Launch civs were fine. Of course Western Europe is over-represented, but most fans are more interested in Western European history, and the region did have a higher density of states than elsewhere. But besides them, we have the largest states of Eastern Christendom, the Middle East, India, China, and the steppe represented.
Rus was larger than Poland, and was more culturally distinct from the existing Western civs. Why would they not include it first?
Not sure what you include in āWestern Europeā, but nations like English and Denmark were very weak compared to the empires - early on Byzantine and Persian empires, later the Ottoman Empire, Ming empire.
Shouldnāt Magyars be called Kingdom of Hungary? Turks be called the Ottoman Empire?
Chola! Was glad to see it on the other poll
I voted for Indians (besides Delhi) myself in hopes of Cholas, but the intent of that option isnāt clear, I guess. Indians in Age II are a mix of all parts of India, and with Delhi doubling down so hard on Islamic India, that poll option is meant to cover any Hindu civ which could be added (not just Cholas - no specific Indian state existed in Age II so it wouldnāt fit the poll).
I would edit the poll for clarity, but every time you edit a poll post it resets all data.
Age IV uses Mongols, Chinese, English, French, and Rus, none of which are state names. Turks in particular should just be Turks, because Ottomans only showed up toward the end of Age 4s time period.
I would rather not have Vikings and other minor European cultures, but this is a product. However, if we look at the polls, thereās a big diversity of civs at the top. Iām fine with Vikings if we get Aztecs and Mali.
It can represent both Iraqis and Egyptians because they were ruled by the same caliphs for most of the time frame. Portugal was an independent kgdom from 1139 to 1580, that already makes a huge difference.
Chola = āIndiansā (see option above), a much better, more recognizable in-game civ name, donāt you agree? India had many states in history.
This poll is comprehensively superior to the other (pinned one).
No Chola is Tamil as opposed to one of the many other people groups of India, distinct from the Hindi speaking culture people associate āIndiaā with. Itās an important distinction and people might learn something! By that logic they should have named HRE āGermansā and Rus āRussiansā and Abbasid āSaracensā etc.
I see. But Tamil had a few different important empires, like Chola or (arguably even more significant), Vijayanagara. Civs with several dynasties can be named āChineseā (as it was in AoE4) or āIndiansā as suggested here, also since itās so much more recognized and marketable.
I voted Celts but probably not called āCeltsā make them more specific like the Scots!
I rather you change Persians to Iranians; Persians are cool, and all, but there were a lot of Iranian dynasties around this era, and Persians are not as relevant, but that is just me.
Also, this allows devs to have a lot more to work with.
Byzantines, to counter French water with Greek fire OP o yes!
In colloquial English, regardless of accuracy, Persians = Iranians. Itās also what theyāre called in AoE2, which is the basis of the poll.
I agree.
Poland is a must have. Especially because of Winged Hussars.
But there are some other staples we need to see too - Japan obviously, Persia, scandanavian
Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth is a very worthy candidate imo. But either Poland or Lithuania individually seem a bit marginal?
Look at the poll (this one, not that absurd poll somehow pinned on top of the forum). Lithuania is currently 2%, but if it was Poland-Lithania itād be like 9-10%?
Persia is a major core world civ, Scandinavia is a bit uneven, similar to Rus? Japan is 90% fake hype.
I think you guys hoping for Poland and/or Lithuania need to adjust your expectations. The Commonwealth wasnāt until the very very end of this gameās time period, and the civs just arenāt that popular.
Not like the Italians aoe2, not an umbrella civ, but a specific state, kingdom or republic.
In particular, I would like the venetians, but any other state might do.
Delhi Sultanate is a state. One of several in the area +timeframe. But clearly was considered a valid convention in AoE4 for its prominence. Exactly the same situation with the Ottoman Empire isnāt it? Sequence to Seljuk Empire and an even more prominent Empire worldwide than Delhi.
Ottoman state is from 1299, expanded until mid-1600s (AoE4) and was a major power until World Wars. Ottomans existed within AoE4 longer than Delhi Sultanate did!
PS. Have you reported the pinned poll as inadequate, biased and unfair to major civs and numerous fans of the franchise?
Delhi was the center of large Indo-Islamic empires from the 1000s to the 1700s. āDelhi Sultanateā was chosen because there is no better term to encompass the entire history of Turko-Persian sultanates in north India.
āTurksā is perfect for the Turks. It lets the civ represent everything from the early Oghuz steppe peoples to Seljuks to Rum and then Ottomans. As the Ottomans weāre only a superpower to surpass the Seljuks towards the very end of the gameās time period, it makes no sense to base AoE4 Turks on them alone. I donāt get this exclusive fascination with a single part of Turkish history in a game that isnāt centered on the Ottoman period.
I think there will be DLCās for Americas civs and African civs. Would love to see Incans and Mali in there. Would love to see Japanese and Italians as well.