Saracens civ have many options for division, but you chose the most reasonable one - if we consider that Andalusians and Moroccans come under the Berbers umbrella, then I would add Kurds instead of Andalusians. However, the problem with the Kurds could be even greater than with the addition of Tibetans civ.
Albanians could be represented by the Venetians civ - similarly the Finno-Ugrians by the Swedes civ.
I’m hoping this would be included in the Balkan DLC containing Croatians, Romanians and Serbs civs.
What’s the obsession with representing Albanians with Venetians? I’ve heard this a few times, and it seems completely nonsensical to me ngl…no offense.
I was thinking Saracen split for awhile, though i’d leave Andalusians as being included, Iberian Moors were quite different than the Berbers of the Saharan desert, especially since the current Berber civ has a noticable Tugareg feel especially with the unique unit.
If we compare units of the game sold in the Middle East versus China, probably not tbh. There’s a noticeable community in Turkey but beyond that I dunno.
The fact that Venice had possessions in Albania doesn’t qualify them as a good representation of the Albanians. That’s two different cultures who indeed had exchanges, but that’s it.
The question is did the Albanians have an independent kingdom in the Middle Ages?
People always start discussing the next DLC shortly after a new DLC was just released.
Empires of China
Jurchens
Khitans
Tanguts
Tibetans
Qiang (Common ancestor of Tanguts and Tibetans. As an alternative to avoid a ban.)
Central Asia
Gokturks
Sogdians
Southeast Asia
Chams
Nuosu (Nanzhao that people often mention is the name of their kingdom.)
Siamese
East Africa
Nubians
Somalis
Swahilis
West Africa
Kanuri (represent Kanem–Bornu Empire.)
Soninke (represent Ghana Empire and Sosso Empire.)
Songhai
Bantu Africa
Kongolese
Shona
New World
Chimu
Muisca
Tarascan
Along with potential updates to RoR, maybe there will be Vandals.
If Tibetans are sure to face a ban, they can use Qiang as a substitute. Qiang might even serve as an umbrella for Tibetans and Tanguts when we have to reduce the number of new civs.
In my opinion, Burmese properly incorporates the Bamars and Mons, although there are also proposals to have the Mons as its own civilization. Nuosu (or called Yi) are related with Burmese by blood, but they have interacted more with China and participated in Chinese history.
The above eight new African civs are the most ideal and optimistic predictions. However, more realistically, the Malians are likely to be used as an umbrella for the regimes that had sequentially replaced in the region (Ghana → Sosso → Mali → Songhai), and the Swahilis may be similar to Somalis because they also value Islam, trade and the navy. Eventually it’d be resulted in only Nubians, Somalis, Kanuris, Kongolese and Shona. Bantu may even be introduced as an umbrella for covering Kongolese and Shona.
If there really is another European DLC, I would rather it be a small one that only contains Slavs renamed to Rus and introduce Vlachs. If I had to choose another Balkan civilization, I would rather choose the Croats, at least they would be a rare civ that good at both the navy and hussars.
If we look at all the dlcs up to now all the civilizations added showed up in campaigns before except for bengalis I think.So some of the civis in your list might make it to the game.
Existing African Kingdoms Campaigns for the 2 best-attested civs ingame are already semi-legendary, we don’t need more of that. I’ve seen lots of suggestions for African/American DLC but nobody has been able to give any real details.
I suppose Makuria might be a reasonable suggestion, but how is any new Meso civ not going to be an Aztecs clone?
There are tons of designs on the forum for new American civs that are pretty distinct from Aztecs. In terms of design space, there’s easily as much room for another American civ or two as there is for any other civ type. Probably more, honestly. Frankly I think this objection is almost entirely a framing issue. You can say the same about how any new Steppe/CA civ would be a clone of Mongols/Tatars/Cumans/Magyars, any new European cav civ would be a clone of Franks/Slavs/Lithuanians/Poles/Burgundians, etc.
In part I agree, could never find enough detailed info for a 5 or 6 scenarii campaign if not after 1400 except for well known civs like Nubians, Ethiopians, Malians etc. Just because at one point they adopted either Islam or Christianity and so they had some accounts and links to the rest of the world’s written history. It’s very painful to me in particular that it seems impossible to find a pagan early dark age African civ or campaign based on facts and not legendary (or almost like yodit). Wanted to do something about early Tuaregs but you have barely accounts for one rpg scenario for queen Tin hinan (4th century if she really existed).
I made a campaign about Dihya (7th century) that is going to be published soon but I had to invent half or more of it to have 7 scenarii instead of 2 or 3, not that it’s a bad thing since I like to write, but I expected more history from north Africa which was fairly close to Europe… So I don’t have much hope for Africa before year 1000. After 1400 yes there’s colonialism but it’s a shame every African campaign must be set there fighting Portuguese and barely in aoe2 timeframe using mostly European or ottoman weapons…
I mean what do we know in detail (same amount of European history) about south African wars pre colonial era? About Zimbabwe and Swahili for example? From what I’ve seen you can barely assume Swahili had a land army before 1400. And it’s not a tech issue since I think Oceania and America fit the game, it’s just about factual details Vs assumptions or legends.
If I had to invent stuff for non Christian non Muslim north Africa I can’t imagine what you need to do for south Africa…
Still better to have semi legendary or early modern (rather than medieval) stuff than nothing, it’s just that I doubt Africa will ever have the same density of civs compared to Asia, Europe or even America despite being many times bigger than Europe.
As always, happy to be proven wrong with detailed battles or events before Portuguese and Turks and their proxy colonial wars lol no more hope for dark age subsaharan Africa but at least after 1000 or before Islam maybe (?)
There should be a lot more if we look at all of them.
Juchens jin genhis
Khitans kara khitai genhis
Dutch from burgundy campaign
Venice and milan in multiple campaigns
The Gokturks themselves are enough to be a civ for representing the Early Medieval Turkic peoples and the Turkic peoples in East Asia. Therefore, the Uyghurs are naturally included in who the Gokturks represent. So the answer is no but somehow it is also yes.
Ideally, we shouldn’t need Qiang as a civ. Only need Qiang when the Tibetans are sure to get banned, or when we only have one slot so the Tibetans and Tanguts have to be covered under an umbrella.