Should the next DLC be: Slavs rework, Croats, Serbs, Romanians?

[KarstHillFort77]

@UpmostRook9474

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 issue is nothing suggests that the Nuosu or Yi were the ruling elite or the ethnic majority in Nanzhao.

I suggest naming this civ as the Dians to incorporate all the natives from that region, and to evade possible bans as well.

[Hzdrafxx]

Someone make a complete list.

[WindwardHail620]

@LilimTheCupid

Some possible new civilizations that have already appeared in one of the campaigns:

• Chimú (Pachacuti)
• Hausa (Sundjata)
• Nubians (Yodit)
• Siamese (Bayinnaung)
• Sinhalese (Rajendra)
• Soninke (Sundjata)
• Swahili (Francisco de Almeida)
• Uzbeks (Babur)

The Mon are in the Burmese and Khmer campaign.

[Tyranno13]

The Tanguts pop up in “Into China”.

[Mahazona]

Which one is the tanguts?

[SMUM15236]

@UpmostRook9474

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.

Yeah, I figured. Gokturks is a bigger umbrella that will include Uyghurs. So we don’t need to play tricks to evade ban. 11

@UpmostRook9474

In my opinion, Burmese properly incorporates the Bamars and Mons, although there are also proposals to have the Mons as its own civilization

Don’t leave out Manipur. Arambai and Manipur Cavalry are Manipuri things.

@Mahazona

Which one is the tanguts?

Red player.

[TungstenBoar]

I hqvent been able to find mych about the Mon military, why do you consider Burmese to represent them?

[Temudhun]

@SMUM15236

Red player.

They’re actually also the Green player, Hsi Hsia, aka the Western Xia who were a Tangut dynasty.

@SamePorpoise303

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.

I’m a big fan of medieval Africa, but I don’t think they should have the same population density as Europe even if we just limited ourselves to the current European roster. The Sahara is a lot of empty space that doesn’t need to be filled and the Bantu area have some interesting possible civs but not as much as some far smaller European regions.
I disagree on the Americas, though, I think we could find comparatively more interesting civs in Africa.

[CanineCrown7153]

@Mahazona

Khitans kara khitai

I don’t care for people wihout honor

[TungstenBoar]

You shouldnt follow a life of revenge though

[Mahazona]

@Temudhun

They’re actually also the Green player, Hsi Hsia, aka the Western Xia who were a Tangut dynasty.

So the scenario has two tibetan civis and juchens.Never noticed tibet was hiding in the original game for 25 years lol.

[FlipperPaper764]

Rework East Asian Civ, Japan, Chinese, Mongol, Korea all have very unique cultures.

[Mahazona]

@FlipperPaper764

Rework East Asian Civ, Japan, Chinese, Mongol, Korea all have very unique cultures

All are that bad that needs a rework?

[Velk413]

@UpmostRook9474

Qiang (Common ancestor of Tanguts and Tibetans. As an alternative to avoid a ban.)

Clever and multi-functional, I like it!

[UpmostRook9474]

@TungstenBoar

I hqvent been able to find mych about the Mon military, why do you consider Burmese to represent them?

The main reason is about culture. The Mon culture, script and especially Theravada Buddhist belief had a significant influence on the Bamars since the Pagan Kingdom of the Bamars from the Upper Burma conquered the Mons lived in the Lower Burma. As the majority ethnics, both the Bamars and the Mons have made up the Burmese, and they are important parts in the history of Myanmar.

In the other hand, somehow I just feel their situation are like the Anglo-Saxons. Either Britons (Normans) or Goths (Germans) represents Anglo-Saxons rather than making them a civ. Either Burmese or Siamese represents Mons rather than making them a civ. The difference from the Anglo-Saxons is, it may be hard to find much about special military and detailed records about battle for Mons, which would be even more difficult to make an own civ.

@SMUM15236

Don’t leave out Manipur. Arambai and Manipur Cavalry are Manipuri things.

Yeah. In fact every civ has to be an umbrella, big or small.
In my opinion, the Burmese civ including Bamars, Mons and Manipuris is just in a good size. If they got split, the ethnics like Bamars and Mons may be hard to be with enough content for themselves.

@WindwardHail620

The Mon are in the Burmese and Khmer campaign.

Shan in the campaigns can be Siamese.

[TungstenBoar]

Eh i feel like in the case of Anglo Saxons the Britons (English) are just their evolutiob, theres no Anglo Saxon kingdom after the conquest. In the case of the Mon they existed until the 16th century as an independent nation and fought a lot of wars with the Burmese, not to mention Burmese lwaned a lot into horsemanshio unlike the other S Asian civs and Mons were kinda the least cavalry leaning nation there

Either way yeah the Mon influenced a lot Thailand and Burma

[SMUM15236]

@UpmostRook9474

the Burmese civ including Bamars, Mons and Manipuris is just in a good size. If they got split, the ethnics like Bamars and Mons may be hard to be with enough content for themselves.

I think only Manipurs can be split then. Arambai and Manipur Cavalry moved to them. Burmese could get a new UU and UT along with the long requested EA.

[Temudhun]

Tibetans and Tanguts are different peoples, actually…

[UpmostRook9474]

@TungstenBoar

Eh i feel like in the case of Anglo Saxons the Britons (English) are just their evolutiob, theres no Anglo Saxon kingdom after the conquest. In the case of the Mon they existed until the 16th century as an independent nation and fought a lot of wars with the Burmese, not to mention Burmese lwaned a lot into horsemanshio unlike the other S Asian civs and Mons were kinda the least cavalry leaning nation there

Yeah I said “somehow” since I do know there are still many differences.

The first Mon kingdom was destroyed by the Pagan Kingdom. it was not until the collapse of Pagan that they established their kingdom again… as one of the four kingdoms that succeeded Pagan, and then destroyed again by the Toungoo Empire. I would say they are Burmese, like the Bamars are Burmese too, and who they had fought are Bamars rather than entire Burmese.

Perhaps we can consider that the Burmese infantry bonus is based on Mons. I don’t know.

@SMUM15236

I think only Manipurs can be split then. Arambai and Manipur Cavalry moved to them. Burmese could get a new UU and UT along with the long requested EA.

The Burmese can get EA without split, to be honestly.

[DynasticPlanet5]

Why not call them Tufan? Thats different word than Tibet if you think people will fall on fainting couches over the word Tibet