Well you responded to my post 
You know what? Iāve had enough of your harassment. You treat everyone like garbage. I will not stand for this, so Iām going to report you.
Maybe Iām overthinking this, but I find the use of the word should in the title weird. Weāre talking about the content of a computer game, with no consideration even of functionality or balance ā thereās no should about it.
This is the only part of the suggestion Iām potentially interested in, and even then, with strong emphasis on potentially. Iām a big fan of Koreans, but over the years they have been rather watered down to fit better with the gameās balance. A rework that revived more of their original identity without leaving them more unbalanced could be interesting.
Two Iberian civs and at least three partially Iberian civs: Goths, Berbers, Saracens. Arguably Romans and Byzantines as well.
Sure, but itās also a geographical and cultural concept, both of which predate the politcal concept. For example, the words Spain and Spanish (in English) were used in the geographical and cultural contexts at least as early as the 13th century. I guess the Spanish terms would have been used in that sense earlier, and the Romans had referred to the region as Hispania (i.e. Spain) as early as the 3rd century BC. AoE2 civs donāt typically represent a single political state, and insisting on splitting Spanish into specific kingdoms doesnāt match the gameās usual approach to civilisations.
5 Likes
This looks interesting. Do you have any sources I can read?
1 Like
I personally like that, but Iāll concede that maybe some nods to medieval elements could be cool.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Could be, but I think the devs already deciding on not adding more civs there could be the reason why they went with a more general umbrella.
Was there any two realms that were distinct and relevant enough to warrant this?
Best I can see is Swiss or Swabians (with the former maybe included in the latter).
More of a rework into strictly Ruthenians and maybe adding some that were previously represented by them like Moravians (if we donāt want them to be represented by Bohemians or Poles).
Civs donāt represent states. They represent civs. Crazy, I know.
Excuse me? I try to be friendly to people, but Iām not going to tolerate nonsense either. If they treat me or others a certain way, I try to be kind at first, but if that doesnāt work, I have to be a little more blunt.
In short, if I treat certain people with less than respect, they deserve it. You basically proved that I have to. Iām not going to be a pushover here.
1 Like
I tend to think the developers thought doing a good action when splitting the Indians, and they in fact opened a can of worms
2 Likes
WI they split Chinese into different dynasties as Civs: Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming?
Andalusians is the only split Saracens could receive.(had different military structure than of Berbers and Arabs(Saracens)) Not sure about Chinese since they were Monolith historically.
2 Likes
Yes: Liao, Jin, Xixia and the rest. They donāt need to add the Yuan because theyāre already in the game.
Not really. Between the fall of the Tang dynasty and the conquest by the mongols they were divided between different ethnicities that ruled over different regions, with variant degrees of sinicization (i.e. adoption of Han culture), and each had their own military and social structures.
China has history of being divided and then reuniting multiple times. West China is a different story but East China where majority Chinese lives has followed same trend. I do know last time Mongol conquest was what brought them togetherā¦
Politically, yes. Culturally, it has been homogeneous for most of its history; with the aforementioned exception as well as the manchu conquest in the XVII century (which was virtually non-existent by the fall of the Qing dynasty).
Not in English, but in Spanish (well, Old Castillian to be more accurate) you can see Estoria de EspaƱa, commissioned by Alfonso X of Castille (Estoria de EspaƱa - Wikipedia). Itās actually a very important book for the Spanish language in general. Remember that the first standard of the Spanish language was created during the reign of Alfonso X.
And thatās just an immediate example that came to my mind without thinking too much. You can find many others in Medieval literature or documents.
2 Likes
Oh, I just looked up Spain and Spanish in the Oxford English Dictionary and had a look at the usage examples. The earliest examples they have for both words are from Layamonās Brut but I donāt really understand the quotes. There are some more comprehensible ones from a bit later ā but still predating the Kingdom of Spain ā that mention things like Spanish songs, vessels, navy, and wool.
I donāt have any specialist knowledge here ā it was just an easy way to confirm that the concepts of Spain and of being Spanish predate the Kingdom of Spain.
2 Likes
No, as thatās not how civs are defined. They are on cultural and ethnic grounds, not empires. So it would be more like:
- Chinese
- Jurchens
- Tanguts
- Khitans
6 Likes
Yes for Saracens who cover too much (though pick names of peoples, not of ruling dynasties), but not for Spanish (no need to differenciate between Leon Castile Aragon) or Chinese, with a caveat.
Do not touch the Chinese civ except perhabs some regional flavour (regional unit, for example the nest of bees), but add civs on the periphery like the Jurchens and Tibetans. The Chinese represent the Han core of China, who reformed several times under different dynasties, so they should remain one civ.
3 Likes
Maybe, but where exactly do you draw the line? I think the yemeni are detached enough to be their own civ, but what about the other regions? Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Arabia all have their own flavor of arab culture, but were they really all that different in the Middle Ages? Iām not exactly an expert in islamic history but every time I try to look this up theyāre all being referenced as essentially the same people.
3 Likes