France was always a mixture of royal France and imperial France, it has plenty of techs referring to napoleon and the coalition war. no one seriously looks at that faction and can honestly say napoleon seems tagged on, he’s just as legitimate a choice as any king and is simply far more important.
you don’t understand what the word nation means, germans where absolutely a nation, they just weren’t a state. state=/=nation, nation is a cultural, and often ethnical, bond shared between people, it does not refer to borders on a map.
people could just as well use that argument against pretty much any civ, including esp moroccans (sorrounded by portugal, spain and the ottomans) and Poles (litterally carved up by the germans and russians). it needs more baking time or actually some arguments rather than just saying “but they would be boring” or “there are other more important civs in their area”.
What’s the point of laying out strict rules like this when there are clear examples of civs that don’t follow them. These rules were never stated anywhere and it’s clear from things like mexico and malta that the devs don’t follow them so why should we temper our expectations and theorycrafting against this standard you made up?
There is quote from someone I don’t remember that says:
“And the more severe it is, the more creative it is”
It tells that teachers should put smart limitations on students when they are asked to create something, such as writing a text or drawing a picture, because it is those severe limitations that drive and power creativity.
That’s a perfectly valid standpoint but you can advocate for what you think is the best without trying to invalidate what other people are wanting from the game.
I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment, you want things to feel cohesive. But I think that’s something the devs need to figure out for themselves. Saying “things should be cohesive with what already exists” is fine. But making a list of things for everyone else to abide by seems a bit unreasonable if you’re not the author.
I’m fine with anything as long the new factions have a cool gimmick.
why the US don’t have a confederate revolution and slavery mechanic? yeah video games aren’t historical correct who would have guessed?
I agree it might sounds like it. But people have their right to ignore my post. I’m not forcing anyone and I’m not writing in the name of an expert. I have no qualifications for that. I am only bringing what I think is fair to contribute to the creative process that is of suggesting new civilizations, which is something that I really value and recognize from this community, in any shape it takes.
Not being devs or historian consultants kind of makes us powerless, so we can only express ourselves with dreams, some dream of Gran Columbia or Danmark, while others may dream of not having those instead.
Screw you, give me a full Hmong civ and give them laser blasters.
Kinda. By the 1600s, the Lakota and company were an expansionist burgeoning power within the Great Lakes area, they just didn’t go full brony yet. The French were…not happy about this at all, and only really stopped grumbling when native tribes like the Huron/Wyandot spooked by the Seven Council Fires (and more immediately the Hauds) started vassalizing themselves to Paris and converting in small numbers to Catholicism, at least on paper.
The 1920s, in fact, if we consider one of the Japanese Monastery technologies.
Yep. The Inca in-game have no guns. The Inca in-game have no horses. The Spanish mention Quechua insurgents resisting the conquest learning very rapidly how to use both.
To add to this, Hawaiians were the only Polynesians with both organized armies and pitched field battle doctrine before the white man showed up (Tahitians fought European-style field battles but had very small armies, while the Maori were quite organized despite small numbers but rarely if ever fought pitched field battles). Aarmies were often much smaller than this, obviously, but the general term for a host, Pū’ali, was very clearly separate from the term for a the native Hawaiian notion of a brigade, 4000 men, called the Mano. I suspect Oahu and Maui alone could each field in excess of 16K trained fighting men, or koa, when Captain Cook landed, far outstripping the forces of any North American indigenous people.
They absolutely belong in the game.
Oh South Sudan works, alright. You’d just need to rename it “Nilotes”, a civ that would be made up of primarily Shilluk, Dinka, Masaai, and Nuer components. This allows you to get some really fun age up alliance options, probably some INSANE Livestock Market tricks too! Also, all your units would be taller than all the other civs’ units. And run a bit faster too, I’d wager.
My guy, that’s just the 6 Redcoats shipment the Chinese already get!
Okay, so the Hawaiians were actually fairly relevant for much of the game’s timeframe:
First of the Polynesian peoples to contact Europeans, and contacted many European powers quickly via the Spaniards, British, and Russians.
First ########## non-European nation to recieve extensive recognition of sovereignty from European colonial powers. To this day, Hawaiians pride themselves on being the first of the “brown” countries to sit at the table of global nations.
Maui was the center of the global whaling industry for many many decades, and the islands at large were massive exporters of fruit, sugar, canned goods, and tropical hardwoods whilst the Islands were still an independent country.
Iolani Palace was fitted with modern plumbing and electricity before the White House, plus Native Hawaiians were often educated, multi-lingual, and literate, with early adoption of newspapers in the Hawaiian language.
Hawaii was centralized enough and modernized enough to consciously begin and carry out a cultural renaissance during the waning decades of the Kingdom’s existence, with King David actively pushing for many of the things westerners see as “Hawaiian” as cultural exports abroad to give the pre-contact culture a facelift and new level of prestige.
There were actually talks between the Japanese and Hawaiian governments about formalizing a mutual defense pact via a royal marriage, but it never happened.
Hawaii is one of the only Polynesian places that recieved extensive immigration from places outside of their eventual colonial overlord’s domains. Portuguese, Americans, British, French, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Samoans, Tahitians, Tongans, and many more all arrived within the game’s timeframe.
Hawaiian sailors and soldiers were present for many of the world’s foremost naval and land conflicts at this time as volunteers and mercenaries. If Mark Twain is to be believed, somebody recruited a regiment of Hawaiian Zouaves for the American civil war. Yeah, that fits nicely in the game. Give a hypothetical Hawaiian civ the Hire 9 Zouaves card.
And that’s just what they did before annexation!
Absolutely a valid civilization, especially since the very wide-ranging Fulani people are included within their umbrella. They are fronted by the Sokoto Caliphate of course, but the civ is supposed to represent, really, the Islamic Sahel at large from the fall of the Songhai Empire all the way on down to the Scramble for Africa.
Shona and Kongolese over Zulu if we are getting Bantu civs. I feel like Yoruba, Akan, Amazigh (NOT MOROCCANS), and Nilotes should be the rest of the African roster.
Do you mean Kyudo? That’s just a modern name for something that’s obviously ancient. As far as I know Boxer Rebellion is the oldest possible references since it started in 1899.
With the exception of Aztecs. They had an order of magnitude more manpower than Hawaiians. But Hawaiians had an order of magnitude more than any nation north of Mesoamerica.
Masaai could be a good minor civ, but for a major civ, I’d want a Sudan based on the Funj Sultanate. Maybe a few references to Makuria and Alodia.
On this point, I agree with his statement that since the gradual collapse of the various parts of the Mongolian Empire in the 14th century, the independent development of various khanates has led to significant differences in their culture, beliefs, customs, written language genres, and even social and military systems. In the overall history of OIrates, they have always followed the cultural development of China and Tibet. They existed as the right-wing of the Northern Yuan Dynasty in the 15th and 16th centuries, converted to Tibetan Buddhism in the 17th and 18th centuries, and existed as a cultural tributary of Tibet. OIrates clearly does not belong to the category of the Central Asian cultural circle; The Central Asian Khanates during this period were left-wing descendants of the Golden Horde, mainly composed of Uzbek and Kazakh, who mostly converted to Muslims and received influence from Persia and Russia; In the history of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Kazakhs clearly regarded the OIrats as invaders of other ethnic groups, and the OIrats did not view the Kazakhs as compatriots. Even their conflicts caused the famous catastrophe in Kazakh history
Confusing the OIrats with the Kazakhs is not only inconsistent with historical facts, but also lacks respect for the disasters suffered by the Kazakhs in history
Many don’t care about the time frame and I think this should be the main factor in considering a playable faction for the game.
In other aspects it should not be so arbitrary, but I personally believe that it should have enough elements to represent an autonomous economic, political and military system, and have influenced at least one continent or a very large region.
I believe that the original developers did put some unwritten rules that one could easily deduce: What does not fit as a playable civilization can be represented as a minor faction (native), revolution or representation through cards.
According to your classification, the scope of Central Asia is quite strange. The Central Asian region in this picture is clearly eastward. Conceptually, the Central Asian region should refer to the eastern boundary of the Tianshan Mountains, the northern boundary of the Kazakh grasslands to the Ertix River, the western boundary of the eastern bank of the Caspian Sea, and the southern boundary of the Kobida Mountains and the middle reaches of the Amu Darya River. Most of them convert to Islam in terms of religion, and are influenced by Persia and Russia in terms of culture. Conceptually, the southern Xinjiang region of China can be included in Central Asia, but the northern Xinjiang region of the Mongolian Plateau will not be included in Central Asia. And the map of Central Asia you provided has completely moved to the northern Xinjiang region of the Mongolian Plateau. However, most of the juz in the Kazakh Khanate is not included, and representatives of the Uzbek people, such as Khivas (Khivas City), Bukhara (Bukhara and Samarkand), and the Khanate of Kokands (Toshkent), are also almost not within this range. This map of Central Asia is more like a map from the peak of Dzungar Khanate, rather than a map of Central Asia
Much like the original post you’re gatekeeping based on a subjective personal opinion. That area is based on a definition of central Asia being the territory of post Soviet states. If East Turkestan was independent I guarantee you it would be lumped into central Asia.
Before modern times central Asia was a vague and fluid region. The picture I included was the territory of the Oirat Confederation, not my claim of where central Asia is. I would say central Asia is anywhere from the Caspian to Mongolia, and nomadic peoples like to Oirats can be found on both the eastern and western extremes of the region.
