yeah, oceanian civs feel honestly quite absurd
2 Likes
Why? Why are Oceania civs any more absurd than the Tupi?
1 Like
Oceanians are perfectly valid. They got Kingdoms, they got contact with others, they got Agriculture and⊠well, Culture. They got religions. They got unit options, campaign options. They wouldnât even all have to be Naval civs- the Pohnpeians would be a good Defensive civ, and a Maori civ might be an ideal Infantry civ (I used to be against Maori, but considering the Rarotongans Iâve softened on their presence greatly)
1 Like
Whatâs more absurd is your opinions about the game and trying to force your own agenda against other civs, because you think everythingâs dogshit. Why you have to be this salty?
Will you do the same once I will release something new like, I donât know, 3 civ ideas brought into one concept DLC?
3 Likes
I think the way to approach Oceania civs is by representing whole regions through one civ. Like the Polynesians, Melanesians, and Micronesians. Anything more granular would be too much of a stretch.
Well this brings with it the usual problems of showing âRegionalâ civs: Why not just one shared East Asian civ, or one shared Iberian civ, or one shared civ for all peoples of the British Isles?
It wouldnât merely be unfair to show preferential treatment to Europe, it would be both incorrect and against the gamesâ precedent. If we complained when there was an umbrella Indians, we ought to complain with an umbrella Micro-Mela-Polynesia.
Melanesians can be ignored in some ways anyway. You have the Solomon Islands and Maluku as big centers of civilization in the period, while Papua New Guinea⊠uh⊠isnât, really. At least, not as far as we can reasonably tell. Then thereâs Fiji, which, âthanksâ to missionaries in the 19th century, their history is entirely muddled.
Micronesia is mostly clan societies, but there are two that cross the threshold to civilization, that being the Yapese and their Empire, and the Pohnpeians, who built Nan Madol
Polynesia is the big center of civilizations out that way. Tonga and Samoaâs two empires, Tahitiâs many kingdoms, the Maori from their little origin in Rarotonga to their eventual kingdoms across New Zealand, the Marquesans- who may have numbered as many as 50,000 people on one little 10-kilometer island at their peak!- the Rapa Nui and their many statues, the Easter Island heads. Whole lot of valid civs! Hawaiâi, ironically, is not needed, since theyâre basically a Tahitian conquest in this period.
1 Like
The umbrellas I mentioned work because all the people in those regions are ethnically related. Itâs like the Italians or Teutons in that regard; they may have slight ethnic and cultural differences, but theyâre largely unified in either one.
Burgundians and Franks, Portuguese and Spanish, Romans to Sicilians to Italians, Hindustanis to Gurjaras and Bengalis, Poles to Bohemians. All of these could have easily been one civ but they arenât. Well, why make Polynesians the same then?
Also, the Melanesians really are⊠not very much related. They started diversifying from one another like, 12,000 years ago. Papua has⊠what is is, 800 different mutually unintelligble, wholly unrelated languages?
adding the Tupi is pretty absurd. the average Tupi tribe had 300-2000 people (according to wikipedia). I donât understand why they are adding them, in what world would they stand a chance against eurasian armies where a single battalion outnumbered them.
However at least the total Tupi population in 1500 is estimated to be ~1million.
the total population estimate for
polynesia in the year 1000 is about 80k, going up to 125k in 1500
micronesia 88k in 1000, going up to 140k in 1500
so each are an order of magnitude smaller than even the Tupi, where there are serious questions on whether they should be added. itâs just so few people across such a big area.
The biggest and most famous âempireâ of the area was the âTuâi Tonga empireâ (with big questions on whether âempireâ is even the appropriate term). Its capital had a population of 7000-8000 people at its peak.
Are we seriously considering adding âcivsâ to the game, where the entire population could fit in any number of European, Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese cities of the time?
for some context, in this interview
Cysion mentions Liege (his hometown i think) as a counter-example as something that is too irrelevant to be a civ.
Current estimates put the city of Liege at a population of 12k-20k (1000CE, 1500CE respectively). so even the city Cysion uses as an example of being to irrelevant to be made into an aoe2 civ, is bigger than the capital of the most important empire in medieval polynesia.
no need to get personal.
if you come up with 3 significant medieval entities, that are on a scale where their inclusion makes sense, then I am happy to entertain the idea.
If you suggest adding tiny tribal societies, without major cities, structured armies and siege warfare, then yeah, Iâll tell you that your idea is bad.
Because eg the Carolingan empire had 10-20 million people in it, polynesia had 100k.
2 Likes
Maybe, but like it or not, theyâre here, and the precedent is set.
2 Likes
So itâs a function of Population? Then we should have some three civs just to represent China alone, meanwhile the Burgundians also shouldnât exist by this selfsame logic since theyâre part of the Frankish entity of the Carolingians.AOE doesnât show Countries, it shows Peoples, and the number of those peoples hasnât been a consideration yet.
Itâs unlikely weâre going to have more than one Oceania DLC, so we might as well represent as much of the region as we can. Plus, representing multiple related cultures under one umbrella makes civ design much easier.
1 Like
yeah, oceanic civs would be even more absurd
not exclusively
we should before we get oceania.
lots of people dislike the Burgundians for exactly that reason (among many others). they are literally a duchy, not a kingdom.
agreed, but itâs also called age of âempiresâ
2 Likes
Yap, Samoa, Tonga. Thereâs three right there. And tell me, what exactly is the point of Empires without Kingdoms all around them?
And, no, we donât need three Chinese civs. Theyâd just be Chinese. Thatâs the point. There are civilizations big and small. Putting âcivsâ in quotes simply because their population was small is, frankly, kind of disgusting. âI get my pissant duchies, but you donât get your empires because they arenât actually civilizationsâ. Completely warpy line of thought.
1 Like
Less absurd. They controlled more territory, actually conquered others, had a larger population, and had more advanced technology.
Fiji also had an empire, though itâs less documented than the others and is mostly known through legends and mythology.
2 Likes
The problem with Fiji is a simple one and itâs that, yes, it was very early. The Tui Fiti collapsed and itâs hard to tell exactly when, but worse yet, between those two points was a period of Tongan Domination that only ends around like, the 14th century⊠and as a final topper on the cake of misfortune, the Fijianâs folklore was completely butchered by Missionaries wanting to make a good story and, sadly, now some Fijians believe it too. Itâs a triple-whammy. If good, real, actual academic sources could be found for folks like Lutunasobasoba Iâd seriously consider Fijians again.
Either way, Fiji would make a good rival for Tonga in a Polynesian campaign, so thatâs something worth considering. The Melanesians would also represent Vanuatu, another island nation that made contact with Tonga, and Papua New Guinea, which had contact with Indonesia. So such a civ would cover a good chunk of land.
Somewhat off-topic I guess, but can someone explain to me why so many people on this forum seem to fixate on language? I really donât get it. I think itâs kind of cool that the original AoE2 devs decided each civ would have different voicelines (instead of everyone speaking the same nonsense language like in AoE1). But it doesnât affect the gameplay and to me itâs a flavour feature on the same level as the UI design â nice to see the variation represented in the game, but not a sensible criterion to use for choosing which civs to add.
1 Like
Oh, I just thought it was useful to bring up to point out one way that Melanesians have very few similarities. I donât think there should be 800 Papuan civs. In fact, Iâm not even sure there should be one civ. The thing is, Papuaâs geography enabled only small villages to exist with virtually no contact- larger, organized societies never emerged, unlike in Polynesia, where plenty of organized societies came to be.
The most important Melanesians to get in would be the Malukuans. Theyâd cover a good portion of Papua, but more importantly, theyâre pretty deep in the Indonesia-sphere. Theyâd even have Gunpowder!