Balance is a game concept . There is nothing wrong with American or sub Saharan armies toe to toe with Eurasian ones or Asian navies being able to beat Europeans in a game . This an RTS based in Middle Ages , not an historical simulator .
Whatever the marketing team says , the gameplay is not historically accurate with some civ designs being based on stereotypes (Abbasid Camels and Delhi Scholars) . The documentry content is something entirely different .
I can see a few more Euro civs getting added down the line but I think the reason half of the vanilla civs are Euro is because the devs wanted to get them out of the way in order to concentrate on other parts of the world for DLC.
I don’t see any evidence that is the case . But I hope so
I’m excited for some more creative, outside the box civ design - like the Mongols in the base civs. And based on both past Age game expansions and Relic’s own choices for expansion factions in their past games, I’d be surprised if we got anything less.
The Mongols are the best civ in the game.
That logic can also be applied to other regions . For example , from South India we can have Telugu(Kakatiya) , Tamils(Cholas and Pandyas) and Kannadigas(Hoysala) . Historical Accuracy would also dictate these to be separate nations.
Yes, but none of these made a major historical impact AS separate political entities.
It would make no sense for the Tamils to be represented as a major geopolitical force.
Half of the nations being European is Eurocentric and it’s not a problem. Either admit “Eurocentric, but fine”, or try not to make half the civs European. This is natural because:
Think about how many population and landmass were covered by AOE2 “Saracens” or “Indians”. If the game is say “Asiacentric”, half of the European civs would be called “Franks”.
And were they really that different back in the middle ages? Were medieval English, French and Germans more different than, say medieval Egyptians and Syrians? Or even northern and southern Chinese?
Game design is not actual history. In the old world there might be a general trend like “heavily armored knights and crossbows in the West, light cavalry archers in the East, etc.”, but within the “West” or the “East” themselves, was there really one culture or state that constantly had significantly better archer, or cavalry, or farmers, or berry bush foragers than everyone else, as was displayed in the game?
The reason is that a game has to make up those “differences” depending on your planned faction roster, and that is applicable to whatever roster you have. Be it medieval Europe you can of course make very different European factions. Be it ancient China you can make the Three Kingdoms or Warring States equally different. Be it Sengoku Japan you can make the clans equally different.
All these attempts have been made and you can find nice games for them. Even Total War Thrones of Britannia can make different Anglo-Saxon or Viking factions unique (and that is a very narrow scope). Now if you move the setting to India subcontinent or central Asia, it’s going to be the same logic.
Ming records show that armies in northern and southern China had quite different weaponry and tactics, depending on the terrain, supply, enemy, etc. I don’t think the difference between medieval France and HRE would be much greater than this.
Well, as you mentioned yourself, they had a lot of things more or less exactly the same.
HOWEVER, they organized themselves independently and made a geopolitical impact. Therefore they are a separate entity.
You could be right, but I believe that the developers want historical accuracy. If they want something else, it is completely fine with me. Will play the game in any case.
However, the main point is that historical accuracy and ‘balance’ between the Maori people and the Turks would demolish historical accuracy.
I do not think this is true.
Yes, in China there are different ethnic groups. However, unlike Europe; China for most of its history was ruled by Dynasties which united all of these different ethnic groups under a single political entity, whereas Europe has never been united under a single political entity, despite attempts by Napoleon, Hitler and the current European ‘project’.
All these attempts have been made and you can find nice games for them. Even Total War Thrones of Britannia can make different Anglo-Saxon or Viking factions unique (and that is a very narrow scope). Now if you move the setting to India subcontinent or central Asia, it’s going to be the same logic.
It would be amazing to see a RTS game about India, containing all the major ethnic groups on the peninsula. However, in AoE4, this would only make sense IF these ethnic groups had an global impact. So, if the Tamilaru conquered much of Africa, while the Telugu were waging war against China it would make sense to treat these nations/tribes as separate civs.
Ok, what did English do that makes them so much worth adding over the Kannadas on the middle ages? Because Kannadas existed through the whole middle ages, were very powerful (way more than the English) and fought pretty much every major Indian state. And Tamils dont need introduction.
Just say that Europe sells better or thst you care more about Europe instead of talking for hours about this.
Only problem with your statement is that this didn’t actually happen.
And dont get me started on Asia because honestly if we go by power the game would mostly just be Asian civs
Based on what is this statement supposed to make sense?
Ok, what did English do that makes them so much worth adding over the Kannadas on the middle ages? Because Kannadas existed through the whole middle ages, were very powerful (way more than the English) and fought pretty much every major Indian state. And Tamils dont need introduction.
I already mentioned that I am in favor of adding a South Indian civ!
What do you think about adding Dravidians? Would that cover the region in an accurate way?
Just say that Europe sells better or thst you care more about Europe instead of talking for hours about this.
No and no… By the way, India is a huge market, so it would sell incredibly well.
I cannot wait for the Indians.
"“While the Delhi Sultanate is the first Age IV civilisation set in South Asia, we chose to do this so we can revisit this region via future expansions and explore an indigenous Hindi-speaking civilisation being represented in the game as well,” a Microsoft spokesperson confirms.”
I have been on these forums for more than 10 years and have seen enough to confidently declare that this would not have happened, particularly would not have happened like this right now, if not for the well researched and well reasoned arguments from all of us on this forum. (And I include myself only because I am here – I am no scholar of SE studies like many others.) Congratulations, everyone! And thank you to the developers for continuing to recognize their blind spots and having the courage to do better.
"“While the Delhi Sultanate is the first Age IV civilisation set in South Asia, we chose to do this so we can revisit this region via future expansions and explore an indigenous Hindi-speaking civilisation being represented in the game as well,” a Microsoft spokesperson confirms.”
Honestly, picking the Sultunate to represent India is a horrible choice that will not work well in India.
Most Indians I know are quite annoyed with it. I truly believe the developers made a big mistake here.
Probably that’s true about China because it is mostly one entity. But the Middle East, India, or Central Asia, which was also constantly scattered and unified, was also underrepresented compared to Europeans.
Most of medieval “European” history were infighting. If there is anything truly “international”, maybe the crusades or the Mongol invasion count. Again, people may have the impression like “medieval HRE being more influential than some state in Central Asia or India” because (1) Germany and its neighbours are now an independent countries, so one may consider events between them as “influential” and “international” (while something like the numerous Chinese civil wars are considered civil wars) (2) modern Germany is influential.
Speaking of Tamils specifically:
I’d say that’s actually quite influential.
Talking about how it is rn. English facing Chinese in terms of power levels is more ridiculous than Shona facing English
Higher numbers, similar or better tecnology for the vast majority of the middle ages and more wealth
I guess so, but I think adding two Indian civs for the south (Tamils and Kannadigas) and two more for the north (Rajputs and Bengalis) makes more sense
Its like putting Franks and Teutons togheter to put Tamils and Kannadigas togheter. It can be fine, but it can be better too
Probably that’s true about China because it is mostly one entity. But the Middle East, India, or Central Asia, which was also constantly scattered and unified, was also underrepresented compared to Europeans.
I tend to agree with you in the area of India, but not so much in the area of Middle East and Central Asia.
The reason is that these two regions were typically dominated by some kind of empire. Most of the ethnic groups or nations that inhabited these regions most of the time were included in other entities. There are some groups that made an impact, some of which are represented in AoE2, but in reality these periods I think were too short. (Some ethnic group that harassed some nearby kingdom for about 100 years before being assimilated into a larger entity isn’t enough to be included in a game that features other civs that existed for 500+ years)
Most of medieval “European” history were infighting. If there is anything truly “international”, maybe the crusades or the Mongol invasion count.
And exactly this is why AoE4 does not include the Gohts, Celts, Teutons, Bohemians, Burgundians, etc. because these really represent “European infighting”.
Again, people may have the impression like “medieval HRE being more influential than some state in Central Asia or India”
I think we agree more than we realize. On the one hand, I do not think that HRE wasn’t influential. HRE was very important. On the other hand, I agree that Central Asian and Indian political entities that had a similar impact as the HRE should be INCLUDED in the game.
You do realize that the English messed more with the Chinese than the Shona ever messed with anything on the European continent?
Higher numbers, similar or better tecnology for the vast majority of the middle ages and more wealth
Well, these should be included in the game then. Which groups are you referring to exactly?
I guess so, but I think adding two Indian civs for the south (Tamils and Kannadigas) and two more for the north (Rajputs and Bengalis) makes more sense
Aren’t these two northerners already included in Sultunate?
Its like putting Franks and Teutons togheter to put Tamils and Kannadigas togheter. It can be fine, but it can be better too.
Teutons aren’t in AoE4 and I think that that’s a good thing.
?
Are you talking about them being isolated then? I think them being part of the major trade routes thanks to trading with the Swahili, Somalis or Portos is kind of doing that but its true they didnt try to get to conquer Sicilia or something like that
Its mostly India tbh, but we would also have to include Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Majapahit, Uyghurs/Gokturks, Tufans, Chams and probably Burmese in terms of eastern Asian civs (you could consider Jin or Tanguts but they are fairly short lasting) and in western Asia you woulf have Persians, Khazars, Seljuks, Georgia.
Isnt China included by the Mongols? Bengalis existed for most of the middle ages and was very powerful, with Euro explorers considering them the richest people to trade with. Rajputs are a bit more complicated, and are probably the least important of the four
I mean the HRE