What do you have in mind when you say that? Care to elaborate?
I already explained that of the 6 civs I mentioned before, only Kongo and Shona would have important participation from Europeans and perhaps Somalis (but they would be 1-2 scenarios at most and as minor enemies).
Right. But as I said, African civs can only have access to gunpowder units (like many other civs in the game), and there is no need for any type of bonus beyond that. This is up to the concept creator.
Friend, I think you’re just reflecting your ignorance (not a problem in itself, nobody knows everything). It is true that many civs adopted foreign religions*, but it is not as if their entire identity (cultural, political, linguistic, etc.) changed from water to wine from then on, as you yourself have noticed. As a rule, the majority of the people continued with their traditional religion, sometimes syncretizing it consciously or not into the foreign religion and this did not only happen in Africa. For example, of the 6 civs suggested (Kanembu, Nubians, Somalis, Shona, Kongo and Benin/Yoruba), only Nubians and Somalis appear to have deeply adopted the foreign religion. Kongo and Kanembu only had their elites fully adopting the foreign religions (Mali and other Sahel kingdoms also fit into this situation) and Benin, Yoruba and Shona remained “pagan” throughout the game timeframe. I don’t see normalization here.
*Both Christianity and Islam have Semitic origins, so if they should be considered foreign to Kongo or Ethiopia and Mali or Kanem-Bornu, they should also be considered foreign to France, Italy and Russia, following the same logic. It is not as if people from various regions do not adapt an outside religion to their customs and traditions, often reformulating it (you also know about the Almohads, don’t you?).
And I think you’re a little late to the party, because Europe only colonized Africa from the 19th century onwards, with only the Portuguese trying to impose their rule in certain coastal regions earlier. In fact, Europeans were unable to go beyond the coast until certain innovations (to steam engines, medicine and firearms, for example) allowed them to do so, but that was long after the game timeframe.
OK I understand. I do not expect nor will I force anyone to be interested and especially to know about Africa; everyone has their own preferences. But if you propose to voluntarily create a campaign and think that the accessible resources are insufficient, in my view you have three options: (1) give up; (2) research beyond the superficial; or (3) be content with doing it with what you have at hand. No one will judge you for any decision you make, as it is voluntary. Of course, I think it would be a very different situation for devs, who could invest more resources than guys like us.
I also don’t agree with some users derailing other people’s threads with their dissatisfaction. But I’m not a moderator nor will I play the speech police. I’ve done this here before, but I decided not to do it anymore.
Nobody likes to be forced into anything, we’ve already established that, right? But I ask, given the situation in the real world, how else would we see this representation in the case of African kingdoms? The first thing people imagine when they think of Africa is poverty and “tribal” wars or maybe cultural aspects like music, food, art etc (which it’s cool but) no one really imagines epic wars with thousands of soldiers in the savannas of the Sahel or rich and powerful monarchs in the mountains of Ethiopia. But both happened in the past. So I think that inclusion in a game with historical flavor is honestly one of the coolest and simplest ways to (re)present part of the history of these peoples (and thus of the world) without seeming forced like some Hollywood movies full of silly catchphrases or controversial racial/ethnic changes, for example.
In other words, I understand your frustration, but I also understand my colleagues’ desire here to see more of places that have something to offer, but which do not gain notoriety in the media.
Knowing the difficulty, I made it my mission to gather as much information as I can and share here (preferably in a single thread) what I found. Maybe I’ll never see these kingdoms in aoe2, maybe I’ll make a game myself, I don’t know. But I know I do it for pleasure. I have no political agenda, nor am I some kind of SJW. I’m just a guy who really wants to translate my excitement into words and drawings, like everyone else on this forum.
I remember there was some stuff about Mayans in 6th, 7th, 8th century. Not that much and again lot of inferences but enough to get a campaign (lady six skies is often cited) which is not set in the 16th century again.
Cool then, indeed those 6 are the names coming up the most. Let’s just see if they add them. And good news for the colonisation thing, as I said to me the more the better.
Indeed that’s why I like late antiquity where you can see this fight between local cults and monotheistic religions before the latter completely suppress them. I find those tragic times of violent changes in the European regions you mentioned, like a form of colonisation yes.
I did something of 2 and 3 and campaign is almost ready. I’m happy with it, even if it’s only north Africa I think it’s the first proper custom campaign set entirely in Africa (yeah I know the leftovers campaign of philtydelphia from AK).
So despite big talking here about Africa and me being the moderate one I’m actually the only one who did something concrete about that lol.
Nothing further away from me. I just say something once someone is denying others freedom to do what they’re doing. I think without freedom of speech you can’t have equality so I couldn’t be further removed from speech police and that boring crap. I actually fight this kind of “police” lol.
I’m not sure about that. There are people who don’t like to be free or others to be free and prefer to follow either a schedule or a moral code or a leader etc. They can do that of course but I can avoid it as well.
In the end changes happen when people are ready to embrace them. If that doesn’t happen there’s only so much we can do. For example making civ theorycraft, African threads, mods, campaigns etc.
But after all is said and done real power lies in Microsoft decision to make or not a dlc based on your suggestions and that’s out of my scope so it’s totally useless to keep repeating the same stuff over and over among ourselves unless you propose something (which at least it’s funny) but it seems we agree that fighting with each others because Devs added Burgundians instead of Somalis is not really taking us anywhere.
I’m happy with any civ coming out of the hat personally but if I had to select the ones I prefer… Well you already know what I like.
But again anyone has their own wishlist so… In my life I had to cope with scarcity and that’s where creativity comes from.
If the market doesn’t give what you want don’t stay here waiting for it but DIY, that’s my advise. The world we live in is just getting too accustomed to always having food ready on the table because companies are desperate to sell everything they can.
But you can do something, you’re not only a passive consumer bashing others because they don’t respect the queue you established because of “equality”.
Jump the queue and do your own thing! Nobody will ever give you what you have in mind.
Croats/Serbs can work under Slavic but Romanians differs from Bulgarians and Slavs, since they are not Slavic; Roman conquered Dacian people, with Slavic and maybe late Ottoman / Tatar influences but we can aggree they are rich at this cultural level, unique at many reasons, can be treated as a seperate civ.