jurchen is forbidden and nanzhao is not a civ but a country.
Jurchen arent forbidden as far as I have seen since at the ebd of the day the Jurchen built Qing and China recognizes Jin and Qing as a dynasty. Also 99% sure Manchu nationalism is non existant. Manchu itself is a near dead language.
Pretty sure they dont care at all about Nanzhao when it was a kingdom literally a thousant years ago and there hasnt been any attemp to bring it back since then.
1 Like
Of course,your order is completely valid,but remember that the game has few lots left to put civs,and although the Filipinos would be an interesting option,they would already be semi-represented by the Malays,in addition to the fact that South Africa or North America has not been explored yet…
1 Like
Manchu itself is a near dead language，you are kidding me? Where is your stat come from?
“Manchu is a critically endangered Tungusic language native to the historical region of Manchuria in Northeast China”
“20 native speakers
There are thousands of second language speakers”
Yeah, there are apparently 10 millions Manchus nowaday but it looks like they mostly abandoned their language and it started declining during the Qing dynasty apparently. I’ve never heard of a call for independence or even autonomy for Manchuria, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the devs didn’t want to take any risk. After all, the Chinese government as a tendency for not even explaining why they are banning a game, so it’s hard to know what is or isn’t allowed. When Paradox’s Hearts of Iron 4 was removed from stores in China, the studio didn’t receive any explanation about the reason or what they should change to be accepted again.
2 Likes
If you include the Dalai Lama or any mention of modern China politics you just get instabanned
2 Likes
First I don’t regard that the Mongols can represent the Khitans well.
Second, not Khitans vs Jurchens but Khitans AND Jurchens. They two civs can form a pretty good theme DLC to present the wars within the Song Dynasty.
The people of Nanzhao (or call “Lolos” better) belong to Tibeto-Burman languages.
The first one and only one existing in the game Tibeto-Burman language people is the Burmese, and the second one and the most people expecting for is the Tibetans/Tanguts. I guess the NanZhao/ Lolos would have chance only after Tibetans/Tanguts are introduced.
For me personally, if there are 2 civs per DLC, I would hope the Asian DLCs being like:
- Subcontinent: Bengalis & Dravidians
- Themed on the Tang Dynasty: Gokturks & Sogdians/Iranians
- Themed on the Song Dynasty: Khitans & Jurchens
- Tibeto-Burman languages: Tibetans/Tanguts & Lolos
- Indochina: Siamese & Chams
However I feel the contents of the Lolos and Chams may be less than other candidates so the 4th one might become Tibetans/Tanguts and Siamese, then cancel the 5th one. Just a speculation.
Edited: Polynesians should be regarded as Oceanians, not Asians. The Polynesian civ (Tui Tonga) should be regard as a New World civ, competing with other potential native American civs.
1 Like
Yeah, I think I will also put the Tongans in my American poll, but I plan on doing Africa first.
AFAIK, only the Uyghurs and the Tibetans can be somewhat problematic, whereas Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, and Nanzhao aren’t problematic at all, since they’re long gone civs with no apparent modern heirs.
Mongols can represent Khitans to a certain extent, since the two spoke related languages, with the Mongols being Mongolic and the Khitans being Para-Mongolic. And they also had a similar nomadic lifestyle and a similar way of doing warfare, relying on cavalry and horse archers. On the other hand, there’s no civ that can represent the Jurchens at the moment, hence if I were to pick a civ between the two, I would put the priority on the Jurchens.
And about the Nanzhao, there’s no consensus as to which ethnic group their ruling elite belonged to, some say Yi some say Bai and others say Dai. Their kingdom was likely multi-ethnic. To keep things simple, we should just name them as Nanzhao or the Zhaos (since Nan is basically a word meaning “south”).
And I don’t agree with your claim that Nanzhao and Chams are somehow less important than the northern Asian civs. They both fit the AOE 2 timeline perfectly, both had interacted with multiple existing civs, and yet no existing civ can represent them at the moment.
So a future DLC on East Asia could feature Jurchens and Nanzhao, with Tanguts as a possible 3rd civ if the devs ever decided to make a 3 civ DLC.
And a future DLC on SE Asia could feature Siamese and Chams, with Visayans as a possible 3rd choice.
And I agree with you that Tongans/Polynesians should be introduced with Native American civs rather than with East or SE Asian civs.
Tibetans would be cool, if unlikely due to political pressure from China. But, honestly, I don’t think the game should censor itself just to appease one foreign market. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of players outside of China (and even some within it) who would be interested in seeing a Tibetan civilization in AoE.
Although, if Tibet were coming in a DLC, couldn’t the Chinese government simply ban the DLC instead of the whole game?
2 Likes
Neither Jurchens nor Nanzhao is forbidden. People shouldn’t ignore China’s censorship, but shouldn’t overexaggerate it either.
2 Likes
Well, I guess the Chinese government could do that, but would they? They’re not shy of banning entire games, and game studios are at their mercy while not necessarily having the possibility to dialogue with them. And in this case, the Chinese players would have no legal solution to have access to the game and not much power to complain. We have to consider that the devs still have many civs they could work into the game without taking such a risk, and as sad as it is, they will most probably do so.
Theres a realistic chance that if you remove every mention of post Yuan Tibet and/or you call them Tanguts in China they could get added.
But its just a risk
Only Tanguts and khitans can be added ,others will have risks to be forbidden.
MS will not do that because it is a serious political problem they cannot afford it.
1 Like
There is only one Serbi–Mongolic language civ in the game, no any problem to introduce an another one. Even both Included by Serbi–Mongolic languages, the Para-Mongolic languages are not the Mongolic languages. Besides, they did have different strategies, tactics, lifestyle and warfare.
Compared with the Mongols, the Khitans did not understand too much about gunpowder and siege, but they were good at forging, and paid more attention to heavy cavalry, sending heavy cavalry to charge and use various weapons, including crossbows (see the History of Song, volume 004), while cavalry archers were only lightly armed and used for robbery, support or ambush. Politically and culturally, the Khitans are more willing to accept the Chinese culture. After the establishment of the Liao Empire, they began to try to settle down. They received a large number of remnant Chinese, Balhae and Yugur peoples, and actively sought benefits through diplomatic means. As a result, they were very different from the Mongols’ massive military expansion, massacres, conquests, and social classes.
In the game, the Khitans can have many Pagodas as real wonders, different tech trees, civ bonuses, UU and UTs to reflect history. They also have as many sources of material as the Mongols to make into game content, including representing their ancestors Xianbei and Rouran, the establishment of the Liao Empire and the Qara Khitai, wars against the Gokturks, Chinese, Koreans, Jurchens, Mongols and even Seljuks. Including the Khitans among the Mongols is clearly a waste and should not be compared with the Jurchens as they are more suitable as a combination.
This is equivalent to naming the Chinese civ with “Tang” or “Song”. It is simpler and more effective to use Lolos to cover the Bai people and so on. They are very close politically and culturally, and in this way they are more representative of the regimes and forces before or after Nanzhao.
All 10 civs I suggest fit the timeline perfectly and interacted with multiple existing civs.
On the other hand, the Lolos can be covered by the Burmese just as your arguments about languages, and the Chams can be covered by the Vietnamese like the dev had defined before (just change the architecture set back). Furthermore, they have neither an iconic expansion war, nor a famous world-affecting war. At least, not as important as the Khitans.
Only Uyghurs and Tibetans are risky, while all others are fine.
2 Likes
There is only one Serbi–Mongolic language civ in the game, no any problem to introduce an another one. Even both Included by Serbi–Mongolic languages, the Para-Mongolic languages are not the Mongolic languages. Besides, they did have different strategies, tactics, lifestyle and warfare.
We already have 2 civs in the game that speak Mongolian, the Huns and the Mongols. And since the Khitan Para-Mongolic language has only been poorly reconstructed so far, chances are high that they’ll be speaking the Mongolian language if the devs decided to add them, so that’ll make 3 civs speaking the same language.
Compared with the Mongols, the Khitans did not understand too much about gunpowder and siege, but they were good at forging, and paid more attention to heavy cavalry, sending heavy cavalry to charge and use various weapons, including crossbows (see the History of Song, volume 004 ), while cavalry archers were only lightly armed and used for robbery, support or ambush. Politically and culturally, the Khitans are more willing to accept the Chinese culture. After the establishment of the Liao Empire, they began to try to settle down. They received a large number of remnant Chinese, Balhae and Yugur peoples, and actively sought benefits through diplomatic means. As a result, they were very different from the Mongols’ massive military expansion, massacres, conquests, and social classes.
Both were quite good at forging, both led a nomadic lifestyle, both used heavy cavalry and cavalry archers, so I don’t see how they could be made different from the Mongols. And sorry to break your dream, but the “Khitan crossbow cavalry” is completely unhistorical and imaginary. The only depiction of crossbow cavalry from that era was a painting showing a Song Dynasty military parade, whereas we haven’t found anything similar in Khitan paintings. Though the Khitan cavalry did seem to use a variety of maces. And the Mongols also ruled over a large area (much larger than the area ruled by the Khitans) and incorporated many different peoples into their military, including Chinese, Jurchens, Khitans, etc.
This is equivalent to naming the Chinese civ with “Tang” or “Song”. It is simpler and more effective to use Lolos to cover the Bai people and so on. They are very close politically and culturally, and in this way they are more representative of the regimes and forces before or after Nanzhao.
But the thing is we aren’t sure if their ruling class or the majority of their populace spoke Lolo/Yi. It’s still controversial.
On the other hand, the Lolos can be covered by the Burmese just as your arguments about languages, and the Chams can be covered by the Vietnamese like the dev had defined before (just change the architecture set back). Furthermore, they have neither an iconic expansion war, nor a famous world-affecting war. At least, not as important as the Khitans.
Well, using your argument on Khitans and Mongols, the Lolos can’t be covered by the Burmese. And plus Nanzhao was the enemy of Burmese they invaded Burmese Pyu city states.
And Chams can’t be covered by Vietnamese either, their languages are different; Chams speak an Austronesian language whereas Viets speak an Austroasiatic language. And their cultures and religion are also different.
Nanzhao was quite expansionist in the early 9th century, even raided Chengdu in the year 830. To the south they invaded the Burmese Pyu city states and also Annam (Vietnam).
The Chams had captured and raided Angkor and Thang Long (Hanoi) at the height of their power.
Both were quite formidable in the height of their power and shouldn’t be underestimated.