Are u kidding me dude , delhi sultanate doesn’t represent India , they are just extenion of Persian Empire that happened to rule part on india after they invaded India . Even their in game language is Persian which was never a dominated language in india in whole history .
There is no good representation of India in this game . They can add that in future
I personally would like to see added the Most Serene Republic of Venice, as representative of the Italian states. Not necessarily as the first civ added of course (that should be the byzantines) but as the time goes on, it would be a worth addition.
I also made a fan design of the civ in the link below. Any feedback and opinion about it is appreciated.
It’s a specific kingdom, not the entirety of India. That fact alone opens a lot of possibilities. In fact, they should have done the same with China, instead of having a civ just called “Chinese”.
And what would you have proposed for the Chinese?
China is relatively homogeneous most major dynasties have united most of the country.
India, on the other hand, has hardly ever been united – with a single India being a modern invention. There are numerous races in India, and historically multiple different regional kingdoms/empires. They’re not really comparable.
Mississippians because I love murica
They could. But it’s not the logic the devs have. You will have only one civ by country. It’s really impossible they give us two civs coming from the same area. Or this area should be extremly important and I dont really know which one it could be. So India i’m sure we wont have anything more. But maybe news units, design, with DLC comings.
The game is 35% accomplish now.
What? That’s like saying Spanish and Aztecs are the same because they both lived in America.
Spanish lives in Spain. Part of Mexico is a colony of Spain and the natives of this territory are Aztecs not spanish.
The Delhi Sultanate also isn’t native to India. Have you not seen the loads of complaints about the civ?
Why do you think that’s the Dev’s thought process ? They added in Abbasids which don’t have a clear modern equivalent .
Also countries didn’t exist back then , at least not in today’s shape . If the devs chose civs based on modern countries then they are horribly misguided .
There is zero powerfull civ or just “know civ” in the indian area during the middle age period except the Dehli Sultanat. Thats why they chose it.
Abassids dont have equivalents ? What do you mean. There is Al-Andalus, berber strong power in Spain which can be mixt with Almohade, Almoravide in Maghreb to make an alternative of arabian power.
There is Turkish Mameluks who lead the crusade and won the crusade. People think arabians lead the crusades on the muslim side but it was the Turkish Mameluk Arp Aslan etc.
So middle age there is at least 3 serious civilisation to represent the muslim midde east and north africa area.
I understood it was born in actual Pakistan ?
First, the Pakistan is culturaly India. English just decided to cut the India in two part. But Lagore, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, I mean center and East are absolutly indian culture and ethnicy. The west and the north are afghan. But english named this area “Pakistan” because they find it funny.
So its normalif Dehli Sultanat is born in Lahore. The only thing is India is not nowadays muslim, and I understand this detail is not easy for every one. But which other choice of civ they had ?
Apart the shared claims on Roman Empires naming, they have nothing in common…
I mean, Ottomans or Russians called themself Roman Empire too, in their claims. It don’t mean they are the same.
The hype for Byzantines is simple, it’s probably the most important political entity of medieval age events, in europe. The crusades started because they called for help.
They have the first wonder of this age hagia sofia, which was built in the fourth century and rebuilt in the sixth.
The most impressive defensive structure in europe in this time, a gigantic chain which protected the harbours.
A really different architecture comparatively other europeans, really different equipments from them (heavy cavalry being cataphracts like in the east, and using mace tactics instead of spears).
A lot of unique siege engines, and crazy fire engines. Firethrowers units, fire grenades, fireships…
some of their Elites Guards were noble vikings, like Harald Hardrada which make money with byzantine guards, to come back in his land to become king.
They influenced the warfare of islamic empires, army structure and equipment of Ummayad empire were based on byzantine army.
Even in decline, they were the dominating crossroads of trade routes.
And just in term of pattern, colors ,clothings, … they would feel really different
They feels more assymetric in term of trope than HRE / English / Franks …
Vikings would be not crazily different from Rus’, or Andalus from Abbasids…
Abbasids are wrongly despised in the game, the camel focus is based on their berber mercenaries… in a caricatural way, sadly. And the science focus / house of wisdom is what we could expect from al-andalus and cordoba.
Vikings were crazily good to adopt the culture and religion of others… In feudal ages they would already shift from age of vikings to christiandom. And we would get the same stuff about being good at building wood stuffs. And Rus’ Lodya are longship …
Yes byz are original.
Holy Roman Empire = Germans civilization dominating smaller states like Bohemians, or baltic Prussans.
Famous imagery : Teutonic Knights, Landsknecht, Romanesque and Gothic Architecture.
Eastern Roman Empire = Remains of Romans Empire in hellenized lands, with a lot of middle eastern influence (in food for exemple). With cataphract, orthodox - roman / byzantine / greek architecture, firethrowers, hippodromos, and diverse poeple in their roman empire (some considering themself as Romans ) : Romans, Greeks, Latins, Venetians, Armenians, Georgians,… Versatile with inherited romans tactics for infantry, good navy and siege engine, flexible heavy cavalry, diverse mercenaries (armenian cataphract, petcheneg mounted archers, scandinavians / saxony varangianss, etc) … late / no gunpowder focus
Would it work to have Egypt as a civ? I know their empire ended in like-- 350AD but-- I dunno. I think it would be cool. Not as a first DLC but-- yah know.
edit -Nevermind-- I suppose they would be heavily influenced by Rome and the muslim civs
Well, Mamluks Sultanat, which inherited from Ayyubids dynasty (Saladin)a lot of things, with Cairo as capital (one of largest city of the world in this time, with aztec capital and constantinople the queen of cities), would be an excellent civilization (even if encompassing both mamluks and ayyubids).
I think it’s the second most iconic and famous part of Egypt History after the Antiquity History which is obviously more famous today but don’t fit with the trope of aoe 4.
As most of games, muslim empires are covered as “scientist” civ (house of wisdow with Abbasids, Scholar with Delhi), which is okay.
But representing the famous muslim fighters should be a thing too.
And Mamluks were considered as the knights of Islam in muslim world, they ended the crusaders in these regions. And their story is singular, iniitally slaves which gained power, from diverse origins, as Cumans (for exemple)
they are iconic, but rarely represented in these games. they are briefly mentioned in Abbasids bio, but there are nothing about mamluks sultanat in their design.
Đại Việt might be a good bet. They deserve their own campaign about either anti-Mongol guerilla warfare or war of independence against Ming oppressors. Furthermore, with exquisite craftsmanship on gunnery, they can also be a firearm powerhouse once Imperial Age kicks in(can be depicted by using enhanced musketeers with longer range and target-piercing ability to replace ordinary hand cannoneers, for example).
I’m all for new civs down the line, but I’d much prefer keeping away from DLCs while the game gets more refined. Nevertheless, I’ll put forth my opinion for the future.
Celts (Gaels, Scots, Picts, etc.)
Scandinavians (Danes, Nords, Swedes, Kalmar Union, etc.)
Byzantines
Incans
Japanese (There we’re lots of Japanese nations, so I’m not sure what they’d do for that)
Koreans
Tibetans
Honorable mention: Some sort of Iberian civ, (Castile, Portugal, etc.)
I’m not too big of a fan of Turks history-wise (doesn’t really interest me), but to be honest, if they’re fun to play I’m fine with them. Wouldn’t make my top 7, but maybe top 10.
Obviously, Spain should be in this game. Castile is very very very important in this epoque. It was one of the biggest european kingdoms. Furthermore it was the cause that ended the Medieval Age, as they funded Columbus expedition, which marks the start of the Modern age, in 1492 (although some books mark the fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the end of the Medieval Age). And as Carlos V of the Holy Roman Empire has been already added to the game, it wouldn’t make any sense not to add Spain to it, as he was also emperor of the Spanish Empire.
I think it would also be an interesant faction in game, as Spain was divided in two kingdoms: Castile and Aragon, both with unique cultures and traditions, even different ways of life (Castile was ruled by agriculture whereas Aragon was a rural kingdom based in breeding, fishing and trading). This can be added in game by chosing with the distinctive buildings which of both kingdoms is going to be used of.
A way to make its epoques would be for example:
All of them filled with some unic units as the Galleon (4 epoque transport and attack ship), Order knight (to represent the knight orders of Calatrava or Santiago), arquebusier (4 epoque handcannon variation) or Culebrine and Cannon (as well as France).
Sure Biz will come, I just would like them to dont come in first
You said Vikings is similar to Al Andalus or Rus, i’m disagree. Vikings is a singularity. They have a naval originality which can be extremly interessant in the multi maps where there are a lot of rivers. Then, their infantery is based on the berseker power. Thats extremly original and interessant.
But what you guys should understand, is this type of game is based on one concept : stereotype. Most of human consider the others with stereotyp.
The dude who fight on the camel ? Of course its the arabic. Yes Chinese did the same in the Gobi desert but 1% of people know that. However, we know chinese for their big wall. We know French for their knight tournament in middle age. Thats why devs wont give to us similars factions or unfamous faction. Most of people dunno what happened in spain during middle age. They just know “arabic” invaded and dominate. They dont know it was berber spain. So adding a Spain faction why not, but it will be after Reconquista with conquistador units and I dont think it belong to the period of AoE IV.
Same for Mameluks. Yes they were the leader and protector of Islam during Crusade. But nobody know that. People think it was arabic fighters like Salahadin (who was Kurdish and not Arabic).
So to represent the desert fighters, they take the arabic guy and his camel. Because humans think with stereotype.
I said than vikings were similar to rus, not al andalus (for andalus it was about abassids).
Obviously vikings and al andalus have potential and would happen at some point, but they share similarities with current civ.
When no civ currently share than quantity of similaries with the byz.
You asked why so much hype for biz, I answered : because they have more singular and unique thing.
And mismatching them with HRE is so wrong, vikings quickly become a christiandom, and they shared way more simililarities with HRE than byz with HRE.
The viking singulary was to have really fast ship for the period, able to reach canada. That’s cool, not something really useful for an age of empires. It would be like always, a fast and cheap ship for raiding.
With a similar skin of the rus lodya, which are longship too.
For the rest, other navy were better, like the byzantine or venetian ones. Franks and English sinked vikings navy in rivers, it was a safer way to deal with them. All norse were not vikings and so navigators. The most naval civ the game could get is probably the Chola Empire.
Berserk is not extremely original. A lot of civ got similar concept of transe warriors. The oldest would be the jewish zealot, or ancient myceneans (because some historians speculated than the behavior of some ancient heroes of texts looks like ptsd)
And berserk is mostly a myth, we don’t know so much about them. A myth which hardly belong to the period offered by the game. I don’t think Vikings shined in land battles against any other european civ than anglo-saxon in the period of berserkers, period of saga.
and stereotypes are bad.