Currently ethiopians in the game represent the abysinnians, that is the ahmaric and tigray people (and maybe also afar people), and therefore the kingdoms of Aksum, Zawge, Solomonic Abyssinia and maybe Shewa and Damot.
Analizing the civ from a conceptual and historical design:
- Top tier archers: Maybe because of the Maya people, but
- Pikeman upgrade free and FU halbs: Pikes, clubs and polearms were the most common weapon in ethiopia.
- Shotel warrios: Iconic weapon from ethiopia.
- Outpost and towers with more line of sight: Because they were always at defensive after aksum perhaps?
- Top tier siege, unique techs, +100 food and gold: Pure gameplay and balance based. (Cysion stated in reddit that the siege aspect was invented for giving an intresting option to the civ)
Now, nubians have always been proposed as a new civilization and Nubians fanmade civs have been made through the years. Since we’re having new civs one could say that nubians are a good choice for another african dlc, but consider that for every civ that we include there is another one we left out. This is because we’re not having infinite new civs to represent the whole world. We are at most going to reach a cap of 50 total civs (being optimistic). We should try to cover the most we can of the world with the few civs we’re going to get.
If you think about it, the way ethiopians are designed could also fit nubians very well. It wouldn’t be 100% accurate but no civ in the game is. With the arguably the best archer line in the game (along with britons) the current civ would made for a perfect nubian civ. The heavy camel rider, though lacking core techs, is there for one of the nubian aspects too. Pikes and halberds were extensively used as well, so it wouldn’t be out of place.
Historically, abysinnians and nubians has a lot in common.
- Ethiopians (meaning the burnt face ones) is a greek name originally for the nubians but comprised all black-skined people south of egypt,
- Nubian was called “lower ethiopia” for a time.
- They were both the only pre-colonial christian significant christian kingdoms of east africa.
- They were almost always (after aksum) defenders rather than attackers.
- Aksum even took over nubian lands for a while,
- The medieval region of ethiopia is placed a bit northern that the modern country of Ethiopia, comprising what is now north Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the south-east of Sudan.
I know they belong to different culture and linguistic groups (semitic and kushitic respectively), but with umbrellas like Indians, Slavs, Tatars and Malins, I think grouping these two peoples is not a gross mistake.
Now, how do we achive this? Simply by modifing a little bit the history section and some AI names. That’s it, no civ or balance changes. Just talk a little bit about Makuria, Nobadia and Alotia in the history tab and replace a few AI names with “King Silco” and some others.
This way the civ Ethiopians gets to mean “Christian kingdoms of east africa” instead of just “Aksum, Zagwe and Abysinnia”. Now instead of Nubians we could get Zimbabweans, Swahilis, Somalis or some other not already covered civ in a new african DLC.
The best part is that those who don’t care about the historical part of the game doesn’t even have to know about this change. Their archer civ is left untouched.
Thank you for coming to my AGE talk.