethno-centrism.
I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings and I understand that you may have some grudges against me because I’m a mainlander, but not all mainlanders are the same. l can assure you that I have 0 interest in the current politics between China and Taiwan, and plus this isn’t the right forum to discuss such topics. If you’re interested in current politics, then you’d better join a political forum. I came to this forum mainly because of my interest in history and in the game, not because I want to talk about the relation between China and Taiwan.
But still, this game is based on actual history, and not on some random folklore or fairy tale. If that’s the case then the Chinese civ should have access to Chinese dragons, the Britons should have access to Beowulf and Grendel, and other European civs should also have access to their own versions of dragons. If you like folklores so much then you might wanna play Age of Mythology.
You’re putting words into my mouth again. I never said that you’re malicious because you disagree with me, I’ve only said that your attitude towards me is a bit condescending, that’s all, nothing more nothing less. And I don’t have problems with people disagreeing with me, but I do feel uncomfortable when people are having a condescending attitude and when people claim that X region must be Y and has always been Y.
I disagree with you mainly because of the game, not because of you as a person. For instance, the main reason why I’m against Tibetans having a slinger UU is because the Incas already have the slinger as their UU, and this becomes repetitive and conflicting. And we can’t really make the slingers a regional unit either since Tibetans and Incas are not even from the same region. The only possibility is to make the slinger a universal archery range unit, but that would put it in conflict with the hand cannoneer since they serve the same function. And the reason why I’m against Tibetans having a heavy infantry UU is because we already have many infantry UUs to the point that it’s hard to make it distinct from others. I mean I can make it a mountain infantry by giving it a faster attack speed on elevated terrains or making it immune to the 25% elevation bonus attack, but then this would make it a rather niche unit. Whereas giving them the war dog or war mastiff as their UU is both historically and realistically based, and would offer a new gameplay different from all current units.
We don’t have exactly the same interest, my interest mostly lies in South China and SE Asia, whereas you seem to be more focused on Japan/Korea/Taiwan from what I can tell.
And it’s the other members’ freedom to not be interested in East Asian history, I have no objections to that at all. Frankly speaking I’d probably feel more comfortable if people are ignoring my comments about East Asia rather than having someone that shares some of my interests and always replies to me but with a condescending/forcing type of attitude or tone.
For me, idea is more important than balance. A lot of the new civs that the devs have put into place felt rather awkward in the beginning and only through subsequent patches and upgrades did they get better. But still you can’t deny the devs’ effort in crafting those new civs and their new ideas.
Enough said, now please leave me alone and stop replying to me.
The 1142 date is dubious at best. The 1450 date is a more likely start. Yes the people were around earlier, but the league and reasons for their prominence are far later than the time of AoE2. In the Medieval era they weren’t much different from their neighbors. And their neighbors like the Algonquin peoples would actually be a better fit since they interacted with the Vikings.
As a major Toltecs fan I’m sad to see them not there. There’s definitely potential. They also do have their own pyramid for wonders with a flatter top and rounded pillars or statues.
That guy is still slandering me as so-called “Han ethnocentrism” and by saying me saying “all Han and had always been Han” to him. It’s really uncomfortable. Any logical person who has read my original statement in its entirety will know that I did not mean it.
Although “Han” was given a new nationalistic connotation by 19th-century nationalists, the term does have recorded use in several medieval dynasties. Even though each dynasty used it in a different way from other dynasties and the current nationalistic connotation, but it was indeed used to refer to a certain group of Medieval Chinese, having nothing to do with the nationalism. Just like “Germans” and “French”, long before the emergence of nationalism, they were used as names for groups in a meaning different from that of nationalism.
When others have suggested that the Teutons and Franks can be renamed Germans and French without being accused of putting “German ethnocentrism” or “French nationalism” into the game, I just stated and explained that if the Chinese were to be renamed, Han (with the medieval meanings) as a part (and probably the major part) of medieval Chinese could be a valid candidate for this umbrella civilization as the nationalism isn’t important to the game and that’s how the game work. Well, I became “Han ethnocentrist” instead. Fine.
Not for replying and keeping getting bogged. I state this only to prove my innocence to others.
Agree with your points about the Iroquois here. It’s just that they’re well known, and importantly, they already represent the Skræling interacting with the Vikings to some degree in the game, so they could indeed be a strong candidate in North America.
In the defense of myself, it’s not without reason that I say he has Han ethnocentric tendencies. Yet instead of reflecting on why he’s been called such, he chose to lash it out and accuse me of slandering him, LOL.
I’ve been very patient with him and sent him several replies as to why I think the term “Han” is unfit for a game set in the medieval era. It’s true that the term Han existed in antiquity and in medieval China, but in antiquity it referred to the name of the dynasty, and in medieval China it started to refer to peoples living in the Yellow River region. In the Yuan Dynasty, even the Khitans and Jurchens were being called Han. However, the term never referred to the various peoples who lived in South China, and nor did it carry any ethnic or national connotations like how the Republican revolutionaries in the late 19th / early 20th century chose to employ it. The concept of an unified ethnic group did not exist at that time. He said above that he’s employing the term in its medieval sense, yet by claiming that Han covered the major part of medieval China he’s using it in the modern national sense and not the medieval sense.
And by saying that he has also hurt my feeling. I sympathize with the southern minorities due to where I come from, and by saying that South China was Han, he has completely disregarded the sufferings and sorrows of the southern natives who lived under the oppressive rules of the Sinitic dynasties, and effectively erased their culture, language, and identities from history. Of course I would feel sensitive about it, if you were in my shoes you’d probably also react in a similar manner.
In spite of that I was still very patient with him and proposed several alternatives. I said the in-game Chinese civ could be renamed as Hua or Huaxia. Unlike the ambiguous term Han, this term was how the Sinitic peoples referred to themselves, and has been passed down from antiquity all the way to present day. It matches with the Chinese civ in the four AoE series quite well since AFAIK Chinese was the only civ that has appeared in all four AoE games, and there’s certainly an emphasis in the continuity of the Chinese civ. But he rejected this proposal saying that the term Han is better, which I saw no reason at all. I then proposed the English term Sinitic, and he rejected it again. And then I said how about we keep its name as it is, and he rejected it once more. He’s gone all in for the name Han. Really dude what’s your problem? If you don’t deserve the title of “Han ethno-centrist”, then who else deserves it?
And last but not least, he accused me of being a Chinese nationalist hostile to his country Taiwan. Excuse me? I don’t remember mentioning the current politics between China and Taiwan in any of my replies to him, he’s the one who brought it up. I told him I have 0 interest in current politics and the reason I came to this forum is to discuss the game and the history, not arguing over some petty political disputes. He assumes that because I’m a mainlander so I must be hostile to him and his country. Guess what dude? I totally don’t care about your island.
Enough said, if he doesn’t leave me alone and keeps accusing me then I’ll go on. If he stops I’ll stop.
And I also never said that the term was used to refer to the people who had not been sinicized yet in South. This is your overreading of my arguments.
Medieval Chinese history and culture centered on the Yellow River, the Central Plains and the Yangtze River, excluding the Westsouth where you may come from. At least that’s the case with the Chinese culture that most people are familiar with. But that’s just the little things.
The really big thing is that nationalism doesn’t matter at all.
Teutons are not equal to all Germans, and the term Germans did not mean Germans in the modern sense in the Middle Ages, but apparently the community has no problem with Teutonics representing Germans, and there seems to be no objection to renaming it Germans.
Are all Franks French? Are Nubians Ethiopians? Are the Avars Huns? Are the Bantu people Malians? The answers are all no, but this is how umbrella civilizations works in the game. The name of civ has nothing to do with nationalism, and sometimes it just happens to be the same term used by nationalism as well.
To be honest, my argument has always been only aimed at the civ in the game, and has nothing to do with the people in reality. I’ve never regarded that just because an umbrella civ is named after a group that is part of it, it means that all groups that may be covered by the civ belong to that group. However when I suggest a new name for the Chinese civilization, my argument seems to be interpreted by you as asking you to think that you actually belong to this group. I would like to apologize for making you misunderstand this point since in fact I don’t mean it at all.
What happened to you and your people is really sympathetic, and your distaste for the term is also understandable. But it doesn’t mean that your sensitivity and overreaction can be used as an argument. Whether an argument makes sense has nothing to do with a person’s origin.
I’ve explained why I think those terms may not be perfect. For example, Sinitic is essentially used as a synonym for Han, so it does not match Your point of view. I have rights to say why I don’t so like these alternatives that much, but I’ve never said they were invalid, they could indeed be candidates.
Maybe you don’t like my suggestion, which is okay. You can’t accept it due to the personal emotion, fine. But when I prove it works, am I ethnocentrism? Is everyone Teutonic ethnocentrism when people defend the idea that Teutons can represent the German people in a thread that the OP thinks Teutons cannot?
What? I’ve never said you were a Chinese nationalist, never. I I beg you to stop your overinterpretation.
I mentioned that my country was threatened by Chinese nationalists just to show that nationalism is not a good word to me, so it hurts when you describe me as a nationalist or ethnocentrist, but I’ve never said and never thought you are one of those who threatened my country.
I don’t have preset thoughts about mainlanders. There are many users from China in this forum, and I interact with them normally. My feelings for you are all about yourself and have nothing to do with your country.
I am not accusing you, I am defending myself. I want you to be clear that you are hurting me by calling me ethnocentric, and I don’t want to be misunderstood as such by the other users of this forum. I can only keep defending myself when you keep saying that in the forum.
Compared to other regions in other worlds, we probably won’t receive any new civilizations in North America.
But if we narrow the scope down to this region, it does seem to me that the Iroquois have the best chance.
As I replied to @M00Z1LLA, it is indeed a shortcoming to be inactive until the 15th century, but it seems that most American civilizations have richer and more detailed records in the 14th-15th century too, and the timeline of the game can be as late as 1600. In addition, it currently appears in the game by acting the Skraeling.
With the well-known name of the civ, the name of the leader and the story of the establishment of the Confederacy, it seemed like we could see clearly how they could work in the game.
However, I also do think we won’t receive a complete North American civilization. AoE3 does a better job of this.
It’s not clear to me, was the Mississippians’ region really that large? Also, as I recall, the Malays in the game are based on Javanese.
Yes, I know… but you can make an Iroquois/Haudenosaunee civ of the late Middle Ages (1450-1570/1580) in AoE 2 and serve as a predecessor for the Haudenosaunee of AoE 3 (1580-1780)…in AoE 2 you already have civs of Late Middle Ages as: Spanish (1492-1571), Aztecs (1325-1521), Japanese (1573-1598), Koreans (1598) in The Conquerors; in The Forgotten, you have the Incas (1438-1532) and in Rise of Rajas you have the Burmese (1510-1581); so I do not see bad that the Iroquois could enter as well…
Of course there you can connect them with the Vikings in Vinlandsaga in the year 1000 and in the Haud campaign with the French (Franks in AoE 2) from 1534 onwards…let’s say that the Haud campaign of the formation of the Haudenosaunee confederation would not vary much from the campaign of Montezuma or Pachacutec…I think that based on the song of Hiawatha (narrator of this campaign and Haud leader in AoE 3, as with Cuahtemoc) it could go between 1534 and 1580, occupying the same temporal space as the Burmese campaign of Bayinnaung.
Yes, it is… And yes, the Malays would be the Javanese…
The ancient Javanese kingdoms of Singhasari and Majapahit were among the most powerful maritime empires in the region, whose boundaries included most of the Malay Archipelago and parts of Indochina.
A lot of these dates seem very arbitrary. The civs are more people groups than countries. So Spanish are actually Asturias → Castile and Leon → Spain. Koreans have much earlier representation in Goryeo, etc. Of course Iroquois were around in earlier times, but back then there was nothing exceptional about them compared to their neighbours. A tribe that actually interacted with the Vikings would be a much better pick in this timeframe.
The Spanish cover all christian kingdoms in the Iberian peninsula after the fall of the Wisigoths with the exception of Portugal, so Castile, Leon, Asturias, Aragon, Barcelone and so on. Their campaign takes place in the 11th century.
Aztecs can be used as an umbrella for all Nahua civs, but I guess the main civ is still a Late Middle Ages/Early Modern Era one, yeah.
Japan has been united long before the period of civil war and anarchy that is the Sengoku Jidai, what are you on? You could even say there’s been a unified Japanese state since the Kofun period. I’m not even sure why you picked 1573, is it because of the dissolution of the ############## ######## Shogunate?
What? I see even less what 1598 stands for, by this point the Joseon dynasty had been ruling the entire peninsula for a little bit more than two centuries, but even before that the country had been united since the 10th century. And arguably, the previous warring kingdoms were already Koreans.
Can be used as an umbrella for all Quechua (and possibly Aymara) people, but just like the Aztecs I guess you could take only the Inca Empire into account without being necessarily wrong.
That’s only the Toungoo Empire (and it isn’t even correct, as you used the death of Bayinnaung as their end date rather than the fall of the state itself). Just like the Koreans or Japanese, the Burmese didn’t suddenly appeared as a fully formed people at this moment, and it wasn’t even the first time they were united. Look at the Pagan Kingdom for instance.
Yes, I know… I do not count the Reconquista or the Cid campaign in the case of the Spanish or the period of the three kingdoms in the case of the Koreans, but it also counts…
Sure, sure… It’s like the most representative people…
I actually put it for the Ashikaga shogunate and the historical battle of Kyoto of 1582, but since from The Forgotten there is the historical battle of Kurikara in the Genpei Wars you can stretch the chronology to 1183, and you can even stretch more the chronology to the Heian period in 794…
Sure, but they didn’t put any Korean campaign on this… Although you have the Battle of Kaesong (936) in the game files…
Of course, I do not count the previous peoples; although the Incas if you want appear in the thirteenth century…
Of course, I count the Toungoo empire because it was the period of greatest Burmese expansion and I put the death of Bayinnaung by the end of the Burmese campaign and because after his death the empire began to decompose in the reign of his son Nanda and I consider that from there the pre-modern Burmese period would start for a possible Burmese civ for AoE 3, but yes, you can also count the Pagan kingdom…
