But so was China. I would accept an Indian overhaul, but we are far from done in Europe.
Africans were unable to invent a wheel on their own, they needed help from elsewhere. Arquebus and cannons in African civs are ridiculous (except for northern africa, back then under the influence of Islamic Empires). I also strongly disagree with the Ethiopian siege and their torsion engines and would instead make them more viable as archer/infantry/camel civ, but whatever…balance. The only ones really viable for Aoe 2 were Kongo, Zimbabwe and Benin. It might be even insulting to compare those civs to european/asian standards.
Aztecs/Mayans/Incas were not advanced as well - and they lack all the entire stable and gunpowder technologies accordingly. But adding those civs was necessary for the overall great idea of “conquering the new world” as a part of the expansion pack.
Wheel was in Africa before 0BC.
Kanembu Empire, Kilwa, Kikongo and Somalis had arquebus and gunpowder - Somalis were considered one of the strongest gunpowder empire
The only viable civs are: Kongolese, Swahili, Zimbabweans, Somalis, Nubians, Mossi, Hausa, Yoruba, Songhai and Kanembu.
You should probably check out the history again. Geledi (late 17th century!) based in Somalia had some gunpowder, but that’s about it.
And considering them “one of the strongest gunpowder empires” is basically “africa - washing” of “politically correct” but absolutely incorrect history. Ottomans, Indians (Mughal) and Safavid Empires → maybe even Chinese, Japanese (due to Portuguese intervention) and Russia + Portuguese and Spanish were the “gunpowder” kingdoms.
During the Ethiopian-Adal war Somalis used Muskets, Cannons and Arquebus. You should read history, not me. Somalis also destroyed the famous Portuguese Navy, they are worthy as a civ, more than a 20th European civ.
yeah, supplied by Ottoman empire, while Ethiopian muskets were suplied by Portuguese. (And the total amount of muskets of both sides combined did not even total 1000). Chinese basically lack gunpowder in the game even though they invented it and used much more prominently.
India is more comparable with Europe when it comes to the diversity and and size of people groups than China where there is one huge Chinese ethnic group in the center of East Asia. Search for a ethnic map of India, Europe and China and you will see what I mean.
Indians need ~15 civs to be covered on the same level of detail as Europe is in the game.
in that case, let’s make “Age of empires: India” and see how popular it is. It might be a great move for the Indian players…but i would not see many interested. Europe is another story;)
This does not represent the actual level of technological advancement. This is not a map from historical studies book, but a game map. In Paradox games, Albanians and Romanians are called Slavs…
Of course, instead of adding civilizations from around the world, let the creators only add Indian civs, which apart from the language were very similar to each other.
If you only want India, create a game about India yourself. Age of Indian.
For the Indian subcontinent, two civas are enough - Bengalis and Vijayanagaras.
The present-day Indians represent northern India that was under Islamic influence. Adding Vijayanagaras we would have a civ representing independent Indians.
America (both), Eastern Europe, and Africa are more important.
I also have searched for quite some time for differences of Indian cultures…they were so negligent i don’t even see the point of saying that the people were different. Nah, they looked more or less the same, with very similar architecture, clothing and values - with the only remotely different things being the languages and maybe religion and politics to some extent.
Whereas europeans? darker in the south, Pale & blonde/blue eyed in the north, Gingerish in the northwest, Pale & mix haired in the east (slavs), with some mongol-ish traits in some people. And that’s just comparing the different physical features, not to mention clothings, architecture, weaponry etc. Indians - all of the subcultures i checked, looked and dressed much more similar (or i am just blind, whatever.) And Yeah, Bengalis were probably the most “distinct” from the rest of the Indian tribes, most likely due to their eastern-asian influences.
Perhaps, since you are the expert, you could prove otherwise (and i’d love to see the differences!) The thing is → muslim women did not wear hijabs/burkas that prominently like nowadays. This brings us back to the only remotely different sutff i noticed: religion.
Rajput,
Chola,
Chalukya architectures…which is which? And where are the differences?
Similar thing goes to art…i just couldn’t find the noticeable differences
