The Tibetans debate

You dont/cant play as the tibetans in that game they and others just appear on the map to attack you.

Yeah, this comment pretty much comprehends the entire “debate” about whether Tibetans will be added as a civ proper. Only MS can decide whether they’re afraid of the Mandarin Medved.

Either way, I’m once again going to advocate for regional unit packs. Adding some Tibetan units and buildings to the Editor would fly under the most sensitive radar and would give the fans something to work with in assembling the forbidden civ and campaign themselves.

4 Likes

You can make maps where you are the Tibetans in ROTMK.

I don’t think PRC censors will make an issue like this as long as it is clear the DLC civ refers to medieval Tibetans. If anything, they should be happy as it means that they can claim China can claim Tibet due to marriages and alliances between the two sides, etc.

I think it depends on how the Tibetans are portrayed in AoE2. I came up with a few “points” a while ago that might help to avoid problems:

  • the Tibetans only represent the Tibetan Empire (618-842)
  • the history section does not go beyond the 9th century
  • no monk UU (because of the resemblance to the Dalai Lama)
  • they would use the East Asian architecture (same architecture as the Chinese)

An East Asian DLC could mainly be advertised as a “Chinese DLC” including a Chinese campaign and 2 new civilizations (Manchu and Tibetans).

If the devs are really considering a China/Tibet DLC, they could simply create a concept first and Microsoft could ask their business partners in China in advance whether it would be okay or not. Communication is the key :wink:.

3 Likes

Well I am from China and I grow up in the PRC. I travelled many times to tibet, i bet not many people in this thread has been to tibet at all and talked about all those… I can tell you what’s the issue. No aoe2 with tibetan civ won’t get banned in China, but will spark outrage from Chinese playerbase. I tell you why.

All those things you mentioned are not an issue…the reality is dalai lama is a well respected figure and position even in modern day tibet. And travellers to tibet are also told to respect dalai lama… remember dalai lama is a position, not a person. The person who turned against the central government is the “14th dalai lama”, which is the person. All the previous 13 dalai lamas were ally, and cooperated with central chinese government.

The real issue is if you translate the civs to chinese, it will appear as tibetans vs chinese in civ selection. The chinese translation of chinese in aoe2 refers to modern chinese nationality(中国人), not ethnic chinese (汉人 han people). That would indicate Tibetans are not Chinese…modern tibetans are not ethnic Chinese/Han, but are of Chinese nationality.

So to make a tibet civ you have to rename the Chinese civ to the Han civ, which is quite awkward. However it is do-able. It is not a huge issue for politics…it is more like tibetans were not a very huge and influential civs in history on the world stage so they didn’t include it earlier.

In contrast the mongols, which is another predominant ethnic composition in China, established their own empires just like tibetans, played a huge part in chinese history, and has its own autonomous region in modern china — inner mongolia, just like tibet for tibetans. However Mongols were more influential in the world, so they have their own civ. However Tibetans stayed on their own plateau for thousands of years, only being noticed by the world in the recent century

4 Likes

Disagree about the no monk UU. But agree with your part about the hyping of the Chinese DLC angle. This would be the blockbuster DLC for sure! A new Chinese and Tibetan building set. A range of Chinese heroes and new units and techs and new buildings too.

Would the same issue come up if factions like juchens get added?

I imagine the name has to be changed for any civs in China

I don’t think so… do you mean Jurchens as Jin dynasty? That’s an empire, not a civilisation or ethnic group. If you are talking about ethnic group, they were essentially called Manchu later on, they are a near extinct ethnic group (completely assimilated by Han Chinese, after ruled China for 3 centuries… ). So you can only talk about historic people that no longer exist anymore with Jurchens

2 Likes

Yes these guys,since they are no more they would be fine to add I guess.

Technically they’re still around but I don’t think the CCP has much problem with them.

Chinese Koreans Japanese don’t have campaigns and its unlikely people will buy a dlc just with campaigns so at least one new civi which doesn’t causes issues is needed in future.even tho tibet is the fan favorite.

My view on this topic is Tibet or Bust. If there are already multiple games out there that feature Tibet and are not banned by China, and actual Chinese citizens coming on here specifically telling us how to make Tibet ok, then I see absolutely no reason to not include them here. Not only would the addition of Tibet enrich East and Central Asia, it would also expand the scope of the game with a fan favorite civ request.

Sounds like a win-win to me. Profits, and representation.

4 Likes

Even though i said it is do-able, it won’t get banned, i don’t like this idea of tibetan civ.

1 Like

And honestly, that’s fine. To each their own. My preference is that I’d prefer adding Tibet along with others like the Jurchens and the Khitans in order to somewhat level the Sino-spherical Eastern playing pool with the Euro-spherical Western playing pool. It’s better to use clearly demarcated civs (Tibet, Han Chinese, Jurchens, Khitans, Siamese, Javanese) than do what some others are suggesting and break the Chinese civ itself into regional variants. Wouldn’t the latter option get closer to the CCP’s Shit List Radar anyways?

2 Likes

One solution to this is to deliver a purposefully wrong chinese translation to the chinese market. For the whole world, the civ would be called Tibetans, but if you set the game in chinese, the civilization would be called, for example, like was suggested above, “Qiangs”.

This disguising of Tibetans as another civ, along with other measures, like being careful in the history section and having a campaingn where China is not seen as the bad guy could help the issue.

1 Like

Qiang was not tibetans. They were different. It’s like mayans and incas

Definitely a joke, but maybe the CCP would be fine so long as the Tibetans had a 0% win-rate against Chinese.

I know nothing about east asian history. I said Qiang as an example because it was suggested above. Any other name can be used.

When we talk about the Qiang people, we need to figure out the modern one and the ancient one. What we focus on here is the ancient one.

“Qiang” is an old Chinese term along the western borderlands for people in the middle, being an umbrella for a variety of successive frontier populations for thousands of year until the modern nationality Qiang were firmly identified in the 20th century. Therefor the modern Qiang people are not the Tibetans, but both of them have relationships because of the ancient Qiang people. The ancient Qiang people are said to be the progenitor of the modern Qiang, the Tibetan people as well as the Tangut people. The historical books have stated that the Tibetan Empire was founded by a branch of the Qiang. According to Professor Fei Xiaotong: “Even if the Qiang people might not be regarded as the main source of the Tibetan people, it is undoubtedly that the Qiang people played a certain role in the formation of Tibetan race”.

1 Like