Well, theres two more civs I think could have it: Khazars and Byzantines and maaaybe Cumans
Perhaps, regardless better chances for a new architechture set the more civs there are to use it.
But if we look from the perspective of a medieval Indian or Chinese, arenât those basically small skirmishes between the same people called Europeans? Actually, thatâs probably wrong, it would more likely be called skirmishes between uncivilized barbarians. Technologically and scientifically inferior, less army mobilization (compared to the many Chinese âcivil warsâ at least), less important location in the âworld,â most of the things Europeans say about Native American civs.
Now of course thatâs a biased opinion, but can you prove that yours are any different?
3 Likes
Thatâs one of the silliest things I read this year.
So by your argument: consolidated nations with average technology and science for their time compared to most of the world are at the same level as tribal societies with linear chief hierarchy just because some indians and chinese civilizations were more advanced. Gotcha.
Those two suggested civs arenât even at the same level as aztecs, mayans and incas.
1 Like
Those two makes up about half the worldâs population at the time. More if we include the caliphates in the middle east too.
I donât know where you get the idea that the Europeans are at the average level during that time from.
1 Like
Ok, so âconsolidated nations with average technology and science for their time compared to most of the world are at the same level as tribal societies with linear chief hierarchy just because some asian civilizations (like indians and chinese) were more advanced. Gotcha.â
Happy?
The thing is you are taking 2 cultures that didnât even fulfilled the ancient greek concept of government and putting them at the same level as aztecs, mayans andd incas. The Muisca were just a bunch of tribes banded together in a confederation with a chief (curaca) as leader. The Mapuche didnât even reached that level. They were just scattered tribes with a chief or elder.
1 Like
The point Iâm trying to make is that the average medieval Chinese would say similar things regarding Europeans to what you are saying now regarding Native American civs.
Perhaps they would invoke Confucian (or Legalism) instead of the Ancient Greeks to say that European governments are outdated and fragmented, and that the Roman empire was the last form of government to ever exist in Europe, etc.
We would need some other arguments for why Native American civs should be denied.
2 Likes
So those 2 suggested civs that arenât even at the same level as Mesopotamia (debatable in the case of the Muisca and their copper tools) need other arguments to be denied in aoe 2. Gotcha.
2 Likes
Well, if we go by Confucian and the legalists, the governments of Europe is evolutionarily behind the Qin dynasty unification too. The Indians would be surprised at the lack of an âadvancedâ caste system. See my point yet?
2 Likes
Look âWhat would John say? What would Jane say?â. Just sophistry.
Fine, Iâll take the bait. Letâs say Indians and Chinese look at Europe and say they are behind in science and they donât have the caste system. So what. Does that make Europeans unfit to be part of aoe 2? Does that voids their achievements? Nullifies their impact on history and how they changed the world over centuries? Now tell me, what achievements do the Muisca and Mapuche have in South America. In what way they changed the history of their regions before the Spanish arrived at least.
How about you give us good reasons as to why irrelevant tribes fit as new civs for aoe 2.
2 Likes
Did they have any impact at all during the middle ages, aside from the crusades (mongol invasion, but much smaller and less successful) and later colonizations (which is included late in the timeline, even after the official end of the middle ages with the fall of Constantinople)?
Much in the same way as the Britons or Celts or Vikings, one would think.
1 Like
No more american civs.
11
Cool story. Muisca and Mapuche were zeros. Zeros.
Iâm still waiting for good reasons to add those two as new civs.
No more american civs. As I said before.
2 Likes
Georgians are gonna be a DotD civ. Armenians would be great.
Finns, Serbs, Croats, Vlachs are historically insignificant.
Venetians are already the Italians.
2 Likes
Cool, as soon as your provide a source that isnât Reddit
3 Likes
Disagree on the Balkans being âinsignificantâ. I still hope for both Armenians and Georgians with a new caucasian architechture set.
3 Likes
Tbh my problem with thrm its just that the regional powers of the balkans arent too long lasting nor powerful enough to overcome that
2 Likes
The current 9 are the same but with Swiss, Bengalis and Iroquois replace Somalis, Mapuche and Mississippians
1 Like
Itâs actually surprising coming here and seeing the number of people who are upfront saying that they only want to see things they are already familiar it, and god forbid that they should come across anything new.
5 Likes
Tbh I get it but they shouldnt get into discussions about that stuff they dont know about
3 Likes
Surprised Iroquois are so far up, the Iroquois League was only formed super late in the time period, archaeological evidence does not support a date earlier than 1450.
A more period appropriate choice would be Mississippians or Anasazi.
4 Likes