Well, Siamese seems to be the most obvious choice for Asia (unless the devs think the Sukhothai Kingdom should be what this civ represents the most, rather than the Ayutthaya Kingdom), but I would have picked Songhai for Africa and Muisca or Mapuche for the Americas.
EDIT: I would still want to see the Muisca in a South American dlc, the Tarascans in a Mesoamerican one and quite possibly the Hausa in a West African one.
I think I would rather put the Swahili in a Souht African dlc together with the Congolese and the Shona. East Africa already has Ethiopians, after all, so even with just Nubians, Kanembus and Somali added it’s still four civs for this region which is quite enough. West Africa is a whole other story though, there are way too many interesting possible civs to cover everyone I think.
I actually did bundle those civs not just because they are “East African”, but most importantly because they all had many interactions with Islamic Empires and the Indian Ocean during the Middle Ages, while other civs like the Shona and the Congolese where far more isolated before the colonial age.
This is indeed something I like to consider when suggesting new civs, how much they interacted with other civilizations, especially if they are already present in the game. Most of the civs I suggested are actually present in some campaigns, and their new campaigns could also feature prominently other civs already in the game.
Another good option. However, I prefer the Hausa a bit more since much of the Songhai Empire overlapped with the Malian one and it also didn’t last that long. But still that Empire was the largest ever in Africa, so that’s something important to consider as well.
To me it feels like they have a vision for each civ, but when that vision doesn’t work out the way they intended in actual gameplay, they don’t know how fix it. This seems to have happened at least with Sicilians, Bohemians, Bengalis and Dravidians – probably with Vietnamese and Malay as well, although maybe those are old enough that none of the devs who designed them are still involved. To be fair to them, these are difficult problems to solve.
Crossing my fingers that “the big update” will include a buff to Koreans that gives them exactly 50% win rate on open and closed maps, without compromising any of the civ’s identity!
In the interest of keeping this vaguely on topic… Early Modern civs are (in my mind, at least) quite likely to be gunpowder civs, and therefore lategame and/or unique unit focussed. And indeed, this is a large part of the problem that Koreans, Bohemians and Bengalis have. So I’m a bit apprehensive about adding more civs of exactly the type that the devs struggle to balance. (Koreans have been my favourite civ for almost 23 years, but it’s probably mostly nostalgia and aesthetics at this point.)
Yes, the modern age consider it starting in 1453 or 1492… from there you have 100 years until the AoE 2 timeline ends…
Yes, the same in the pre-modern period you have the Italian wars at the end of the 15th century until the middle of the 16th century and those of religion (the civil war between Catholics and Protestants in France in the 1570s and the 30 years war in the first half 17th century) (consider it similar to the crusades), then in the second half of the 17th century you have the mythical charge of the winged hussars in Vienna, then in the 18th century you have the various wars of succession until everything collides in the wars of the seven years that will lead to the American revolution in America and the French revolution in Europe, the rise of Napoleon and the Napoleonic wars… already in the 19th century you have the different revolutions and wars of independence (those of 1810, 1820, 1830 ,1848) and finally regional wars as the world industrialized…
Yes, they put generic names in it, maybe it’s just a mod in alpha…
True, I still don’t think they will adapt AoE 3 to AoE 2 or vice versa… since they are very different games…
Ah ok, I just wanted to put information about the mod like this in general, with some images to show how it would look, you don’t have to read everything if you don’t want to, you have the link above everything…
Both civs occupied south india…
Yes, they are older, but they were only organized in 1450…
Sure, I think that eventually dlcs will arrive from the Balkans, the Caucasus, southern Africa and perhaps North America.
Right, different people have different ideas about when the Middle Ages ended, when the Early Modern period started, and whether “Renaissance” is the name of a period in between – hence I said “depending on when you think “Early Modern” starts”. How someone uses these terms will depend a lot on their background and what they care about – and trying to use them globally in a useful way seems quite difficult, because cultural changes are so regional.
I’ve just realised that @Temudhun gave a definition in the first post, of mid-15th to late 16th century, which isn’t how I would normally use the term – but does include Aztecs.
This is exactly the kind of thing @SirWiedreich was talking about – I’m not sure why you’re telling me all this. I guess you’re trying to persuade me to be interested in the time period? But most of this is outside the AoE2 timeframe, which I don’t think should be pushed any further. (I am actually interested in a lot of things that happened in that time period, but not the kind of thing that would feature in an RTS game.)
British occupied sri lanka does that make them sri lankan?
This is a very wrong way to look at history.Even more surprising coming from you who is well versed in history.
Sorry I didn’t make it clearer, but when I said “Early Modern Era being loosely defined here as mid 15th to late 16th century”, I meant “here” as in "in AoE2 context. I know the EME covers 17th and 18th centuries (which I have to admit is a bit counterintuitive for me because in my country the whole period is called modern era and what comes after is the contemporary era) but those two centuries don’t fit in the game’s timeline.
I have to admit, like @TommoChocolate said, I’m not sure what this whole info dump is for and how it relates to the conversation. I’m under the impression it happens a lot with you, you seem so eager to demonstrate how much you know about history that you go on unrelated and unrequested tangents which sometimes come off as a little bit condescending, as if you thought you were the only one on this forum to know anything about history and we needed you specifically to educate us.
I think it was clear enough, I was actually meaning that mid 15th century is earlier than I would start it.
I’m English, and I don’t think it’s very common to use the term Early Modern here. We usually divide history up based on groupings of our monarchs (which sometimes, but don’t always, correspond to dynasties).
I think he’s just enthusiastic, but that particular info dump was written in response to something I’d said but didn’t seem to follow from it at all.
Yeah, well, eras are (and by nature have to be) arbitrary to an extent. Usually the transition from the European Middle Ages is either 1453 or 1492, I chose to use the first marker as a reference mostly to have an additional half century covered by the dlc but I tend to see the time period between those two dates as a transition period where we’re both in the Medieval and Modern Era.
Yes, I mean, you have AoE 2, a medieval game that goes back to practically the year 1600, and then you have AoE 3, a game in the colonial age but that starts in the 1420s, in fact, a unique unit of the Germans in AoE 3 is the Hussite war wagon…
Yes, maybe if you want just forget about it… only sometimes the pre-modern age is underestimated over the medieval, when the pre-modern age had many events that AoE 3 could not or did not know how to develop well because it focused too much on the New World…
Ok, I didn’t say anything then…
Yes, maybe I expressed myself badly for being tired at that moment and I didn’t think it through, I apologize…
Yes, I apologize… sometimes when I talk about history I get more excited when they are topics that more or less interest me; otherwise I become a bit introverted xd…
Yes, because in fact the discovery or rediscovery of America in 1492 was the product of the conquest of the Byzantine Empire/Constantinople in 1453, since the European powers could not trade with China from the Silk Road, since it was blocked by the Ottomans, decided to organize the overseas expeditions that sooner or later led to a collision with America… that’s why this event differentiates both historical periods in modern historiography (thank Eric Hobsbawm)
Ok, yes I get confused between the Dravidians and the Gurjaras, but let’s leave it at that the Marathas are Gurjaras because they are from continental India and the Dravidians are from Sri Lanka… xd
That’s actually a popular misconception which can be easily debunked. Most of the trade from China and India into Europe came through Egypt and then the Italian city states, neither Constantinople nor Anatatolia played a pivotal role in this. And Egypt was only subjugated by the Ottomans in 1517, by which point Christopher Colombus was already dead, Vasco da Gama had traveled twice to India by sailing around Africa and Hernan Cortes was about to invade Mexico. The Ottoman empire also didn’t really have any interest in stopping the flow of trade through its territory. And it has been proven that between the fall of Constantinople and when European merchants opened sea lanes to South and Southeast Asia, spice imports in Venice had not decreased but rather increased.
Well, Tamils are a big minority in Sri Lanka (15% of the local population, apparently), but yeah, they don’t originate from there and are outnumbered by the autochtonous Sinhalese.
2/3rd of Sri Lankan Tamils came during the Colonial Age. British trusted the Tamils from Madras Presidency more than their recently acquired Sinhala Lands. So they settled them for Plantation Work. It was reported by the British that the Tamil Population was 5 lakh and Sinhala 50 lakh when they first arrived. The British further employed 10-15 lakh Tamils from Indian Mainland. These Madras Presidency Tamils held higher British posts than the local Srilankan Sinhalese and Tamils.
Well, okay, don’t mess with the Indian peoples, I know there are many…
Well let’s just say that both events occurred almost simultaneously and that’s it and that they may or may not have fed each other; although if you think about it, the exploration trips already started with Portugal in the 1420s with the capture of the Island of Madeira ,while China was going on their treasure fleet voyages with Zheng He (hence the AoE 3 Chinese campaign which is all about exploration and trade)…
Yes, there are 100 other languages in India. But the ironic thing is that we look at India through European lens. The Indians didn’t care about warfare or politics nearly as much as the Europeans cared. Indian history books themselves are mainly focused on the evolution of culture & religion with the names and territory of rules being a sidenote.
There was a total of 21 invasions of India, out of which 18 succeeded, because although they had a warrior caste, the Indians simply weren’t focused on warfare. Ghandi (who yes I know wasn’t a saint) wasn’t some odd ball in India, the was the representation of Indian values in many ways.
India is as though the Germanic tribes of the antiquity never united, instead they formed a sorty of loose confederation based on religion & culture but each Germanic tribe keeping its particular branch of religion and culture intract… up to the 21st century. There were some in-fightings between the Germanic tribes but they didn’t really care about that, their main point of reference being the evolution of their society not of their politics.
Hinduism is a particulary flexible religion and probably describes the Indian people the best. Hinduism can adapt. Jesus? he can become part of Hinduism. Buddha? he can become part of Hinduism. In fact, this is why Buddhism is a minor religion in India but a lot of Indians still talk about and praise Buddha. In Hinduism, unlike Buddhism, Buddha is still real and did everything he did, except he is a god and saint in Hinduism.
In India, the state was incredibly weak but the culture and religion was incredibly strong. Most Indian history books actually written by Indians skip on actual dynasties, rulers and maps, talking about social and cultural events that shaped India to become what it is today.
We care about those 100 other languages in India more than Indians care about those 100 languages of India.