Delhi / India represent… Persia? (er… just want to confirm you actually mean that).
Played Age of Empires 4 game? This look like Delhi civ on game?
Don’t worry I know a good eye doctor and geography teacher. I’ll send contact.
1 Like
@Vinifrss was a person on this forums who has been suspended. You and @PuceSky44483430 joined at pretty much the same time, and both of you have been displaying key @Vinifrss mannerisms. You have both posted largely or solely on AoE4 topics about either Persia, the Turkish/Ottoman Empire, and/or the Byzantine Empire. You have a certain style of talking as well, which although not as strong as with the others, you still exhibit. It tends to include slightly to very hyperbolic or exaggerated ideas, you three are the only ones on this forum that I have ever seen with the idea of “Soft Power” for Persia. You have also liked a lot of the topics and comments by the other two. Hence, this leads me to the conclusion that all three of you are likely alt accounts of the original @Vinifrss.
3 Likes
This why only topic about Persia was deleted? Why? Something very wrong this forum.
Not totally sure what you mean by that. Are you able to explain better?
Not really anything wrong with the forum, it was more how one person behaved, and a lot of their topics got shut down, and they got suspended. Several times. Also, if you only joined 3 or 4 days ago, how would you know about all the @Vinifrss topics, especially deleted ones if you hadn’t created them or seen them yourself?
1 Like
Everybody is talking only topic Persia was deleted. No this not normal. People been here months. Embarrass Microsoft, Age of Empires. News spreading. People will come.
What would your native language be if you don’t mind me asking? You seem to be dropping a lot of words, and the grammar makes it a lot harder to understand your argument. The topics were also deleted because it was just one or two people spamming pretty much the same stuff over and over again, even if people didn’t care or argue with it.
Please stay on topic, everyone.
New updated population, cross out civ already in game:
Year 1000
Year 1500 (updated, show Mali Empire)
Year 1550-1600 (after 1501: Safavid Persia)
Maps:
Conclusion: Top 5 Civs for Age of Empires 4
Only see population, land:
(south India, Japan very cramped land)
1. Persia
2. Ottoman Empire
3. Mali Empire
4. Inca Empire
5. Byzantine Empire
.
See population, land, battle record, war invention:
1. Ottoman Empire
2. Byzantine Empire
3. Persia
4. Spain
5. Hungary
.
See population, land, battle record, war invention, culture power:
1. Ottoman Empire
2. Persia
3. Byzantine Empire
4. Indians (Chola + Vijayanagara)
5. Japan
.
(English, Mongol not even appear in pop ranking year 1000, 1500 or 1550)
1 Like
Talking about obsession. This is what, your 7th acount? Now even faking an accent?
Anyway, as this is not some sort of an attempt to represent history, rather just a game with historic context, I don’t care what civ the game is getting as long it’s a fun and diverse addition to the gameplay experience. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Ottomans or some tribe from anywhere else, as long it’s fun to play. There is no need to try to go for some ranking, or writing books why a civ deserves to be the next one as basically everything can be interesting if done right and there is no scientific standard that needs to be served.
2 Likes
At least his 3rd account.
1 Like
Yes it is. This the main point of Age of Empires.
AoE1 changed games. People learned, discover about Hittite, Phoenicians, Minoans, Babylon, most important: Persia. AoE1 gave the true real ancient history people never knew. Not usual Viking / Japan / Rome / English BS.
AoE4 walk backwards this aspect.
Good you like my “accent”. Means so much.
Look, that’s your problem. Even if you want AoE to be like that, it was never meant to be more than a sneak peek at most, using mainstream history to have a fun twist in a game. If at all, it serves as a starting point to get into history. It doesn’t even count as a serious game, let alone a reliable scientific source for history of any kind. It just picks stuff from the wealth of information out there, which the devs felt to fit to make a fun game.
And that’s fine, as it can perfectly exist in that spot without being controversial. There is no “real” history as long it’s not written by robots from space. There will always be a human error of perspective, interpretation, personal interests, bias, corruption, and so on and forth. That’s the whole reason why there are still discussions about parts of history. And therefore AoE just uses the most agreed-on and shallow stuff to have a fun experience.
So there is nothing wrong with having some civs in the game and some civs not, as it isn’t some order of importance, even if some people trying to make it that way. It’s just a selection of a huge pool of options. You can argue that there are too many euro civs and thus lack diversity in the setting, but the moment you try to argue by saying a certain civ deserves more to be included in the game because of some historic condition, you are missing entirely the point of this game. It’s not an encyclopedia, just a game with tries to be more focused on balance and fun than historic accuracy.
So, again:
Ottomans would be a fun addition because this and that could be cool ← fine, great, please more of that.
Ottomans need to be the next civ, because they were super powerful and most important and best in all ← rather write reviews for historic books.
1 Like
If all his pet civs get added, he will despise the implementations, because they will be as shallow as the rest, because this is a game.
I think a Danish / Viking empire could be a good one !!!
1 Like
Now there’s a good argument around here. Although I would swap the article a with the.
Sounds more convincing 
You seem to be quite passionate about the Persians. But let’s be logical here. It’s very unlikely that the game will include a “Persian” civilization especially since we already have the Delhi Sultanate. Let me explain:
The game tries mostly to represent empires rather than races as some posters have correctly mentioned already. “Persian” in a medieval period doesn’t represent an empire nor does it represent a series of dynasties. It rather represents a nationality and culture. The “Persians” mostly existed during the middle ages through heavy cultural, linguistic, and scholarly influence. This is represented neatly through the Delhi Sultanate. Even if by the off chance that Relic somehow decides to fill its limited slots for new and ultimately more unique civilizations with yet another Persian/Persianate empire, it will not be called “Persians”. It would be more like Samanids, Buyids, Ghaznavids, Khuwarazmids, or the like and that’s assuming they have anything unique to offer! And trust me, in a game where there are only a few civilizations that will ever be added, those civs will be at the bottom of the list.
It’s also a matter of language. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve not seen two civs with the same exact language in the same AoE game before (excluding AoE1 and AoE online of course in which every civ spoke the same generic language). Seriously, I was already surprised when I first heard the almost immaculate medieval Persian dialect spoken by the Delhi Sultanate (Persian/Farsi is my first language). So assuming they add Persians, what would they speak?!
The Delhi Sultanate doesn’t necessarily represent Persians. It doesn’t have to. Many Indians argue that they aren’t a good representation of the Indians either! However, the way I see it, Relic actually hit two birds with one stone with this civ. Adding new civs to this rather asymmetric design would be quite a challenge and if not carefully done it could even be detrimental to the game (look at Age of Mythology after the Chinese). Relic made a very good decision if so only from a business point of view. Some might complain about it, but it satisfies quite a number of both Indian and Persian fans.
2 Likes
Yeah, you clearly read my post in full!
“Chinese”, “English”, “French” not nationality? Medieval English was empire?
That’s the big atrocious idea ever. Nearly criminal, racist. Delhi is thousands of km from Isfahan, culture a million lightyear more far away.
Many people want Persia civ. It’s 4th voted in poll.
And no, clear you’re not Farsi speak.
The biggest issue with Persia as a civilization is the main time period for the game seems to be based on campaigns seems to be around 1050-1500. The vast majority of that time the only Persian culture civ was arguably Delhi. Persia itself was occupied by turks or Mongols from 1040 AD until 1501 AD which is the main period so far noted. It’s possible for a Persian civ to be added, but not sure what empire they would choose.