Fictional continent Australia is also missing with its aboriginals.
Want to do me a favor? Go Google (or Duck it like I do) ‘Oceania’ and reply back with what you learnt.
I was being sarcastic
If you want the poll to be scientific correct, you should have added. Otherwise everyone can see that it’s biased, devs included, and I don’t think they’ll ever consider a biased poll.
As for the civs that I like to see, are both Europeans and Asians. Until we get different regional skins for the units I wouldn’t like for the dev to add civ like north America ones.
It already bother me to see aztecs with iron swords, or aalians and etiopians that all unit models are white people.
Most people want non-European civs. The votes are seperated here. We would be equally happy if we got Yoruba or Tamils.
Europe! Bohemians, Poles and Saxons + maybe Serbs and Greeks…I mean, Swiss are already being added (Burgundians)
Swiss fought the burgundians they are nothing alike.
At the time of this post 44% wants more european civis.paranthan agrees too.
Parthnan is sarcastic.
This poll is objective and conclusive proof that even after this DLC, we need only European civilizations,
since it’s not like we have communities in other languages who would want their regions represented.
Also, for those of you dreaming of new “civilizations” in India, China or the Saracens, you can go on dreaming but it’s too late as they are already covered.
Despite how much I love splitting civs and even being the middle east my favourite historical region I think saracens is a good umbrella for the arabs. If we consider the civ represent the caliphates, sultanates and emirates from egypt to the whole arabian peninsula and the levant and mesopotamia… I think they are correctly designed in the game. Sure, we could split them in bedouins, mashriquis and egyptians, but the civ beign design around camels, monks and merchants (siege archers seems like a pure a gameplay decision so I’ll ignore it) is a good representation for the whole non-berber arab world.
Also many dinasties ruled over multiple territories, so abbasids would be both bedouins and mashriquis? Would umayyads be also persian? Saracens are fine as a single civ. I just wished they were called “Arabs”.
Saracen is more of a time period naming convention.
The name was specifically chosen to be an umbrella designator, by default.
The Siege Archers are because of Arab Archers being renown, and because they wanted to make the standout against the other Archer civ in AoK: the Britons.
Egypt is byzantine before the islamic conquest so pretty much covered.
How would you be splitting Chinese if it is NOT an umbrella civ in the first place?
But it is. Kithans, Jurchens, Tibetans… all major powers of the Medieval World that get swept under the “Chinese” umbrella", even if they were definitely not parts of China most of the Middle Ages.
Chinese is a distinct ethnic identity from all those you mentioned. Chinese and Tibetans can coexist together in the same game, they were never each other. But Indians and Tamils cannot, since Tamils are an Indian, similarly Poles and Slavs cannot since Poles were a Slavs.
You need to understand what an umbrella civ means, Chinese is not an umbrella civ, you cannot divide it further. You are just adding more civs to East Asia not splitting Chinese.
Depends on which China we are talking about.
All perfectly Medieval, and all different.
Yuan China was Mongol, for example.
Which China is in the game?
So now you want to split according to dynasties that came one after other?