Which is why people criticized the addition of the Huns over other more deserving candidates (Huns, Celts and Goths dont fit this game by many aspects)
2 Likes
I think Huns/Celts/Goths should not have been considered if we can finally agree 
1 Like
Yes, they simply didnt have the numbers (population, medieval economy, army + navy, years of rule etc.) to back their addition. Nor the stories. (Attilla the Hun is there but nothing else)
No you didnt get it. India + China are 33% population since forever, but they were 33% economy each (meaning 66% total of world economy) before colonial era.
1 Like
This graph was missing a bunch of European nations and no africans which makes the result irrelevant
2 Likes
I think it has more to do with the fact that they don’t have lasting kingdoms or inheritance and that they fit better in aoe1 (Huns, in this case)
Edit: I’ve actually never seen anyone complain about the Celts other than the aoe1-style UU and the siege bonus of unknown origin
Infact the graph is missing more Asian countries than european like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Burma, Israel, Central Asian Republics and so many more
the graph actually includes much more from Europe than from Asia
And is made by westerners
Showing Asia as 80%+ of world economy in medieval times
Asian economy was 4 times of (Roman empire + all other europe) combined. Think.
Colonial era ruined everything for us ofcourse, but thats why I dont like AOE3 period, and like AOE2 period
in name only, not in any other aspect
1 Like
A significant part of the Russia economy bar would be Asia due to Kazakhstan, Central Asian Republics, Mongolia
Not to mention Arabian peninsula Mid East and SE Asia totally not included which further increases the % for Asia in medieval times also
Including South America, Africa would further lower the % of Europe economy to below 15% in medieval times. Yet, they get the lion’s share of civs and campaigns.
What is interesting to me is that Asia fell as USA rose
1 Like
Not all can be lowered to just numbers. For example.
Portugal and Spanish expeditions during Age of Explorations. Was sent by (according to you) just small countries. But they all have enormous impact of the history of the world. Much larger than expeditions of Zheng He, for example.
Mongols where nomadic people, with much smaller economic significance than Jin or Song, but they shake balance of power much harder than any other faction.
If we consider populations of this time, its actually better to compare density of populations, than just populations. And with this, Europe has 7,85 man per square kilometer, while Asia has 5,1, and Africa have 2,14 man per square kilometer. Of course, in Asia’s case (and Africa too) there is vast unpopulated area.
5 Likes
I’m pretty sure their original point was that what describes a significant impact is not just one metric alone, this economic tangent is not the only way to look at civs indeed, but other posters have driven the discussion into economy, where Asia is still the big player during medieval times.
Exactly, there are many metrics, many types of data, even data which is not numeric (such as diversity, religions etc.) @Bzhydack
When you combine all of that, then you can decide the significance of a civilization or of an event
As I said here
and here
1 Like
Sorry, but just size of something doesnt mean its important. Its also how its interacting with the rest of the world. Not just how many interactions there were, but also how far they reach. Mansa Musa would not have significant impact on whole islamic world, if he would just sit on his throne in Mali (wherever it was). But he go for his pilgrimage to Mekka and result of this event was basicly world-wide. In both scenarios economy of Mali will be the same, but only in pilgrimage scenario this economy is truly important for history.
And this is why Europe can be seen as more important than Africa. Connections of european civilizations with the rest of the world are more vast, and reach further, than connections of african civilizations.
3 Likes
There are a few issues here - anything inside China will be a no no for political reasons. So no Tibet because REDACTED.
Well, it’s true that China has censorship and it’s good to be cautious, but people shouldn’t overexaggerate it.
The Chinggis Khan campaign in the AOK version from 20 years ago already featured Tanguts, Jurchens, and Song, which basically divided China into several parts. If China decides to ban the game, it would have already been banned 20 years ago, but it hasn’t. And ethnic Mongols and ethnic Koreans are also 2 ethnic groups residing in Northern China, and we have the Mongol and the Korean civs in the game without any objection from China. And I almost forgot that the Chinggis Khan campaign also featured the Uyghurs in its first mission, and China didn’t object at all.
As long as the devs don’t cross the red line (Tibetans and Uyghurs), anything else are fine to be added. Personally, I propose adding the Jurchens, the Tanguts, and Nanzhao or Lolos or Dian. The Tanguts can act as a substitute for Tibetans, as for the Uyghurs I feel that they could already be represented by Turks and Tartars, but if the devs decide to add this civ they can change its name to Karluks or Gokturks to play it safe and it would be totally fine. Nanzhao/Lolos/Dian would serve to represent the numerous tribes in Southern and Southwestern China. And Jurchens would serve to represent the Jin Dynasty as well as the numerous tribes originating from Northeastern China.
So yes, a DLC centered on China is definitely possible. Just change Uyghurs to Karluks or Gokturks and Tibetans to Tanguts, and I bet that China won’t object at all, cause these ancient names are taught in Chinese history textbooks.
4 Likes
They can really add Tibetans imo
They don’t need to mention Tibet as a separate state at all
2 Likes
Eh if you look up for the population of themajor African empires they held a larger population than a lot of present Euro civs
Yeah but if an African Empire has a big population it just means they will have less civs
3 Likes
Lets talk about that when we get those civs represented then, you will see that they are way more than what you expect.
Also I would like to know what would this mean for Indian and Chinese civs
I can happily expect 6 or so African civs but i just don’t really know the histories enough so I hope they are pretty distinguished ingame y’know?