I’d be more curated: Sahel, then East Coast, then the Bantu civs, then maybe another return to Africa or 2 later on. The trick is of course to not include too many civs from Nigeria in each expansion because with so many millions you can easily reach the different groups and civilizational descendants in each one and it’s not even funny
As long as Hausa, Kanembu, Edo and Yoruba are seperated into different expansions you got your quarter billion person market
If we have to have a Saracen split (which i’m still not sold on) my thought would be make the current Saracens be upper Mashreq Arabs (Levant and Mesopotamia) and add an Arabians civ for the Arabian Peninsula itself, Egyptians, and Andalusians. Arabians would get inspiration from the Rashidun Caliphate and the very early Islamic expansion era, Egyptians from the Fatmids and Ayyubids, Andalusians from the Umaayid (since they fled to Andalusia after their collapse in Damascus) and the Saracens from the Abbasids. That way you have distinct regions that cover all of the Arab World, and also have direct coverage for all the major dynasties while not having the civs directly be the dynasties themselves. Also other than giving Saracens a new unique unit with Mamelukes going to the Egyptians, I don’t necessarily think you’d need to change that much from the Saracen civ.
I wrote what I said before I read your post, but seems like there are a fair number of similarities, and I see where you’re coming from with adding Andalusians later and doing Kurds as well. If a Spain split happens (which i’m still 95% against) then this could be an option.
What are you implying, that you are the only one that thought of having Kurds and Andalusians in the game as nobody else knows about the relevance of these historical peoples and organized entities?
But I am glad that we find agreement on something among all the ones gatekeeping and hating on this forum.
…what…? Where did you even get that from?
I’m not going to waste any more time trying to parse the misunderstanding, other than to say no, that wasn’t what I was trying to say in any way, shape, or form.
Sorry Velk but if you have not noticed I am continuously being harassed and attacked here for use of AI in polishing my posts, hence I see almost all now as an annoyance.
If you see everything here as an annoyance, then why are you still subjecting yourself to it…?
Also yes, i’ve seen the scrutiny you’re under, and given that if it was me i’d be careful to not start shit where there isn’t any, but different philosophies I guess…
Let us just wrap everything up with agreeing in the statement that Kurds and Andalusians wouls be interesting and very welcomed civ additions.
The current Saracens with their camel focus are actually much closer to the armies of the Rashidun and Muslim expansion rather than to the Abbasids, who fielded heavy cavalry in Persian style. We can keep the name “Saracens” for the Rashidun caliphate of central Arabia who started the conquests and Umayyads of Syria who continued them (that’s also the closest to what the term Saracen originally meant for Romans: northern Arabs). Just give them the Dome on the Rock as their Wonder.
Then what would we call the Levant/Mesopotamia civ? I gave them Saracens because Mashriqis is…kinda a difficult term while “Arabians” for the people from the Arabian Peninsula is easier to say.
Also i’m ok with the “Arabian peninsula” civ getting some of the Umayyad influence, but I for sure think the Andalusians should get some Umayyad influence as well, I think the Umayyads were in power in Iberia longer than they were in Damascus.
Call them Mashriqis - it is not difficult to pronounce, once you grasp it, it becomes a piece of cake. Khmer is more challenging to get right. Arabians or simply Arabs for the Arabian peninsula ethnic Arabs tribes/peoples.
Arabs called Mesopotamia Iraq even before Islam, just “Iraqis” is fine. Contrary to popular opinion, not every country in the Middle East has been made up by western colonialists.
Regarding the Umayyads – this showcases why civs should be called after ethnic or regional identities, not dynasties. Umayyads in Syria relied heavily on local Syrian Arab tribes and disciplined infantry. Umayyads in Al-Andalus relied primarily on Berber and Saqaliba light and heavy cavalry. To no one’s surprise, regions located a whole sea apart had different military traditions!
…ok, well that still only covers Iraq and not also the Levant. I’m thinking one civ that covers both Iraq and the Syria/Levant area, hence not using Iraq.
Levant can be covered either by a dedicated Syrian civ (mostly infantry as I propose in my doc) or remain as Saracens together with central Arabs (Saracens have all infantry upgrades so the Syrian infantry tradition checks out here, plus it’s how Romans called northern and central Arabs anyway)
When I see posts like this I can’t help but think 3K was a bigger good for people who don’t want reworks than for people who want reworks or even the rare people who liked 3K. Now every time anyone suggests a rework, antis can just say “this is just 3K again” no matter whether the suggestion is reasonable or not.
Regardless we can all probably agree there’s more difference between different Arabic and Saracenic cultures than there are between the different peoples of the Norse
Oh, certainly. But I see it more as “We have the absolute extreme of 3K civs which don’t fit as civs in any reasonable manner into the game, as a benchmark for how well X proposal fits into the game.”
So it sorta has a purpose, particularly when discussing what is not appropriate.
Although, to be fair, Soully has his own biases, and Turkic and Central Asian civs are kinda one where I feel he limits his reach for some inscrutable reason. In fact, his civ selection for the Turkic civs is “one Turkic civ per major Turkic language group and no more.” Which is why he hates the existence of Cumans next to Tatars.
As for the topic, mine ME DLC is Kurds, Daylamites and Nubians. Because it’s specifically Middle Eastern, and the Middle East includes Persia, Iraq, Levant, Arabian Peninsula and Egypt, as a term. If it’s more centralized around west Asia, then Kurds, Daylamites and Azeris.
If we limit it more to a Saracen split, then Andalusians, Maghrebis and Kurds, since those are all represented with the Saracens, in some way. Well, Kurds interchangeably represented by Saracens with Ayyubid Dynasty, but as Persians in Tamar 4.
If central Asia is permissible, then all bets are off, because there’s way too many Turkic, Iranian and Mongolic groups you can theoretically represent.
The five broad regional civilizations that the Saracens should most logically be “split” into would be:
Andalusians - al-Andalus and the Arabic-Islamic civilization of Iberia.
Maghrebis - the western North African sphere: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and broadly the Maghreb, with western Libya/Tripolitania fitting here as well.
Egyptians/Misris - Egypt and the Nile-centered civilization, potentially also representing Barqa/Cyrenaica in eastern Libya. Miṣr is the Arabic name for Egypt and Miṣrī means Egyptian.
Mashriqis - the eastern Arab world, principally the Levant and Iraq/Mesopotamia. Al-Mashriq literally means “the East/place of sunrise,” historically contrasting with al-Maghrib, “the West/place of sunset.”
Arabians/Arabs - the Arabian Peninsula itself, broadly representing the Hejaz, Najd, Yemen, Hadramawt, Oman and other Arabian regions.
This creates a fairly natural west-to-east progression:
Andalusians, Maghrebis, Egyptians/Misris, Mashriqis, Arabians
These shouldn’t be understood as five separate “Arab ethnicities,” but rather as broad regional civilizations of the medieval Arab and Arabic-speaking world, each large enough to function as an AoE2 civilization while being far more historically and culturally distinctive than the current catch-all Saracens.
A couple of clarifications regarding the names:
Mashriqis is indigenous Arabic terminology and provides a natural counterpart to Maghrebis. Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon fit very naturally within a Mashriqi civilization, while Iraq/Mesopotamia could also be included, although its distinctive medieval history could potentially justify separate representation. “Mashriqis” also avoids the problem of using modern national identities: Syrians would be too narrow/ambiguous, while Levantines is essentially European terminology.
As for Maghrebis, I would see them as a broader regional civilization encompassing both the Arab and Amazigh/Berber elements of the medieval Maghreb. The Almoravids, Almohads, Marinids, Hafsids, Zayyanids etc. cannot sensibly be reduced to a purely “Arab” civilization. For that reason, Maghrebis should logically replace the current Berbers, representing the wider Arab-Amazigh civilization of the medieval Maghreb rather than creating an unnecessary overlap between Berbers and Maghrebis.
The two civs I could see beyond this would be Iraqis/Mesopotamians and Yemenis. However, my proposal splits (or perhaps does not split) Saracens into Egyptians, Mashriqis, and Arabians/Arabs. Andalusians brand new civ. Maghrebis is a relabeled Berbers. Net gain is 3 new in-game civs, 4 if Saracens remain untouched.
The Saracens are the Arabs. So, a separate civ called “Arabs” can’t be added. It’s like having the Teutons and a separate civ called “Germans” when both of them are the same thing.
Kurds are a separate ethnic group from the Persians. While both of them are Iranic ethnic groups, they’re still different from each other, similar to how Arabs (Saracens) and Jews are Semitic ethnic groups, but are otherwise, still do not form the same ethnicity and are rather separate from each other as well.
This design seems like a stepp people civi.Not sure if kurds were similar to stepp people.