Exactly my thought. And (c) The civ should not be a part of another empire/kingdom/caliphate during the whole AOE II time line.
Not being a part of another empire/kingdom.
We should not take religious believes to split anything in a game period its too messy.
Yes true but their rulers and founders were Arabs but you are correct that their movement began in Maghreb and their first followers were berbers. So I guess the Berber civ can be seen as a Fatimid stand in but if thatâs the case they should replace all the instances in the campaigns were the Fatimids are supposed to be represented.
Just to say there is already enough civs to allow flexibility.
Fatimids can be Berbers then Saracens once they take Cairo
Croatians can be Italians, Slavs, Bulgarians, Byzantines or Magyars.
Ayyubids can be Persians or Saracens
Etc.
1 Like
Nowadays everything is offensive. 
1 Like
Yes. How about split Chinese to Tang Song Liao Ming. Which focusing on CA, Gunpowder, more CA and more Gunpowder?
1 Like
Liao is the Khitans. One of the other dynasties is the Jurchens. No need for a split, as they are separate people groups.
4 Likes
It has been done quite well, come on guys letâs open up our minds a bit ahah itâs not weâre talking about inverting gravity⊠At least letâs consider it.
But Persians and byzantines are not Arab, thatâs the point lol!
A gothic empire in Russian inlands in the XIII century? Yeah indeed it was wrong and it was changed. So why not change other non accurate depictions? That was my point from the start but youâre replying by stating that it has been done in other places and not here⊠Well thatâs precisely why weâre talking about it ahah!
1 Like
Unfortunately they are currently all in the group of Chinese
It can be done,yes. But i simply think thereâs a better approach than that. The Yemeni, Bedouins and Kurds would be much more different from the Saracens than Egyptians, Syrians or Iraqi. And what will we do with the current Saracen civ in that case? Which one of these civs would be the successor of the Saracen civ?
Besides, civs on this game are not based on dynasties. So I wouldnât count on the Umayyads. Especially considering that during most of their existence, they only ruled Al-Andalus.
3 Likes
Again rename them to Syrians or whatever you think itâs better⊠The point is theyâre representing something we both know existed and was certainly not secondary.
Iâm quite ignorant about them but if you can fledge how their civ would work, a campaign etc why not? I know there was a kingdom in Yemen in late antiquity contended by Persians and axumites. Still this is not what Iâd define a better approach, itâs a different topic than splitting Saracens.
Thatâs up to debate but I guess the current Saracen civ is so much âin all directionsâ in its bonuses that you would probably split them to different civs, like op did, one of them more focused on navy, another on camels, another on markets, archers etc. If your fear is to lose the current Saracens donât worry, I think even something as bizarre as the mameluke should remain in game one way or another.
1 Like
Well, yeah. But you didnât mention one âArabâ civ, you just said one civ.
If you said one âArabâ civ called Saracens, none of these replies would be typed.
If we consider Syrians, didnât they have their own language called âSyriacâ or "Syriac (Mother tongue of Christ, this language name is censored)? It is from Semitic language branch. Although Iâm not sure if they still spoke in that language during middle ages.
Not sure about Yemeni. Werenât they a province of Ethiopia before merged into Islamic Caliphate?
I looked up the term on Wikipedia, and it said nothing at all about the term being offensive. Itâs just outdated. Thereâs nothing wrong with using it, and itâs actually consistent with medieval writings.
I would like to split them maybe in 3 or 4 civs
Mamluks: based on Egypt⊠it could be a KT and CA civs
Arabs: a civ with bonus to light cav and camels
Syrians: an archer civ
Of course they would need a lot of work to make them unique and balanced, this is just an idea
Also: do we want to open that box and change the old civs?
because if we change sarracens, we may as well change teuton, britons, spanish, chinese or vikings
I donât think we need to change the Saracens. The term refers to Arab Muslims during the Middle Ages, and the civilization definitely represents that.
maybe it shouldnât be splitted, maybe it should⊠but I think we have too few middle eastern civs, the same way we had only one indian civ
1 Like
Maybe we could add the Andalusians (or Moors) as a sort of split-off from the Berbers.
1 Like
Partly wrong. There were independent states in the Arab peninsula before the Muslim period or in the late middle ages, and you had major states in both Egypt and Iraq simultaneously
Not middle eastern unfortunately