Of course, we have to see what they decide about it…
Not how civs work. They are based on ethnic and cultural grounds, not dynasties.
2 Likes
Do Kurds fit in as a asian civi?
They would fit to an West Asian DLC.
However, you are still waiting for Finns in the game, as you wrote here years ago… With the Finns, I also see Finnish sauna made of pine wood as forming new buildings 
1 Like
While I agree with this, there is some opportunities to have dynasties that are considered Chinese to be their own civs based on ethnic/cultural lines.
Liao dynasty, ruled by the khitans, a para-Mongolia people, who ruled the northern half of China, and would later found the Kara khitai when the Jin dynasty booted them out of northern China.
Speaking of, the Jin dynasty, ruled northern half of china, were kitchens, a tungusic Manchu people.
There’s also the western Xia, a tangut dynasty, likely most closely related to Tibetans. They ruled east of the Tarim basim, in the ordos triangle.
These are often referred to as Chinese dynasties but are distinct from the Han dynasties of tang, song, and ming.
The bai are also a distinct people that ruled roughly modern yunnan province separately from the Han dynasties before the Mongol invasion. They however are the most closely related to the Han of the people I’ve mentioned.
1 Like
Finns will come with a campaign for vikings soon xD.
@Quasibrodo , I can imagine, that the Chinese being divided into different dynasties, but they can be integrated into the game also as independent civs. I see such a suitable opportunity for this at a further Singleplayer DLC.
And yes, I would also be in favor for the Singleplayer missions (Scenarios), that they will get a own graphic Button in the game overview next to Campaigns and Skirmishes.
The current overview of the Singleplayer missions at the Campaigns overview map just looks so ugly. It also looks like this, that the developers were to lazy so far, to design the whole thing better.
2 Likes
Let us see, if that happens… But still I have to say, that it would be good, to bring 1 or a few more Uralic speaking civs into the game. We already have the Hungarians, so yes, the Finns would be a suitable addition.
Are the Finns even notable enough during the Middle Ages to be included? I think not.
1 Like
With the latest additions to the game anyone is fair play now.huns not a medieval civi and only attila is the notable person cumans refugee faction burgundians sicilian aka normans could easily been and was franks.
Currently vikings represent norway denmark sweden and finland,adding finns would be similar to burgundians getting added.
Finland is not Scandinavian and never has been. It is not represented by the Vikings, and is ethnically and linguistically unrelated to any civs in that area.
The identity of the ruling elite of Nanzhao/Dali is still not well-known, some say they were Bai while others say they were Yi or Tai. It was likely a multi-ethnic kingdom composed of all 3 groups. This is reflected in my civ design for them. Their castle UU Luojuzi is supposed to reflect Bai or Yi influence whereas their other UU the Raeuz Tribesman and the unique building Mbanj reflect Tai-Kradai influences. And I choose to call them by the historical terms Bo / Baipu to be more inclusive and to avoid potential bans related to ethnic issues in modern China. And the Mongols did not destroy them Kublai was quite lenient to them for some reason, it was the Ming who invaded Yunnan in 1381 and destroyed the last vestiges of their kingdom.
I made a civ design about them too. They were an important trading kingdom and were quite deeply involved in the politics of medieval Northern China, traded and also fought with the Song, the Khitans, the Jurchens, and the Mongols. They deserve to be in the game.
1 Like
Khitans, Tibetans, Tanguts, Jurchens are not Chinese. Their Dynasties are their own, they are not Chinese Dynasties. Chinese are one entity and all these are separate entities. Thus it is not a civ split of Chinese. It is just adding more civs to East Asia alongside the Chinese.
3 Likes
100% agree. Now technically Chinese isn’t an ethnic term in the same way “Han” is an ethnic term, but pedantry aside I agree. When I think Chinese, especially in an aoe2 context, I don’t think of khitans, tanguts, jurchens, Tibetans. Bai I’m a bit on the fence. I fall into the “they’re separate” category but I’m not an expert and persuasive well-informed arguments could, if they existed, convince me otherwise.
I’ve seen them described that way. I think it’s an oversimplification. I was explaining in the context that aoe doesn’t typically distinguish between different dynasties, so why would certain dynasties, sometimes referred to as Chinese, be an exception. Even if you see them described as Chinese, they really shouldn’t be thought of that way, which is what I attempted to explain.
If you agree with the wiki’s description that the Chinese civilization represents tang, song, yuan, and Ming dynasties I’d agree. I have no particular reason to disagree with that description. I don’t think of it as a split. I also see why the games stance that Chinese only represents those dynasties wouldn’t necessarily be intuitive to everyone.
Maybe, but it is said that they are Iranian or Persian…
I find it difficult, AoE2 is not AoE4 where this is seen (Abbasids, Ayyubids)…
No, due to the Northern Crusades and Swedish colonisation of some Finnish coastal areas, most of the region became a part of the Kingdom of Sweden and the realm of the Catholic Church from the 13th century onwards until 1809.
You can divide the Vikings into the 3 Scandinavian countries or just into 2: Medieval Danes and Swedes as happens in AoE 3…
Exactly, you are both right…
1 Like
This has not much to do with Age of Empires 4. But if you relate it yet to this comparison, the answer concerncing the Chinese is the follow, that the various Chinese civs already existed and were fully developed in the Middle Ages.
We have Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Romans, all of these civs have a similar linguistic and cultural background, Here too we can say that this division was already done in the Middle Ages. We can do the same with the Chinese, but we do not have to, it would just be more historically accurate.
It would make sense for the Chinese, to take an intermediate path with Dynasties like @Quasibrodo has suggested. We already got this model with the latest DLC Victors and Vanquished as the first of this kind.
That’s the easiest way but finns are not really vikings or germanic so they would fill an empty slot on the map.
We have cumans who were just running from the mongols and hunninc empire which is not even medieval ingame so doing something notable in the middle ages is also up for debate.
A “Dynasties of China” you say??..maybe, there is how they do it…
Good point, but remember that for the Finns you need 15 AIs, a UU and 2 UT, a campaign and a wonder…plus the Huns were part of the fall of Rome that takes us to AoE 2…
I think so yes.
Victors and Vanquished Part 2 DLC suggestion:
For a next Singleplayer DLC as a Part 2 of Victors and Vanquished, this would be a suitable solution. “Chinese dynasties” with perhaps new units such as Fire lancers and Ming artillerymen and new buildings like the gunpowder depot for training of new gunpowder units.
The Koreans could then also get new Missions in this relation, since they have almost none so far.
I see the same thing for the Slavs (Rus) in Europe.
Victors and Vanquished feedback:
Certain Missions are too difficult, especially with the Vikings (Karlsefni, Ragnar) and the British (Vortigern), which I have not completed up to now at the Standart difficulty. The ongoing riots at Scandinavian villages with “Jarl” are just annoying and unnecessary. But maybe I can find as soon as possible a good solution for this.
1 Like
Then you just add the Khitans, Tanguts and Jurchens. Like with every other civ.