From your loaded question.
I don’t think you understand what you have done. You posting that question, it puts the idea into readers heads. There is a reason your comment was deleted, as it was clearly inflammatory.
Because it’s clear with a bit of research that the Tanguts are perfecrtly fine to add. Lawyers are not experts on everything, but not doing basic-level research or frankly common sense (Tanguts are extinct and have been mentioned in the gane for decades with no issue) is idiotic.
Or simply she was angry.
I disagree here. And again, this are very serious allegations from you in my direction. That I mentioned the CCP here is only because both of you at different posts in this forum referred to the CCP yourself. In such a confident way that might leave the impression that you would know it as if you were part of it. Maybe I have had been mislead here, but reall… your claims look like you would have super deep insight.
And ofc I get curious and then ask if you are actually from them with these bold claims.
OK… THis is a completely new perspective.
And if this is true I am sorry. I wasn’t aware that this was a thread to grudge. I thought this was a discussion thread to exchange actual information.
Maybe these threads need to be marked somehow then. Becausefranky, If THIS is the case I was completely mislead in my interpretation and should have never joined in. As I normally do it with all these kind of threads.
Still want to mention, that some of the statements here look that they would be implicitely informative and people could believe some of that as safe information.
No. Don’t you dare do this again. You made an accusation towards me. Stop trying to “no u” this when you are the one that did it.
Leave me alone.
My post was definitely an information sharing as I shared the link of the source video. But I don’t think it is a rational interpretation that all the replies in this thread is an exchange of information. Some of the “information”, as you interpretated, is very likely simply personal “opinion” due to rage and disappointment.
I don’t think there IS a rational interpretation of this topic.
And if you try to assess me irrationality I have to state that… I think I am way more rational than the majority of Forum members i read. But I also have no issue with a bit of irrationality.
I think if posts suggest to be informative, they have to be treated as that, no? I think if you don’t want your post to be interpreted as such you should somehow make sure other people don’t interpret it as this. Especialy when you talk about stuff you actually have no insight of.
A lot of this stuff here that falls under “dissapointment” could easily have been formulated in ways that don’t imply certain information. So if that way of formulation is chose when it’s unncessary it actually works as an amplifier for that implied infomration, as it suggests some form of deeper knowledge, sharing of insight information or even leaking. So I think it would be always better and everybody should look in their post history if they can change it so it’s clearer for the rest of the community. I think it would be helpful for the community if we try to avoid these kind of misunderstandings.
But as we are now in an emotional thread I want to express my emotion.
And that is fear. If I read what some proposals here are I fear the end of AOE2 entirely. If that comes no-one of us will be able to enjoy this game ever again if certain stuff I read here would be done.
And I don’t want that to happen. Peace out.
Reminder that all interactions on the Forums must remain respectful. While we encourage open discussion and the sharing of opinions, accusations towards other users will not be tolerated. To avoid the thread being closed, please ensure the conversation remains courteous and in line with our Code of Conduct.
The absolute worst thing that could happen (even if extremely unlikely) is China banning the game for a time and Microsoft having to renegotiate with censors or rename the civ in the Chinese version of the game. This would hurt sales but definitely not kill the game.
This is exaggerated. Chinese players can be seen in Nintendo and steam non-censored games. They have ways to access the games tbh.
What truly end the game is the poor quality of DLCs.
I’ll advice you to take people of internet a bit less seriously. Have a nice day and an amazing life.
I’d rather not type what I’m wishing for that lawyer. 
If you really thought that you could and should have written that via pn.
But your’e the meme guy here no?
Here’s my “serious” meme response
“Why so serious, son? Let’s put a SMILE on that face!”
For everybody who is interested how serious I am on the internet. Just join ornlu stream and you will see. Why I am not so in this forum? Well. another meme here from I, Robot:
“I’m sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right questions!”
My bad. I always forget that this forum has the feature.
Apology accepted. Have a nice day!
My solution from another thread:
Why not listen to the opinions of Chinese players?
Hi guys, I’m glad you’re discussing Chinese history on the forums. As a Chinese player, I’d like to share my thoughts.
Firstly, the so-called “Tanguts,” written as “唐古特” in Chinese characters, is not the correct name for this ethnic group. This group itself, along with other contemporary ethnic regimes such as the Song Dynasty of the Han Chinese, the Liao Dynasty of the Khitan, and the Jin Dynasty of the Jurchen, used the Chinese characters “党项” (Dǎngxiàng) to refer to them. “Tanguts” was actually a term used by the Mongols. Therefore, I recommend using the Mandarin pinyin “dangxiang” as its English equivalent.
Secondly, the Dangxiang people and the Tibetan people have very little ethnic blood relation. Consider the map of China, from west to east, from plateau to plain. In China, ethnic groups living on the plateau are called Tibetans, those on the plains are called Han Chinese, and the groups between the Han and Tibetans are called Qiang. The Dangxiang people are believed to have originated from the Qiang, but their rulers considered themselves to be descended from the Xianbei people of Northeast China (who are closer to the Mongols). In short, the relationship between the Dangxiang people and the Tibetans is similar to the relationship between the Han Chinese and the Tibetans.
Thirdly, why would Microsoft associate the Dangxiang people with Tibet? It’s because of that detestable term “Tanguts.” After the Tangxiang regime of the Western Xia was destroyed by the Mongols, the lands formerly occupied by the Dangxiang were largely ruled by regimes established by the Mongols. The Mongol influence gradually expanded from what is now Ningxia Province in northwestern China southward to Qinghai Province, and finally conquered Tibet around the 17th century. Consequently, the scope of the Mongol term “Tanguts” expanded from initially referring to the Dangxiang people to encompassing the entire Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and its inhabitants. The subsequent Manchu-led Qing Dynasty inherited this Mongol term (I suspect this might be due to the closer relationship between Manchu and Mongolian languages, leading the Manchus to prefer Mongolian terminology). Therefore, if you don’t want the Dangxiang people to be associated with Tibet, don’t use the damned term “Tanguts.”
Finally, I’d also like to say that while the official Chinese policy indeed places great importance on the territorial integrity of China, Chinese people are quite flexible in contexts outside of expressing political views. Take Tibet, for example. Most people don’t particularly mind having Tibet represented as a distinct ethnic group. Imagine if a Tibetan king were depicted speaking Mandarin and wearing Han Chinese attire; it would be quite comical. As long as Tibet is not equated with China (which is politically considered as Tibetan independence), there is no problem. Therefore, many Chinese players believe that the original “Chinese” civilization could be changed to “Han Chinese,” similar to what Microsoft did with “India” previously.
However, we do feel that including Tibet might stir up some unnecessary trouble. That’s why we initially speculated that the new ethnic groups appearing in the China DLC might be the Khitan, Jurchen, Dangxiang, and the Bai people of southwestern China (who established the Dali Kingdom during the same period), or perhaps the more southern Thai people (whom I regret Microsoft has consistently overlooked). Many Chinese players also strongly dislike the Three Kingdoms DLC. This DLC does not feature stories for the Khitan and Jurchen as new civilizations, and the Three Kingdoms of Wei, Shu, and Wu are considered rehashes of discarded assets. Their stories should have been placed in “Chronicles” rather than the main game, as they weren’t even “civilizations” in the true sense, but merely short-lived regimes!
At the same time, Chinese players were surprised to notice that the Khitan civilization incorporated a significant amount of content with Dangxiang characteristics. They were deeply disgusted by the implied “orientalism” and considered it either arrogance or a lazy shortcut by Microsoft due to rushed development, forcing them to cut content. When we learned that the Dangxiang people were somehow related to the Tibet issue, we were shocked and bewildered. After all, the vast majority of modern Chinese people are unaware of the aforementioned generalization of “Tanguts” in Mongolian. However, if the term “dangxiang” were used, it would be both historically respectful and completely avoid misunderstandings. Microsoft should update its knowledge base and hire consultants who are more knowledgeable about history! Who would have thought that in 2026, in the third scenario of the Genghis Khan campaign, the Dangxiang people and the Western Xia kingdom they established would still be depicted as two separate factions? It’s like having both Turks and the Ottoman Empire in the game simultaneously!
It’s only a matter of time! And we will also have Turkomen and Seljuks too just for good measure alongside a Turks with just a regional new unit or something but mostly the same
What about the people in denial that kept saying all of this was conspiracy theories and was never a reason for Age devs to not add stuff??
In this same video Ornlu also confirm that age 3 removed all references to colonialism on purpose for sensibilities reason. A lot of people also said this as just conspiracy and a coincidence.
Will they finally admit?
Thank you for posting!
To my knowledge, no one here with even rudimentary insight into the matter (such as at least reading the Wikipedia article) uses the word “Tangut” to refer to Tibetans like Mongols did. Calling them Tanguts in the West not some orientalist malice; we simply learned about these people from Mongol sources. Exonyms often have very little to do with how the group calls itself; after all we call you Chinese, not Han or “Zhongguonese”.
The characters pronounced in their native language sounded something like “minya” or “mjinjaa”, so it could be used instead of “Tanguts” if it’s absolutely necessary. Modern Mandarin pronunciation doesn’t seem like a good fit: it’s what the Chinese people know them as, but nobody calls them Dǎngxiàng in the West.
At the end, the issue is how the civilizations would be named in China, as that’s what censors care about. Even if Tibetans themselves were to appear, they could have a different name in the Chinese localisation if Microsoft is so afraid that the game would be banned.
No one expected corporate lawyers to be THAT stupid.