No, they really should not, and i do not want 8 Indian civs either. Not enough design space.
Would much rather get 3 more Africans and 2 more Indians, but 5 more Nat-Ams too.
1 Like
How can someone persist in error so much?
1 Like
No need of 5 more Nat am civs. Simply because they were not at all maor civilizations back then.
Iroquios was never a major civilization in terms of
Population (only 12,000!), Net GDP,(not even on the scale) Political system(mainly tribal), Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Agrarian output, and Population distribution
So I would replace Iroquois with Bengalis the or any other Indian civilization each numbered more than 10 million people, existed from Before Christ, who are by far the most populous of all the Indian civs, and whose armies were in the millions.
Bengalis(Palas) were 40 million strong with 10% of world GDP alone (similar to Dravidians)
3 more Africans and 2 more Indians is all we need. Although even that will not be enough to cover the vast richness of African old world and Indian old world
Palas, Dravidians (more general term than Tamils), Oriya, Swahili, Kongolese, Zimbabweans at the very least should be added
even if we take your idea on this Indian civs you listed only account for 2 of the top 10 spots, so why should we focus on India first? you have repeatedly claimed to speak for the community.
the community disagrees with you about India first.
All I can say is: as a hard Right-winger, I have never seen such a racist as Parthnan is being in this thread.
1 Like
What is this? I am just stating the fact that before 1500, the North American (not meso american) peoples were not organized in civilizational heirarchies.
Or ever had the level of technology or population compared to even any peoles of the Feudal old world. Let alone the Middle Age old world
These are just the facts, if you do not like them, I cannot help you. Facts cannot be racist.
1 Like
you continue to prove why no one should trust you.
you claim here 3 africa and 2 Indians.
and then here
you list 3 Indians (Palas, Dravidians, and Oriya) and 2 African (Swahili and Kongolese).
you continue to prove to try to sway people with misinformation!
by the way, still waiting for you to tell me why i should believe you would be happy with Battle Elephants with no bonuses!
1 Like
may i kindly disagree with you by saying that you must think of all aspects
what language would they speak?
if we had a chola campaign, it would be hard to play as a dravidan civ instead of tamils
dravidians in themselves were also diverse, so you would have to stray away from the chola army composition,
lastly Tamil achieved much more greatness than the other civs (no offense) so if you have to choose i think you would know which one
Fine you can have it as Tamils then, no problems here
First we have to deal with those who say minor new world civilization should be added before major old world civilizations
That too in a game focusedy on the Middle Agesā¦
yeah because we donāt have plenty of battles and events that took place in the 1500s.
yes, which leaves us wide open to explore options with some native civs.
and before you claim that they didnāt meet anyone in the old world, the Incan campaign is literally just new world conflict, no old world civs included.
oh and again, iāll point out your dishonesty.
you claim 3 africans and 2 indians and then list 2 africans and 3 indians.
nice bait and swap, care to revise it so you can at least appear honest?
1 Like
What is that movie never even heard of it.
I care about real History, not fictional things
Which is why I choose to deal with those who say minor
(=low population, no large hierarchical system AND no medieval technologies)
new world civilization should be added before major old world civilizations.
That too in a game focused on the Middle Ages(5th to 15th century)ā¦
The only thing in this entire game thatās not completely in Middle Age territory is the Cortez campaign IIRC.
Even that is 1515 AD which is just 15 years away from Middle Age territory.
No, you really do not.
1 Like
This is not leading to a healthy discussion. By using the word āYouā so many times, their is certainly just a blame game being played here by MacCauthon3. All of those comments are just pointed at one person and are derogatory in nature.
@anon63664082 If you are not biased, take some action or give some warning. I donāt want to see the deteriorating of the standard of discussion again leading to the locking of this discussion again.
2 Likes
Sinhalese are as Indian as Indians, not only culturally but also genetically.
3 Likes
Yes they are totally Indo-Aryan with Dravidian minority
1 Like
oh, must have had some misinformation,
i thought that they had a cultural split since they were on the island
still im not sure which architecture suits them best
indian, or SE asian
1 Like
Well thatās a difficult choice since they have concrete slanted roofs, their older architectures do look like from the subcontinent after all they are the same people, but they are also Buddhist but they donāt have those large stone faces like in Khmer Architecture. @Mahazona should tell us the right decision. 
1 Like
Hereās a sinhala wonder made by AbeJin shared by Mahazona here: https://aok.heavengames.com/blacksmith/showfile.php?fileid=13543
It is for the conquerors version.
By itās looks it looks similar to Vietnamese Wonder and doesnāt seem to fit either Indian or South-East Asian Architecture. Sinhalese are something very unique. I think this is what led to you thinking that they are not very Indian.
2 Likes