Nah, Funj are entirely separate from Nilotes, since they’re a Arabized Nubian state, not one ethnically tied to the Shilluk and company. A Nilotic civ, with a very nomadic character and aesthetic with an infantry-heavy roster would be different from a Sudanese civ that looked more like, say, Ottomans/Hausa.
I’m aware of the difference, I just don’t think a Nilotic civ should be anything more than a minor civ. A Sudanese civ would be a solid choice though.
Well that’s dumb. We don’t need anachronistic Orientalism based on new age mysticism.
That’s obviously absurd. The definition of the population in Central Asia should refer to the religious, cultural, and customary divisions of the people living in the region. As I have said, the general definition of the population in Central Asia is that they are culturally influenced by Persia and Russia, and generally convert to Islamic faith in religion. The Uyghurs in southern Xinjiang meet this definition (Yerqiang Khanate), ### the Dzungar Khanate does not. During the long period from the 14th century to modern times, They are closely related to the Eastern Mongols, Tibet, Ming and Qing dynasties, and have developed together. They can be said to be countries located in Central Asia, but their cultural origins are clearly related to China and Tibet, rather than the common Islamic beliefs and Persian culture in Central Asia
Once again, this is completely arbitrary gatekeeping. I would say Turkic and Mongol cultural influence is a hell of a lot more important to the Central Asian identity and Oirats are literal Mongols.
Whether or not a nation is Central Asian is 100% a matter of geography. Uzbeks, Oirats, and Kazakhs are all Central Asian and I’d love to see any or all of them as civs.
The problem is that during this period, the Mongolian Tatar culture generally participated in the integration with neighboring cultures, mostly integrating into nearby cultural regions. It is obvious that the various tribes of the Golden Horde basically joined Russia or the Ottomans, while the Mongolian descendants of the Northern Yuan Dynasty in the east joined the integration with the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Ilkhanate, Timur Empire, and Mughal Empire transformed into the Persian Empire and the Indian Empire. It is an unchangeable fact that the Mongol regime during this period shifted towards a local one
Also you can’t be seriously saying “Civs are not countries” when “Indians” is literally a thing in this game.
Indians arent about India, is about their people. Thats why they arent a single kingdom or dynasty giving us an umbrella civ
1 Like
That doesn’t even make sense
It does, thats why we got Spanish, French, British and not Spain, France or UK.
Then they added USA and Mexico, not Americans and Mexicans.
Same happens in AoE4, they added English but Delhi Sultanate.
1 Like
It’s civilizations, not countries. Civilizations inherently mean people groups, which may or may not been all in one state. Hence why the game uses “British” instead of “United Kingdom”, “Germans” instead of “Germany”, and “Indians” instead of “India.” So yes, Indians encompasses multiple different sultanates and empires that existed in the Indian subcontinent because the Indian people are a widely varied civilization with a complex history; the Indian civ in AOE3 is meant to capture all of that.
4 Likes
It doesn’t capture any of that. Everyone speaks Hindi and they’re led by a decrepit guy on an elephant.
And India is a huge territory inhabited by multiple groups that only became a single country because the British forced them to.
1 Like
Only because they were a tiny minority in conquered lands. That is bound to happen when you are ruling over a people that outnumber you 100 to 1. And this is not universally true, the Kalmyks largely retain their Buddhist culture and the Dzungars were genocided, not integrated.
No, they got annexed after centuries of war. I’d also contend they influenced Russia just as much as Russia influenced them.
1 Like
Exactly. It doesn’t capture it at all and the whole British comparison doesn’t cut-it - UK and British is synonymous (speaking as a a Brit). When you say UK I think of the countries that make up the UK and when you say British it’s the same. It’s a nation of nations.
We’re talking about the Indian Subcontinent here - it’s far more relatable to talk about it as the same as Europe. Europe is made of many nations and the same for the Indian region in the AoE3 timeline. However we have lots of European civs and one weird amalgamation of all the Indian civs which is particular as many of them were in conflict or trading relations with each other, as separate entities.
And since the devs made the Georgian Hussars speak Georgian now, they could easily do the same at least for specific Indian/Asian units.
They can’t even give India proper cows. I don’t have much hope for accurate dialogue.
4 Likes
How is this any different from Germans, which contains all the states of the HRE, as well as the later empires of the Prussians and Austrians? Or the Chinese, which spans two dynasties and a warring period, which had a larger population and larger landmass than India? China is not one homogeneous culture; there are something like 40 ethnicities in China, and even today it isn’t one language. Your example of UK vs Brits being interchangeable may be true right now, but even long after 1707 and the act of union, that attitude was most definitely not held by the Scots and Irish.
It’s supposed to be a large representation. All the civs in game are large mishmashes of many cultures and languages throughout almost 500 years. If you want to split every civ down to one culture, one language, and one geopolitical entity you’ll end up with hundreds, which is frankly insane to try to include in a game. It’s why Germans makes sense, it’s why Chinese makes sense, and it’s why Indians make sense.
In the modern day, we tend to think through nationalist principles, forgetting that that is a very new concept, only emerging at the tail end of the AOE3 timeframe. The civilization arrangement of AOE3 is very well designed to capture the dominant civilizations and large empires they forged. Heck, by definition an empire is multicultural, with multiple languages and different paths through history.
Would it be nice to see more representation of those cultures and many empires that were part of these civilizations? Absolutely. But it should be done with the existing framework; unit lines, cards, skins, etc. Not with civ splits.
2 Likes
This is the exact opposite case with Kyudo, which is a new name given to a sport version of the ancient art of archery.
The word “Reiki” itself has been used to express Spiritual Power or “Spiritual Ki” since ancient times, but in modern times it has also been used for pseudo-therapeutic techniques.
The meaning of the word “Reiki (霊気)”, which is mainly written in kanji and is used in general situations in Japanese, is the former. When referring to the latter, it is usually written in katakana, like “レイキ”. In any case, the latter usage was not seen before the Meiji period, so it is still incorrect in terms of the era.
Anyway, this name should be changed to something like “Kanpo (The Chinese medicine considered to be the oldest in Japan)” or “Ranpo (The Western medicine which introduced through Dutch during the Edo period)” or “Ijutsu (Literally “Medical Technique”)” or “Kusushi (Literally “Pharmacist”)”.
1 Like
Well, India is like an order of magnitude larger than Germany in every metric: size, population, cultures, etc.
Germany was basically dominated by Austria before Prussia took on the mantle close to the end of time period.
With India there huge powers like the Mughals, Marathas or the Sikhs, but also many other smaller kingdoms that were still huge and powerful on their own.
That being said, I’d still prefer many civs from other parts of the world before considering an Indian split.
4 Likes
I know a couple guys who might be interested, assuming you didn’t make them already and are just being coy with us…
1 Like
I love to be wrong from time to time 
3 Likes