Tbh Seljuks and Ottomans were diferent peoples, I just dont feel like they are worth separatimg
2 Likes
That’s exactly what I am saying. “Turks” is just too generic a term and the in game civ should be renamed to Ottomans and other Turk civilisations added, such as Seljuks.
I had the same idea too but what geographical area is left to add with north?
I personally don’t want that devs add “North Asia” such as Inuit or something like another Turkic branch. I’d rather just expect “North” something for the Jurchens, Tanguts, or some such ignored ones. They’re not North Asians but at least contributed to relatively northern states. 
2 Likes
Thinking again, not much left to cover with “north.” The only region I can think of is West Asia, or China since they had lots of factions during medieval time. But personally I hope for no China.
1 Like
Yes, the Chinese civ can be split. I do also follow this suggestion, because it makes the most sense now to go further east after the Indians and to continue the modification with the Sino-tibetan peoples. After the East asian division the developer can start dividing the Native indian peoples. A very good topic proposal has already been made for the Incas.
Afterwards you can find a small economic reference to the divided Sino-tibetan peoples.
-
The previous Chinese would be called North or High Chinese.
Economic peculiarities:
Dominance of wheat and millet in cultivation of the Farmers. Use of horses and pigs as livestock. -
New: South Chinese.
Economic peculiarities:
Dominance of Rice in cultivation of the Farmers. Use cattle and water buffalo as livestock. -
New: Tibet
Economic peculiarities:
Domniance of barley and potato in cultivation of the Farmers. Use sheep and wild yak as livestock.
Also in linguistically view, the Northern chinese, the Southern chinese and the Tibetans have made done a seperate development since hundreds and tousend of years in the history.
Below you will find 2 images from the political order at the beginning of the Dark age era in the Chinese country.
If someone can make their own topic about this, that would be great.
This just indicates that more DLC civs is likely to happen. I see no reason why they should stop at 45 if people would want more. There’s probably design space for a few more. Some of the “Age of” civ boni like the Palmyran super villagers or the multiple drop-off sites from Mythology haven’t been done yet.
Especially considering they formulated “latest” DLC for Dynasties of India.
Tbh with how weird this would be as well as how this may get the game banned on China I doubt it will e er happen. Either way, as I see it rn, if the Han Chinese were to be divided the current civ would represent Southern China qnd based on the Song (I imagine they should be called Cantonese since thats a recognizable name) and the northern civ would be a siege and gunpowder civ based on the Ming (and maybe called Pekinese since thats prob the best known name from northern China too and Kaifeng aka Beijing/Pekin was the most important city of the north)
Britons and Celts. The DLC has strayed so far from the original concept of the game (tribes present at the time of the fall of Rome) that they should update the original civs and medievalise the ones named after barbarian tribes. Britons and Celts can be reworked/split into English, Welsh, Scots and Irish. I know some people complain there’s too much focus on Europe, but Medieval British history is one of the most popular periods of history and there’s lots of room for new content. Wars of the Roses, Hundred Years’ War (from the English perspective, especially the Battle of Crecy), Alfred the Great (especially because The Last Kingdom is popular at the moment), the Anarchy, Macbeth, Peasants’ Revolt, First Barons’ War. You could even make campaigns based on King Arthur and Robin Hood for something fun.
1 Like
These civs arent worth adding (you already have English and Scots). Even in Europe you already have better options than adding Welsh and Irish. These guys are mostly irrelevant for your campaign proposals too
1 Like
That’s your opinion. Plenty of people would disagree. There’s a bunch of civs in the game that are fairly ignored in popular history but were added because some people like them. I would have thought adding civs that are more popular to English-speaking audiences are more likely to sell well (but I have no stats to prove that).
Neither Irish nor Welsh are remotely close to being one of the most popular. Venetians, Moors and Romanians would be more popular among English audiences I reckon.
And those civs were added because they had powerful states unlike the Welsh or Irish
1 Like
Well I am English but OK.
I mean, you are you. Im talking about what I have seen
1 Like
This would be a fun tech to have in a do or die situation.Can call it something like scorched earth.
i don’t think any more civs can be split
Slavs have been split many times already, there’s nothing else to do.
Teutons and Saracens can’t really be split anyway lol
Also why do people want to split Chinese? What would they add, the Tang and Ming Dynasties? Makes no sense.
NONONONONONO.
Splitting the Hans is not only pointless, it is even riskier than introducing the Tibetans.
The Warring States Period is a matter of BC, so there is no need to consider about it.
The Northern Wei was established after the Xianbei people, whose descendants are Khitans, conquered northern China. There are many examples of this kind of division between the North and the South due to foreign invasions or rebellions in Chinese history, the most famous of which is the Song Dynasty. If you think the Chinese deserve to be split because you see the picture, then you should introduce other non-Han peoples (e.g. Jurchens, Khitans…), instead of dividing the Han people into two civs.
2 Likes
The division of the Chinese as an Umbrella civ is very well appropriate. The Southern chinese are initially seen not Han or High chinese as you describe anyway, not even linguistically speaking.
Introducing Tibetans however would be more risky than dividing the Chinese, since they did not play a significant role in world politics at that time, in contrast to the everpresent Chinese in the Middleage.
This picture depicts the political order in Northern china a few centuries Before Christ, i wanted to write it like that.
No no, Northern china differs significantly from Southern china, as in the view of culturally and linguistically, therefore is a division of this large people is definitely appropriate, as the developers recently did with the peoples of the Indian subcontinent.
If you insert such insignificant civs, as the ones which you mention, then you could add another hundred civs, that are not yet in the game, if you look at the whole world. The division of the Chinese however makes much more sense, because the Chinese are worldwide best known to many people as a rainbow civ.
No. There’s no need to divide the Chinese. Cultural differences don’t matter in this game anyway.
This is a game about war, so civs will be added based on their military and political successes. The only times the Southern Han Chinese had independent states was when the whole country was divided or the nomads conquered the north. That’s not enough reason for separating them from a civ they already fit nicely in.
Also, why do you think the Jurchen are insignificant? To me they seem more important and different than southern China.
1 Like
Wrong, Slavs can become always divided more. We do not have still South slavic civs like the Serbs or Croats in the Game.
Also wrong. Teutons can be split in the civ of Holy Roman empire of the German nation and in the civ of Teutonic order, both existed at the time of the Middle ages as separate states with their own military units.
1 Like