What should be the focus of the next dlc post tMR? (AoE2 proper)

Tamoios vs. Portuguese could work, especially with how much we know about the rebellion leader. The civ would have to liberally mix Tupi, Guarani, and Xingu/Kuikuro aspects together, meaning there’d be a mish-mash of weird boni and tech tree limits/additions. Personally I think the Mapuche would already cover areas east of the Andes, albeit by technicality (the Diaguita peoples coalesced in northwest Patagonia prior to migrating west and becoming the Mapuche + related cultures) while the campaign and civ design reflects their 16th-century techs/military. (Likewise, focusing on the Chimu for northern Andeans leads to better civ/campaign material than the Muisca, especially if we’re trying to deemphasize crushing Iberian conquests that can restrict DLC potential vs. alternatives.)

Definitely a pattern with FE’s campaign choices, though I think there’s just way more you can do with Qalidurut and his progeny. Late Antiquity isn’t yet covered as well as it should be, so I hope they go with earlier Christian Nubia vs. yet another fight with Ayyubids (who, in this case, are only sent by Saladin rather than the main force).

2 Likes

Nothing to do with the civs being particularly tied together, it’s more that Koreans seem like the most obvious pick if the focus of the dlc is Northeast Asia, and beyond the malay world itself a dlc about Insulindia could extend to Asian Pacific. I’m not aware of any sort of theory or propaganda about the Japanese coming from anywhere else than Korea or North China, the closest thing to this would be the Hayato being possibly Austronesian but that’s something that will most likely never be proven and I don’t think they’re the main ancestor of modern Japanese?

1 Like

A DLC that focuses on insular SEA cannot be extended to cover Japan or other parts of Asia, a DLC needs to have a theme region it cannot be random all over the place.

I’ve seen many baseless rumors and claims online like from Youtube or from Quora about how Japanese are completely different from North Chinese and Koreans and are closely related to Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders. The one you mentioned about Hayato being Austronesian is one such rumor. Nothing proves that they were Austronesians. Hayato means Falcon People and AFAIK the falcon isn’t an animal particularly revered by the Austronesians or by any other SEA people, on the other hand many Northeast and Northern Asian people revere the falcon, including the Ainu, the Jurchens, the Mongols, the Kazakhs, etc.

The main ancestors of Japanese most likely came from Korea or the West Liao river basin of Manchuria, and this has been proven by both genetics and linguistics.

1 Like

I never got to reply back, but I was rather offended by the accusations.

The reasons I put Japanese with SEA civs was because a DLC pack focusing on the area around China would naturally have a Chinese campaign. And so far, only one old civ per DLC has gotten a campaign, so you would have to look elsewhere.

SEA seemed like the only other option due to there being little chance of another East Asian DLC, and the connecting factor of…water. That was it. That was the reason. Nothing to do with revisionism. Just a simple combination of a lack of options and a theme of adding several civs with a strong navy.

1 Like

The African dlc had a campaign for a Portuguese dude going from India, I think we’ve seen more absurd take on regional themes than people from island nations on the Asian side of the Pacific Ocean being grouped together. I find this option far less absurd than the Turks receiving their campaign in an East African dlc, which some people seem to really want.
And as @Tyranno13 pointed out, we most likely won’t receive two campaigns for old civs in the same dlc, and we also most likely won’t get dlc with more than 3 campaigns as it seems to be the only constant in the DE, so having a Korean campaign alongside Gokturks, Dians and Tibetans all at once (which by the way, I don’t really see how it makes so much more sense than my proposal) seems unlikely. So does having a second Mongol campaign alongside Jurchens, Khitans AND a Chinese or Japanese campaign.
As for your idea for Insulindia, I don’t think Javanese would get a new campaign as they would most likely keep the Gajah Mada one and the reworked Malays would be the one to get a new campaign. But if it can’t come alongside a Japanese campaign, then we can maybe have an additional new civ from the split such as the Bruneians, Aceh or Sumatrans, it would be on par with DoI this way.

Thanks, I didn’t know the Hayato being Austronesian was propaganda, that’s useful information. I thought they were just seen as possibly having a different origin than the Yamato people, but I will be more cautious with this idea from now on.

1 Like

It’s not really an accusation against you in particular, cause I feel rather annoyed by the many trolling comments elsewhere saying that Japanese have nothing to do with North Chinese and Koreans and are of SEA or Pacific Islander descent, so I automatically assumed that this is yet another case of such. It’s good to know that you don’t buy into such baseless revisionism. If you feel offended by my assumption then I apologize.

The thing is if there’s little chance of having another East Asian DLC then there’s also very little chance of having another SEA DLC. If on the other hand there’s another DLC about East Asia then I’d really hope the devs could add Japanese campaigns with that DLC instead of with a SEA DLC, cause historically speaking Japan had much stronger ties with Korea, North China, and Manchuria than with South China or SEA.

And again historically speaking the Japanese navy weren’t that strong until towards the end of the AoE 2’s timeline. Even in the 16th century the Ming Chinese rated Japanese naval capabilities below the Portuguese and the Siamese, and nope it was not simply Chinese arrogance cause at the same time they rated Japanese swordsmanship and archery quite highly. Ironically despite the fact that the Koreans are often seen as continental, for much of the medieval period they arguably had a better navy than the Japanese. For instance, the Shilla pirate Jang Bogo who controlled the Yellow Sea with his fleet and dominated the trade between Shilla, Heian Japan, and Tang China for decades. Jang Bogo - Wikipedia

1 Like

Of course there’re a few exceptions to this rule, but overall most DLCs are still thematically based on a particular region. And the Portuguese during the Age of Discovery had much more contacts with Africa and India than Japan ever had with Indochina or insular SEA up to that point, hence I feel their inclusion in an African themed DLC is more justified than Japanese campaigns in an insular SEA DLC.

It is indeed a propaganda or a baseless rumor without any solid evidence whatsoever, please be more cautious with such ideas.

I’m just glad this survey shows how much people actually don’t care about an Italian or a Teuton split. Compare those percentages with the percentages individual African regions got

5 Likes

Who are they? Anyone please describe me

Oh boy, I have a lot of explaining to do, silly me…

Curonians were a Baltic people living on the Western part of modern day Latvia. There’s a debate over wether they were Eastern or Western Balts, but anyway before the christianisation they were known for their warrior culture and their sailors/pirates. During the Baltic crusades, they used that to their advantage and fought the crusaders (mostly the Livonian Order) on land and sea.

I named Hansards after the Hanseatic League, a trade coalition between several German free cities such as Lübeck, Bremen or Hamburg, which later expanded all over the Baltic Sea. It might sound boring, but those guys were so rich and powerful that they could afford to wage war with bigger states and even defeated the Kingdom of Denmark at some point, forcing it to make humiliating concessions to promote their trade rights.

Occitans are the people from southern France, at the time they covered one third of the territories and some of the bigger and wealthier fiefs outside of the crown land (or even including it at times, such as the Duchy of Aquitaine or the County of Toulouse. Depending on the region and time period they could be part of France, England, Barcelona or the HRE (and sometimes fully independant), but it was a time when ####### were sometimes more powerful than their liege so they benefited from a lot of autonomy.

Outremer (meaning “oversea” in French) is one of the proposed names for the peoples of the Crusader States, as it is sometimes used to refer to all of those realms collectively and the people were usually called Latins or Franks even by other Christians from the West. An alternative name could be “Poulains”, which was a term used to refer to the descendants of crusaders (and sometimes first generation settlers), but it’s rarely used in the English language (and it’s another French word meaning “foal”).

Ifriqiya is a territory in Northern Africa covering Tunis and parts of Libya and Algeria, which were often united into a single state during the Middle Ages (even including Sicily at some point).

Moravians are Czech people living between Bohemia and Slovakia, during the 9th century they formed a bigger state called Great Moravia.

Pomeranians are a people living along the coast of the Baltic Sea on the modern day German/Polish border. During the Middle Ages, the population was successively Slav and German.

Diliwalis is one of the names for the inhabitants of Delhi (admitedly I could have used Delhianis), here they are meant to represent the Sultanate of Delhi.

4 Likes

Honestly not sure what would Hindustanis represent without Delhi, representing only the Mughals would be a bit silly

1 Like

Most likely it would turn into DoI2 with the Hindustani civ being renamed and possibly reworked again…

I think theres enough to work with changing Hindustanis. Only change I wouls make to the existing civs is changing the name of some of them and giving the Tamils a new wonder

Shouldn’t Dravidians be given a new Castle rather than a new Wonder?

Oh my bad

I thought the wonder was Kannadiga for some reason, I was wrong

I was hoping the current Dravidian Castle was Kannadiga. It is, isn’t it? I just came up with a Kannadigas concept the other day, and wasn’t really pleased with the unique Castle I gave them. Simply giving them the Dravidian Castle is a much better solution.

I read somewhere the current fort is based on Golconda Fort. But if I google Tamil Forts they look very different.

I’d say it more closely resembles Kumbhal Fort.

1 Like

Yes it looks very North Indianish.

Which makes it a bit strange to belong to the Dravidians, who were Southern Indian.

1 Like