Yeah, right. I’m just saying all the possible rework for Burmese.
Werent they independent in Northern Thailand until the 13th century?
Idk at least to me your argument isnt really convincing.
We can solve this problem by including the Gokturks in the Khazars, their successors.
But why? The Khazars are western Turks, and close-ish to Cumans, what we need are the eastern turks
I prefer to add Gokturks
1 Like
Because the Khazar Khaganate was the direct successor of the Gokturk Khaganate, formed after the two allied in the Third Perso-Turkic War.
I admit it’s not an elegant solution, but if we’re trying to avoid Chinese censorship and reduce the number of necessary civs, that’s the best option IMO.
I disagree about your assessment to shuffle the Mon underneath the Burmese civ.
The Mon are the “old kids on the block” in South East Asia, they indeed inspired a lot of other kingdoms they interacted with Theravada Buddhist and their script. The Burmese, Khmer and Thai all got Mons in important spots their clergy and bureaucratic.
One of the latest Mon kingdoms was in what we now call Lower Burma, and still most Mons are still living in Burma.
So if you look things up, Mon achievements are often categorized underneath Burma history. However they are quite different civilizations, with different origin. Even if the Burmese took a lot of inspiration from the Mon. Burmese is a Sino-Tibetan language, while Mon is a Austroasiatic language, more related to the Khmer.
But the Mon are still very different from the Khmer. Read here about the about the history of the Mon It is quite different from the Khmer.
I think Wareru would be a good candidate for a campaign.
Wat Phra That Hariphunchai would be a good candidate for a wonder. However the Thai extended it later on.
1 Like
A steppe based monk and siege civ or a monk/siege based civ is not yet in game
1 Like
I focused on the Myanmar history in that reply.
But yes we agree about they have great influenced the Bamars and Siamese.
The Mon kingdom in the Burmese campaign is represented by Khmers, which I guess is to avoid from fighting the same civ. Maybe it would become Siamese when Siamese get introduced.
Mons as their own civ? I can understand, but just personally would not pick them, compared with the other candidates in the region.
I think it was also because Khmer as the ingame civ most closely related to the Mon linguistically. Obviously, linguistics shouldn’t play such a huge role in how civs are sorted out, but it is taken into account more often than not…
1 Like
Gokturks are an extinct people so I doubt they would generate any problem in China, the current Uyghurs dont even speak the same language. Also, Khazars can represent the Gokturks, maybe. But not the old Uyghurs at all.
I think you just like the Khazars more?
Walter White voice You got me!
But in all seriousness, having both be the same civ is not a great solution, and they should probably be separate (especially since my concept gave them horrendous infantry for balance reasons, when that was the Gokturk specialty). Unfortunately, that would make finding a specifically Khazar campaign challenging, as I used Tong Yabghu Khagan, a Gokturk general in the Third Perso-Turkic War, and a current Tatar player name.
So what? How long did the “Sicilian Norman civilisation” last? That civ was built solely for the Hautevilles campaign.
Wut
I thought they didnt have good infantry
Nope. The Gokturks were expert hand-to-hand fighters.
I personally do but thats because a steppe cav/monk and soege civ isnt really a thing since Im not sure Teutons count as cav. I dont really go for the deep lore history but sn army of lancers and paladins flanked by full siege and monks sounds juicy
After I read you words, I just feel that all the Burmese, Khmers and Siamese can represent the Mons based on the need of the scenario, and the Burmese are the closest one among the three to the Mons since their achievements are included in the Burmese history.
But remember I do not really against the Mons to be their own civ. I just personally pick Chams, Siamese, and Nuosu (someone want to call them Dians whatever) for the Southeast Asia DLC, because I think these three are really irreplaceable.
He is a notorious heavy fan of Caucasian history, and he has ask Khazars as part of Caucasian DLC for a long time. Now you know the reason.
Cumans currently do cover the Khazars, and the Gokturks represent Khazars reasonably. Most importantly, the Gokturks won’t be banned by CCP. I pretty sure about that.
Sogdians?
1 Like
Uh, is there anywhere I can read about that?
Everywhere I read about Gokturks they mention almost cav only armies
Oh I know that he likes Khazars and that he wanted them in the game (tbh Khazars are cool and really unique), I just thought it was a bit weird to say that Gokturks should be represented by Khazars, even if they are related
Possibly. Not sure the siege focus. I see mentions of elephant use and there is proximity to the India civs though so as the full stable civ I could have a happy day there
Thats such a weird choice for a Tatar ruler tbh
Oh, just checked the Wiki and Tatars have so many Gokturk AI names, why??