正是因为分裂中国文明十分敏感，所以用鲜卑、嚈哒、通古斯这种打擦边球的的说法代替北方、东北、西北，只要在战役里把他们用做中国地方势力就可以了。
只要把时间点往前移一点，鲜卑汉化、六镇之乱、侯景围困梁武帝、李渊崛起，都是很能反映中国特色的战役，而且完全没有可供曲解的地方。鲜卑融入汉人的史诗比契丹和女真方便写得多，不会产生任何问题。嚈哒可以作为西域佛国，也比伊斯兰化的回鹘方便太多了。
Nice to see an active Chinese community but please also provide translation for the replies just like Karsh. Are you guys up to split China just like India as an umbrella civ into multiple civs?
最好的中国战役就是唐朝征战史，安全而且反应中国历史的特色（关陇集团与胡汉融合)，宋辽金最好不要做，要做就做朱元璋战役，
1 Like
是啊，但在同一個DLC的新文明們依舊可以帶有互動關係，這也是公爵的黎明戰役廣獲佳評的原因之一。以一個DLC來說，契丹人和女真人是明智且保險的選擇。
Yeah but new civilizations in the same DLC can still have interactive relationships, which is one of the reasons why the Dawn of the Duke campaign has been well received. As a DLC, the Khitans and the Jurchens are sensible and safe choices.
別想多了。 更何況，鮮卑人的年代過早確實是問題。匈人、哥德人和塞爾特人雖是現有文明，但一直因為時代過早而為人詬病。社群非常可能不會想要增加和他們一樣過早的新文明。用契丹人去代表他們就行了。契丹人是鮮卑宇文部其中一支的後裔。
順便說一句，從遊戲中對中國文明的歷史的描述可以得知，官方定義的中世紀中國是從隋唐到明朝萬曆年間。
Don’t think too much. What’s more, the fact that the Xianbei are too ancient is indeed a problem. Although the Huns, Goths and Celts are existing civs, they have been criticized for being too ancient for a long time. It is very likely that the community will not want to add new civs as ancient as they are. Just use the Khitans to represent them. The Khitans are descendants of one branch of the Yuwen tribe in Xianbei.
By the way, from the description of the history of Chinese civilization in the game, it can be known that the official definition of medieval China is from the Sui and Tang Dynasties to the Wanli period of the Ming Dynasty.
請問你，隋滅陳之戰，隋難道是鮮卑人嗎？金宋交戰，金也是鮮卑人嗎？靖難之變，燕王朱棣揮軍從北京南下，也是鮮卑嗎？不覺得荒唐嗎？
說穿了你並不是以民族為依據，只是根據地區去拆分中國文明。鮮卑這個民族的文化和歷史不是你的重點，你只是想要一個北方人。這不是這個遊戲應有的傳統方式，且會開啟相當不良的先例，即只要分布面積廣闊的文明都可以逕自依區域拆成多個文明，而不是依照民族文化和歷史脈絡。
Excuse me, in the battle of the Sui Dynasty to defeat the Chen Dynasty, is the Sui Dynasty the Xianbei civ? In the battle between Jin and Southern Song, is Jin also Xianbei? In the Jingnan Rebellion, when Zhu Di the Prince of Yan led his army south from Beijing, is his army also Xianbei? Don’t you think it’s absurd?
To put it bluntly, you are not based on ethnicity, but only based on regions to split Chinese civ. The culture and history of the Xianbei people are not your focus, you just want a northerner. This is not the traditional way this game should be, and it will set a very bad precedent, that is, as long as a civ with a wide distribution area can be divided into multiple civs according to the region, rather than according to the ethnic culture and historical context.
1 Like
The translator button in the down left of the comment works fairly well tbh
I didn’t know we have that. Thanks for the help 
I largely agree with the points that you made.
Regarding the Lolos, certainly the name is safe, but I feel that it doesn’t offer enough representation or coverage cause there’re still conflicting theories about Nanzhao’s origin. And even if the Lolos can represent the ruling elite of Nanzhao, they still cannot represent its diverse populace nor the other Non-Sinitic tribes in Southern and Southwestern China. Hence I feel that the names Dians or Zangkes are more suitable (these are also historical names for the natives of Yunnan and Guizhou), though the in-game language could be based on one of the Lolo dialects.
南汉北汉肯定是不行，而且南汉北汉这样的称呼也不符合历史。如果非要找一个可以代表中国南方的原生文明，那在帝国时代2的年代就只有南诏/大理（自杞/罗殿也可以但面积太小不为人知且都是宋的附庸），但由于是国名不是人群的名字，所以人群可以改成滇人或牂柯人。
Tranlation:
Splitting the Chinese into South Chinese and North Chinese doesn’t really make sense, and these terms are anachronistic for the time period covered by AOE 2. If you really wanna find a civ that could represent the natives of Southern China in AOE 2’s time period, then the only choice would be Nanzhao/Dali (Ziqi/Luodian could work as well but they were too small and rather unknown and were both subordinate to the Song), but since the name Nanzhao was the name of the kingdom and not the people, the civ’s name could be Dians or Zangkes.
上一个印度dlc恰恰是这么做的，这也是我收到鼓励的源头。这个游戏说到底更看重趣味性，不然不会用 瞿折罗代表北印度。
这很好处理，成吉思汗战役实际上时间线远远超过成吉思汗本人的生平。北周基本上完成了统一中国的百分之八十，只要把最后一关写成：一位汉人宰相夺取了政权，整合了游戏里鲜卑和中国的科技树，完成统一。而从此鲜卑完全融入中国，为中国注入新鲜血脉（关陇集团），结束了古典时代中国历史，开启黄金时代。在尾关还可以加一个李渊的彩蛋（在杨坚统一中国同时，一位汉人贵族迎娶了一位鲜卑女子）。在唐朝之后所有的中国战役，北方势力科技树都是鲜卑加中国融合体，这个超强科技树只在战役中会出现。也就是我说的战役里中国是融合型科技树，鲜卑和女真（或者我建议的通古斯人）的单独科技树在战役的前几关出现，以及供玩家在对战时选择。这样可以照顾到历史上的中国实际上融合许多地域特色的事实，又不破坏游戏性。
说实话越南战役已经让我很不舒服了，里面给越南加入太多plot armor（主角光环）。如果再出辽金战役，中国在战役中就彻底沦为和拜占庭类似的背景板。就算出岳飞，那也只是和保加利亚战役或者熙德战役一样的悲剧英雄，完全体现不出中国的史诗感和文明特色。
解讀錯誤。這遊戲的作法是依照民族而非單純的地區，印度DLC也是如此。
瞿折羅人實際上指的是拉傑普特人，他們本來就世居於西北印，至今那裏都還是他們的地盤，那裏的印度文化本質上就是基於拉傑普特文化。孟加拉人與達羅毗荼人也是如此，他們本來就是自己的民族，而不單單只是「南印度人」和「東印度人」。
印度次大陸一直都是多民族的，直至英國人征服之前，他們各自都有自己民族的王國和帝國，不曾出現過統一的印度。而中國有個主要的漢民族，漢民族在中世紀建立了起碼三個統一王朝，這和印度是截然不同的狀況。你拿印度DLC和中國人比較，要嘛你不熟悉印度，要嘛你不熟悉中國，要嘛你中印都不熟。
misinterpretation. The game’s approach is based on ethnicity rather than purely regional, so is the Indian DLC.
The Gurjaras actually refer to the Rajputs, who originally lived in the northwest India, and there are still their territory to this day. The Indian culture there is essentially based on the Rajput culture. The same is true for the Bengalis and Dravidians, who are their own peoples, not just “Indians in the South” and “Indians in the East”.
The Indian subcontinent has always been multi-ethnic, and until the British conquest, they each had their own kingdoms and empires of their own peoples, and there was no unified India. China has a major Han people, and the Han people established at least three unified dynasties in the Middle Ages, which is completely different from India. You compared the Indian DLC with the Chinese, either you are not familiar with India, or you are not familiar with China, or you are not familiar with both China and India.
成吉思汗是蒙古人，他的後代也是蒙古人，整個戰役都用蒙古人本來就很合理。
唐宋明等等統一王朝直接用中國文明這一點也不需要改變。
Genghis Khan was a Mongol, and his descendants were also Mongols. It was reasonable to use Mongols for the entire campaign.
There is no need to change the fact that unified dynasties such as Tang, Song and Ming directly used the Chinese civ.
唐朝之後所有的中國人戰役，基本上就是所有可能出現的中國人戰役，因為這遊戲的中國文明被定義是從隋唐到明萬曆這段期間的。你認為開發者會多此一舉去做你所謂的融合嗎？還不如直接將中國文明設計成能涵蓋南北特色。這也是開發者20年前就清楚的事，即讓中國文明以弓兵為主的同時，也有相當體面的騎兵和海軍。
你只是單純想要複數個漢人文明，又自知把同一個民族依地區拆分不受歡迎，才利用鮮卑和女真等外族的名字去遮掩，設計融合等等的花招。別說海外的消費者，就是中國玩家們恐怕都不興這一套。突厥、粟特、契丹、女真、党項等等，這些與中華王朝相互競爭的民族，才是在市場裡具標誌性、真正有開發潛力並值得獲得關注的材料。
All Chinese campaigns after the Tang Dynasty are basically all possible Chinese campaigns, because the Chinese civ of this game is defined as the period from Sui and Tang Dynasties to Wanli period of Ming Dynasty. Do you think the devs will do what you call “fusion”? It is better to directly design the Chinese civ to cover the characteristics of both the North and the South. This is also something that the devs knew 20 years ago, that is, while the Chinese are dominated by archers, they also have quite decent cavalry and navy.
You simply want multiple Han civs, and you know that it is unpopular to divide the same ethnic group by region, so you use the names of foreign ethnic groups such as Xianbei and Jurchen to cover up and design tricks such as fusion. Not to mention overseas consumers, even Chinese players may not like this. The Gokturks, Sogdians, Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, etc., these ethnic groups that compete with the Han Chinese dynasties, are the materials that are iconic in the market, have real development potential, and are worthy of attention.
不敢面對中國人也當過壓迫者的事實？ 11
娛樂產品在說故事時加油添醋本來就沒什麼，只是在越南人戰役裡中國人是敵人而已。在電玩史裡，英法都當多少次對手了。
真的不舒服的話，你大可以不要玩這個戰役。
不要把你的民族主義情緒投射到遊戲裡。
Afraid to face the fact that the Chinese had also been oppressors? 11
It’s okay for entertainment products to exaggerate in storytelling, it’s just that the Chinese are the enemy in the Vietnamese campaign. In the history of video games, how many times have Britain and France been rivals.
If you’re really uncomfortable, just don’t play this campaign.
Don’t project your nationalist sentiment into the game.
1 Like
因为越南战役历史上是一次本土贵族对抗中央贵族的战争，跟民族主义没什么关系，游戏为了氛围把它描述成民族主义而已。你自己都说了是添油加醋，为什么中国战役就不能添油加醋，一定要当别的战役背景板？你莫名奇妙地把我归类为民族主义就很奇怪。
那你怎么解释鞑靼呢，鞑靼就是留在中亚的蒙古人和当地人融合而成的，蒙古和鞑靼可以共存，为什么鲜卑不能和中国共存？何况游戏里的蒙古人文明也包括了元朝（海军科技树），是典型的融合文明，如果按照历史上蒙古人做过的事来做科技树，蒙古的海军应该分到中国，因为元朝的造船匠基本是汉人。
不知道你莫名其妙的自信是从哪里来的。这游戏里很多文明都无法和现代的民族一一对应，只是反应历史上某一时期的现象而已，西班牙、葡萄牙和哥特互相重叠，保加尔人融入了斯拉夫，勃艮第和西法兰克人成为后来的法兰西，把现代的同一民族按照历史上分布地区拆分在帝国时代二里多的是。
鲜卑没有与中华王朝互相竞争吗？不知道你什么逻辑。何况你提的这些民族，不是融入汉族了，就是离开东亚了（女真勉强算留下了满族，虽然有争议）。按照你自己的逻辑，游戏里的蒙古时间线定义在突厥之后，那蒙古代表突厥就好了，为什么要做突厥。
什么市场？英美市场吗？凯尔特人除了在英美文化里，别的国家很流行吗？何况在帝国时代二之前，根本不存在历史rts的市场，帝国时代二的玩家是因为游戏有趣才去关注历史的，而不是本来是历史爱好者才来玩游戏的。只要游戏里的文明做的有趣，自然就会有市场。
你的文字表達出你不喜歡讓中國人成為故事中的壞人，但憑什麼中國人不可以是配角？不可以是壞人？這何嘗不是一種民族情緒作祟？若不是，那你有什麼好覺得噁心的呢？越南人的戰役和史實有出入又與你何關？
甚至我從沒有說中國人不能有自己的戰役，從沒說過中國人的戰役不能加油添醋。
Your words expressed that you don’t like to have Chinese people be the bad guys in the story, but why can’t Chinese be supporting characters? Can’t be the bad guy? Isn’t this a kind of national sentiment? If not, what do you have to feel sick about? What does it have to do with you if there is a discrepancy between the Vietnamese campaign and historical facts?
I never even said that the Chinese can’t have their own campaigns, and that the Chinese’s campaigns can’t be exaggerated.
一、成吉思汗的戰役是二十幾年前做的，那時沒有韃靼文明。
二、韃靼文明主要代表受蒙古汗國文化影響之後的中亞突厥民族，我認為他們實際是一個突厥民族的文明。
三、你本來說「融合」是希望在戰役裡特別做出的設計，而非正常遊戲中的文明。另一方面，我指出此舉非常多餘，因為讓中國文明(漢族文明)包含南北兩邊的特色才是最佳化的方法，所以不會依地區拆分。你所提到的蒙古人也支持了這一道理，不會有個名為「元」的文明把蒙古人的海軍拆離出他們的科技樹，而使蒙古人變成僅專注於草原文化的文明。
四、鮮卑人並非不可以成為一個文明，也並非不能與中國人共存於遊戲中，但這前提是你所追求的要是鮮卑人本身，不是一個北方的漢民族。你希望一個名叫鮮卑的北方漢族文明，想要中國文明改為專注於南方，這與你所舉的蒙古人和韃靼人背道而馳。更何況過於古老是鮮卑人的硬傷。
- The campaign of Genghis Khan was done more than 20 years ago, when there was no Tatars.
- The Tatars mainly represents the Turkic peoples in Central Asia after being influenced by the Mongolian Khanate culture. They are actually a civ of Turkic peoples in my opinion.
- You originally said that “fusion” is a special design that you hope to make in the campaign, not the civ in the normal game. On the other hand, I pointed out that this move is unnecessary, because it is the best way to make the Chinese civ (Han civ) include the characteristics of the north and south, so it will not be divided by region. The Mongols you mentioned also support this. There would not be a civ called “Yuan” that detachss the Mongols’ navy from their tech tree and turns the Mongols into a civ focused on steppe culture only.
- It is not impossible for the Xianbei people to become a civ, nor is it impossible to coexist with the Chinese in the game, but the premise is that what you want is the Xianbei people themselves, not a northern Han people. You want a northern Han civ called Xianbei, and you want the Chinese civ to focus on the south instead, which is contrary to the Mongols-Tatars relation you mentioned. What’s more, being too ancient is the original sin of the Xianbei civ.
一、葡萄牙人的重點是他們在亞洲與非洲的活動，這使他們與西班牙人截然不同。
二、要知道哥德人並不等同於之後的西班牙人和葡萄牙人，他們也不會認為自己是哥德人。
三、保加利亞人和波蘭人不認為自己是(斯拉夫人實際上主要代表的)羅斯人，因為各自的歷史脈絡、宗教和文化確實有相當的差異，而不純然只是因為地區。
四、中國的北方人和南方人都認同自己是漢人，有共享的歷史脈絡與文化，這是斯拉夫民族沒有的。
五、引入勃艮第人的一大用意是為了更有效地涵蓋中世紀的低地國家，這一點是其他文明做不到的，跟地區無關。
六、你所說的「後來的法蘭西」即AoE3裡的那個法國文明，但在那之前的中世紀，勃艮第人有自己的認同，也跟地區無關。
- The Portuguese focus on their activities in Asia and Africa, which makes them very different from the Spanish.
- You must know that the Goths are not the same as the later Spanish and Portuguese. Also, they both will not consider themselves Goths.
- Bulgarians and Poles do not consider themselves Rus (who actually mainly represented by the Slavs), because their historical contexts, religions and cultures do have considerable differences. Their introduction is not purely regional.
- Both northerners and southerners in China identify themselves as Han Chinese since they share the common history contexts and culture, which the Slavic peoples do not have.
- The main purpose of introducing the Burgundians was to cover the medieval Low Countries more effectively, which other civs could not do, regardless of the region.
- The “later the France” you mentioned is the French in AoE3, but in the Middle Ages before that, Burgundians had their own identity, regardless of the region too.
你未能理解我的邏輯，就不要說啥「按照你自己的邏輯」。
鮮卑人確實也與中華王朝競爭，但他們在隋唐之前啊。我說了第三次了，遊戲所定義的中世紀中國始於隋唐，終於明萬曆年間。這也是我前面所說，他們並非不可以成為一個文明，但他們非常不適合。鮮卑人更適合AoE1，而其他我之前所提到的每個民族，都毫無疑問地符合AoE2的時間線，且引入他們不需要搞融合之類的伎倆。這才是我的邏輯。
You don’t understand my logic, so don’t say “follow your own logic”.
The Xianbei people did compete with the Han Chinese dynasties, but they were before the Sui and Tang dynasties. I said it for the third time, the medieval China defined by the game began in the Sui and Tang, and ended in the Wanli period of the Ming. This is also what I said earlier, they are not impossible to become a civ, but they are very unsuitable. They are more suitable for AoE1. However, every other ethnic group I mentioned before is undoubtedly in line with the AoE2 timeline, and there is no need for tricks such as fusion to introduce them. This is what my logic is.
對歐洲，尤其是西歐，塞爾特人都是很重要的存在。它做為文明被詬病的原因是因為太過古老，而非不有名。
對一個點子而言，在市場有標誌性這點雖不是一切，但依舊是一大優勢。否認這點即是否定社群的影響力。無論是不是歷史類RTS，市場上愈多人認識且渴望的點子本來就愈有機會被實現，因為收入更容易預期。眾所皆知，波蘭人的引入和印度人的拆分都是因為市場上的高度期盼。
For Europe, especially Western Europe, the Celts are very important. The reason the Celt civ is criticized is because they are too ancient, not because they are unknown.
Being iconic in the market isn’t everything, but it’s still such a big advantage for an idea. To deny this is to deny the influence of the community. Whether the game is a historical RTS or not, the more people in the market know and desire for ideas, the better the chance of being realized, because the revenue is easier to predict. As we all know, the introduction of the Poles and the split of the Indians were all because of the high expectations in the market.
我没有说过“恶心”、“坏人”，是你自己一厢情愿，我只是说如果出东亚战役，我个人不希望做成越南战役那样。如果你觉得与我无关，那我怎么想又与你何关呢？你何必打这么多字来反驳我。
噁心在有些語境裡有不舒服的意思，如果有讓你誤會的話在這裡解釋。
你可以不滿越南戰役的呈現方式，但這就是這遊戲的作法。
許多現有的戰役都是如此，不叫做所謂的「讓中國人當背板」。
換做中國人的戰役，很可能也是一樣的。中國也將出現一個英雄，而其他文明是敵人。
希望到時候若官方真這樣做，你也會跳出來譴責其他文明在中國人戰役裡的待遇。
我認為我們深深不可能認可彼此的想法，不可能說服對方的。就不用再浪費時間爭論了吧，不用再回覆我了。
我最後要說，我相當支持你想像新文明及將之提出的權利，我來回與你討論那麼多，只是嘗試轉達一個事實，即你要意識到，你引入這些新文明的出發點給人的感覺，明顯是為了刻意瓦解現有中國文明已經完善的代表漢民族的能力，為此還得多此一舉地搞融合之類的伎倆，事倍功半，看來並不受歡迎。當然即使不受歡迎的論點，你也可以繼續支持，興許你努力不懈推廣個十年，這想法能成為社群主流吧。加油。
1 Like
四、中國的北方人和南方人都認同自己是漢人，有共享的歷史脈絡與文化，這是斯拉夫民族沒有的。
这种情况是19世纪末以来民族化国家化思潮从西方传播到中国之后才这样的，之前中国也是一盘散沙南北彼此并没有太多认同（甚至直到今天很多北方人依然不认为南方人是自己人，也有相当多南方人不认为北方人是自己人）。南方大部分地区在历史上很长一段时间都不被称作汉人，而是被称为土人，俚人，僚人，僰人，濮人，南蛮，等等。
This is only the case because of the nationalist ideologies that have been brought to China in the late 19th / early 20th centuries, before that time the north and the south of China didn’t have too much in common (in fact even today many northerners still wouldn’t recognize southerners as one of them, and vice-versa for the southerners).
In fact according to historical records, the majority of Southern Chinese had never been called “Han”, but instead were called Tu (natives), Li, Liao, Bo, Pu, Nanman, etc.
清晰明確的民族概念確實是近代產物，即使是在歐洲，百年戰爭之前也尚未萌芽。
但是中國，人們做為一個共同的文化群體還是有的。自古以來那天朝思想即建立在胡漢有別的價值觀之上，從而使華夷秩序成為了漢民族自古以來的自我認同的體現，只不過那時會認為這是野蠻與文明開化的區別，但若從現代的角度看回去，人們認定自己或他人是否為漢文化的一份子，即是判斷是否為漢人的標準。
地區的認同差異哪裡皆有。巴黎人跟里昂人，京都人和東京人，首爾人和釜山人等等。
但這不等於他們沒有共同的民族認同。
並不是那時尚未有漢人這一稱呼，或名詞涵義不同，就意味著如今所謂的漢人不存在於那時。
你若說三國之前，我沒話說，南方尚未大量漢化，確實仍在華夷秩序之外。
過了南北朝，到了隋唐，南方已然是所謂的漢民族的區域了。
隋之後的江南，豈能說不是漢文化的一環嗎？
而隋代，即是遊戲裡中國文明的開始。
但是中國，人們做為一個共同的文化群體還是有的。自古以來那天朝思想即建立在胡漢有別的價值觀之上，從而使華夷秩序成為了漢民族自古以來的自我認同的體現，只不過那時會認為這是野蠻與文明開化的區別，但若從現代的角度看回去，人們認定自己或他人是否為漢文化的一份子，即是判斷是否為漢人的標準。
当你带入“汉民族”这个概念的时候，你所说的话就已经不符合那个时代了，因为那个时代根本就没有汉民族的概念。就算是野蛮开化，也并不等于汉民族和非汉民族之间的区别，顶多是一种生活方式之间的区别。就像罗马人也有野蛮开化这样的概念，但你不能说当时存在罗马族。你过于民族主义了，思想过于狭隘。
When you mention something like “Hanminzu” or “Han ethnicity”, you’re already being anachronistic. There was no concept of “Hanminzu” at that time. Even concepts like barbarian and civilized weren’t really a distinction between Han and Non-Han but rather between different lifestyles. The Romans also had similar concepts of barbarian and civilized, but there was no concept of an unified ethnicity called the Roman ethnicity. You’re too nationalistic and too narrow-minded.
你若說三國之前，我沒話說，南方尚未大量漢化，確實仍在華夷秩序之外。
過了南北朝，到了隋唐，南方已然是所謂的漢民族的區域了。
隋之後的江南，豈能說不是漢文化的一環嗎？
而隋代，即是遊戲裡中國文明的開始。
那我只能说你读过的史料太少了。直到唐宋时期甚至更晚的元明时期南方大部分地区依然被中原人视为化外之地当地人依然被称为土俚僚猺僮蛮僰而不被称为汉。唐代的长安贵族甚至从湖南道县进口当地原住民，把这些原住民称为“道县矮人”，并且把他们关在笼子里像猴子一样百般戏耍，做法跟千百年后的欧洲殖民者没什么两样。我不清楚你所说的江南指的哪里，如果仅指江浙一带那确实隋唐时期已经基本中原化了，但南方其他地区的中原化要晚得多。
你说得没错，中原人确实做过坏人，但并不是只针对越南或朝鲜，在中国南方各地他们做得坏事同样不少。所以我认为加上滇人或牂柯人是很有必要的，不仅可以代表南诏大理也可以顺便代表南方受压迫的各类人群。我觉得甚至可以做一个南诏抵抗并击退入侵唐军的战役。
If you’re saying that then it only means that you’ve read very few historical records. In fact up until the Tang-Song era or even later in the Yuan-Ming era much of Southern China was still considered to be barbarian or uncivilized by the Central Plain people, and they called the natives there by various names including Tu, Li, Liao, Zhuang, Dong, Yao, Man, Bo, etc. but never by the name Han. The Tang elites of Chang’an imported the natives from Dao county (Hunan province) to serve as slaves, called them “Dao dwarfs”, and put them in cages and treated them like monkeys, no different from how the Europeans colonizers treated Africans and other races a thousand years later.
I’m not sure which region you’re referring to by the term “Jiangnan”, if you’re only referring to the Jiangzhe region or the Yangtse Delta then what you said makes sense, but other regions of Southern China were far from sinicized at that time.
You’re right that the Sinitic people can be bad guys, but they were bad guys not just against Vietnam or Korea, they also did many horrible things in Southern China against the natives there. That’s why I think the addition of a new civ called Dians or Zangkes is necessary, as they can not only cover Nanzhao/Dali but also the various oppressed natives of Southern China. I can think of a Nanzhao campaign where they defeated the invading Tang armies.