The ruling class isn’t necessarily the main metric to take into account, otherwise Saladin’s campaign should be a Persian one considering he was Kurdish.
The thing is we aren’t sure about the language of Nanzhao, neither the elites’ language nor the populace’s language. Hence it’s better just to call them Nanzhao or Zhaos.
So you play this game for the voice? Personally, I do not care this at all since they have difference at other places. Moreover, the Khitans can use Dagur language, the modern Dagur people are regarded the closest people to the ancient Khitans. Even if Dagur language belongs to modern Mongolic language, it could provide different accent and dialect.
Obviously you are the one who regard the nomadic peoples all do the same things and distinguishing them only by the language. You cannot figure out them means you need to study the details. There are many differences in politics, economy, society management methods, cultural customs, army formation, and tactics. The Mongols used heavy cavalry too but in the early period they didn’t value heavy cavalry, while the Khitans formed heavy cavalry troop already since they had fought against Tanguts and Chinese, and that is still a different point. Although the Khitans ruled less land than the Mongols, the Chinese and other ethnic groups ruled by the Khitans were treated better than when they were under Mongol rule. At the very least, it’s clear that the Khitans can create different tech tree, bonuses and gameplay from the Mongols by reflecting their history in the game.
There is source in the History of Song showing that the Emperor Taizong of Song arrived at New City (新城) and saw the Tielin (or Iron Forest Army), the elite heavy cavalry troop of Khitan Empire, firing the crossbows on the 23th day of the ninth month, the 4th year of Taipingxingguo (Oct 16th, 979 AD). Although the Tielin Army did not specifically and usually equip crossbows, but surely this proves that the crossbow was indeed one of weapons that the Khitan cavalry had used, which is quoted by many Chinese information sites as evidence that the Khitans had used crossbow cavalry. Not unhistorical and imaginary at all.
《宋史·太宗紀一》：「己亥，幸新城，觀鐵林軍人射強弩。」
https://zh.m.wikisource.org/zh-hant/宋史/卷004
Does not matter. The ruler of Rus were from the Norse but the civ is still named Slavs.
The Lolos and their culture played the main role of this nation so that is fine to name it Lolos.
Surely I do not think they can be covered very well so that is why I already listed them in the 10 civs I suggested.
The argument I stated just emphasizes that it is really unwise that you oppose Khitans mainly by the language and nomadic identity.
So you play this game for the voice? Personally, I do not care this at all since they have difference at other places. Moreover, the Khitans can use Dagur language, the modern Dagur people are regarded the closest people to the ancient Khitans. Even if Dagur language belongs to modern Mongolic language, it could provide different accent and dialect.
Nope, I play this game for the diversity of civs that it could offer. We already have many nomadic civs, the Mongols, the Huns, the Tartars, and the Cumans, and I don’t see how you could squeeze in yet another nomadic civ and make it different from the others. And the fact that the Khitans treated the Chinese somewhat better than the Mongols is rather insignificant and won’t really make them different from the Mongols. In fact many Khitans actively joined Chinggis Khan’s ranks (such as Yelu Chucai for instance), and that proves how they were similar both linguistically and culturally.
《宋史·太宗紀一》：「己亥，幸新城，觀鐵林軍人射強弩。」
https://zh.m.wikisource.org/zh-hant/宋史/卷004
You can only use this to fool people who don’t understand Chinese, but you can’t fool me cause I’m a native speaker. This passage only said that the Tielin soldiers shot crossbows, and nowhere did it say that they shot them while mounted. And nothing indicates that the Tielin were only composed of heavy cavalry. Your claim that they shot while mounted is a completely subjective interpretation. IMHO this only proves that the Khitans should have access to crossbowmen and arbalesters, but it doesn’t warrant the creation of a completely unhistorical unit called “mounted crossbowman”.
1 Like
No no whatever you say anything MS do not want to take this risk,you think no problem but MS think it is a big problem,it is enough.
Due to the limitations of the game structure, each civilization is bound to be hard to be completely different. Settled peoples mostly emphasized heavy cavalry, infantry, and foot archers, while nomadic peoples emphasized light cavalry and cavalry archers. This reason you use rejects not only the Khitans, but all potential new civs.
I remember you also wanted Gokturks and Sogdians, they will also be rejected by your reason, because you don’t want more nomads, while nomadic civs are only 6 in the current game.
Many non-military details do not mean that they cannot be integrated into the game. The Khitans’ tolerance for foreign peoples can be reflected in their only one economic bonus, such as making each TC and castle spawn a villager when hitting a new age. Nothing is impossible, it’s just that you can’t think of it.
There are many such things in the history of the world. There were also Germanic generals in Rome, many Turkic generals and Sogdian immigrants in the Tang Dynasty, Jurchen generals in Korea, and non-Mongol generals and officials in the Mongol Empire, not only the Khitans. Did everybody do it due to the similar culture or language? As for the Yelu Chucai you mentioned, he was a highly sinicized official, and it was the Jurchen Jin Dynasty that he originally served. Just because of his Khitan ancestry is not enough to support your statement.
You know what. I am a native speaker too, and I think the language does not matter here at all.
It doesn’t say shooting crossbows while mounted, because it doesn’t explain much at all. It could probably either shoot a crossbow while standing or shoot a crossbow while mounted. I also never said they shot crossbows while mounted, only that they used crossbows. And it is those Chinese information websites that think this proves the Khitan crossbow cavalry.
But in any case, it is still a fact that the Tielin Army is heavy cavalry in the military formation of the Liao Empire, and also it is still a fact that members of this heavy cavalry troop used crossbows. This can still be a good source for introducing heavy cavalry with crossbows into the game. Dragoons were originally used horses for mobility and dismounted to fight on foot, but they always shoot the guns with mounted in AoE3. Horsemen using crossbows are not only found in the East, but also in the West. Mamluks throwing swords, Korean wagons firing ballista arrows, axemen who can keep throwing axes, and more, units based on the combination of some historical facts and creative ideas of the devs have entertained us for more than 20 years.
To reject this possibility is to reject potential diversity you like.
The mounted crossbowmen stuff isn’t really a problem for me, considering we have far more fantastical UU already in the game, but I’m not sure what advantage they would have considering the game treat the crossbow as an upgraded bow with better stats but the exact same mechanics.
1 Like
Don’t worry. The stats of mounted crossbowmen may be like the following.
- Cost: 70 wood and 60 gold
- HP: 80 → 100
- Attack: 8 → 9, +2 → +3 vs spearman, +1 → +2 vs cavalry
- Rate of fire: 2.5
- Frame delay: 55
- Attack delay: 1
- Range: 3
- Projectile speed: 7
- Accuracy: 80%
- Armor: 1/2 → 2/3
- Speed: 1.35
- LoS: 6
- Costs 700 food and 850 gold to upgrade.
Basically, it would have more HP, attack and armor than a regular cavalry archer, But its speed and rate of fire would be slower, the range would be a bit shorter and the cost would be higher.
Btw, the conception of the Khitan civ may be like:
- Each TC and castle spawns 1 villager when hitting a new age.
- Reveal enemy castles’ locations when they are built.
- The blacksmith and its armor upgrade techs are available one age earlier than other civs. This one is optional if the two bonuses above are not enough.
- Team bonus: Ranged units +1 attack against gunpowder units.
Castle UT: Treaty
Based on the Chanyuan Treaty. It would force all friendly and enemy units to cease fire for a short time, maybe 30 sec or 1 min, and then receive 1 gold per 4 sec (half relic) after the treaty ends.
Imperial UT: Orda
Within the Liao Empire, the Orda was used to refer to the nobleman’s personal entourage specifically. It would make cavalry archers cost lower gold or no longer cost gold. Off course that means the wood cost of CA would be increased, and the Khitans may not have HCA probably.
The tech tree basically has all Blacksmith techs, Hussar, Heavy Camel, Elite Steppe Lancer, Champion, Arbalester and Parthian Tactics. But no Two-Man Saw, Paladin, Halberdier, important Monastery techs, Shipwright, Architecture, Fortified Wall, good siege weapons and any gunpowder units.
Their strategy and gameplay would have obvious difference from the Mongols and other nomadic civs.
I remember you also wanted Gokturks and Sogdians, they will also be rejected by your reason, because you don’t want more nomads, while nomadic civs are only 6 in the current game.
Sogdians weren’t nomads. They were largely city-dwellers and they excelled on trade and commerce.
Gokturks, despite they were nomads, actually serve 2 purposes. First is that they fill a void, since no current civ can represent Eastern Turks at the moment, the Turk civ that we have only represents Seljuks and Ottomans. Secondly, they can represent other Eastern Turkic peoples as well, such as Karluks, Uyghurs, Turkesh, etc.
Khitans, on the other hand, don’t serve such purposes. For one they don’t fill any voids they themselves can be represented by the Mongols, and secondly they cannot represent other Mongolic peoples. Xianbei and Rouran were too early and don’t fit very well with AOE 2’s timeline.
Many non-military details do not mean that they cannot be integrated into the game. The Khitans’ tolerance for foreign peoples can be reflected in their only one economic bonus, such as making each TC and castle spawn a villager when hitting a new age. Nothing is impossible, it’s just that you can’t think of it.
So an individual civ’s characteristics depend on foreign peoples/other civs? I don’t think that’s the gist of AOE 2. If that’s the case, then there’s no need to introduce the Khitans, cause they can be represented by Chinese.
As for the Yelu Chucai you mentioned, he was a highly sinicized official, and it was the Jurchen Jin Dynasty that he originally served. Just because of his Khitan ancestry is not enough to support your statement.
Well, he was still a Khitan nonetheless. And the Khitans had the choice when the Mongols came, they could either flee south and join the Song, or flee to the west and join the Tanguts, yet the overwhelming majority of them chose to join the Mongols and got easily assimilated by the later, that should tell you something about their linguistic and cultural similarities with the Mongols.
It doesn’t say shooting crossbows while mounted, because it doesn’t explain much at all. It could probably either shoot a crossbow while standing or shoot a crossbow while mounted. I also never said they shot crossbows while mounted, only that they used crossbows. And it is those Chinese information websites that think this proves the Khitan crossbow cavalry.
I’m going by the literal meaning of the source, I don’t read what was not written in the source cause that’s subjective interpretation. The literal meaning of the source is on that day some Tielin soldiers shot crossbows, it didn’t say they shot while mounted or that those who shot crossbows were all mounted cavalrymen. I suggest you avoid getting information from certain Chinese forums or websites, cause they’re full of lies, fabrications, and exaggerations.
But in any case, it is still a fact that the Tielin Army is heavy cavalry in the military formation of the Liao Empire, and also it is still a fact that members of this heavy cavalry troop used crossbows. This can still be a good source for introducing heavy cavalry with crossbows into the game.
No it’s not a fact but only a subjective interpretation, if you think otherwise then please provide a primary source (paintings, sculptures, records, etc.) which showed Khitan heavy cavalrymen armed with crossbows and shot them while mounted. AFAIK, there’s only a Song painting named Da Jia Lu Bu Tu which showed Song cavalry carried crossbows in a parade. And there’s nothing on the Liao side that showed similar things.
To reject this possibility is to reject potential diversity you like.
I don’t like random diversity, I like diversity based on historical evidence. Despite there’re a few unique units that seem kind of out of place (like the sword-throwing Mameluke), most units are quite historical. I believe the Korean wagon is based on the Hwacha or something similar, they probably wanted to make the unit Hwacha-like but due to the game mechanics of that time they weren’t able to make it that way, hence they ended up with the war wagon.
In brief, I’m not completely against the introduction of the Khitans, they could be introduced if we have enough space, but I wouldn’t give them priority over some other civs. In terms of East Asia, I think Jurchens, Tanguts, and Nanzhao/Lolos are more needed than the Khitans.
1 Like
Okay, I appreciate the clarification…
Of course it is always a latent possibility, more with a game as played as aoe 2…
Of course,MS could get into trouble,since China would think that MS is pro-Tibet and could ban the game and MS would lose millions of dollars and players,therefore,MS will prefer not to get into problems of that indole with a market as large as China…
it is the key to not add these civs because it can easily make China FURY,and then they will lose the biggest market in the world, the loss wil be higher than they expect.So clever man you are!
Did not I told you that the Sogdians would actually represent all Eastern Iranic peoples if they are introduced?
No matter what they fill and represent, they are nomadic civ. As you said, they can not be introduced since no more nomads as well as any other potential new civs are allowed.
You still can consider that the Mongols only need to represent the Mongolic peoples, Mongol Empire and the Four Khanates, not including Para-Mongolic peoples so Para-Mongolic peoples still is a void. Those contents would be already enough for the Mongols, and the owned content of the Khitans themselves is also enough to be a complete civ. Tuyuhun, Xianbei and Rouran are just additional potential supplements for them, such like the Romans could be represented by Byzantines. Otherwise, people can say that Turks can represent all the Turkic peoples.
No. How peoples got treated depends on the rulers’ attitude, and the tolerance for foreign peoples was the Khitan rulers’ attitude. Especially when the Mongols and other civs were known for their killing, it made this tolerance even more distinct as a characteristic.
Many peoples joined the Mongol Empire after they were defeated by the Mongols, something like that have happened very often in history, just look at the Tatars in the game. Were the languages and cultures of the Germanic peoples and Latins similar? Were the Xiongnu, Turkic and Iranic peoples similar in culture and language to Chinese? You ignored my example. All I can say is that it doesn’t necessarily have to do with language and culture, and your example can’t support your statement.
My interpretation is the members of heavy armored cavalry troop used crossbows. Have never stressed that they were standing or riding. That is all. Then, whether standing or riding is not important to the game, just like dragoons. I just thought this written record would be a good material to get the crossbow cavalry into the game, and they would make the game fun.
They were Tielin Army, recorded on the official history book of China.
Your objection is just that it’s not sure that they shot crossbows while mounted or standing, but I said it’s not a problem for game development at all. Nor are there any paintings, carvings, or writings to prove that the Mamluks could throw swords indefinitely, or prove that the Korean huacha were carried by the Chinese-style wagons and directly fired from the wagon. This is a game to entertain people, not a textbook to educate people.
I respect your voice. But I believe that the introduction of Khitans can bring more direct benefits to the game itself and the developers. They are the more iconic and famous people in the Chinese-speaking world, and their potential content is also quite interesting. If Jurchens are going to be introduced, it would be smartest to put them in the same DLC as the Khitan, and vice versa. I am quite looking forward to Battle of Qatwan in the game, it will be a historical battle that able to resonate with players from both the East and the West.
1 Like
That is the Khitans would be a mixture between the Chinese and the Mongols/Tartars?..How we differentiate them from the other Central Asian civs?..
I still don’t know if overexploiting Central Asia would be good for the game?..For me with Mongols and Tatars we are fine,maybe it would be good to visit other regions of the world better…
1 Like
In fact,Saladin was from central Iraq,so he could be both Saracen and Persian…
Ethnicity isn’t determined by geography alone, Saladin was known to be a Kurd and whether he was or not it didn’t make his armies or the people he ruled over magically Kurdish. He could have been an Aztec and it would still be accurate to portray his faction as Saracen, just like El Cid’s campaign become Saracen when he starts working for the Moors.
We have gotten like 9 diferent chivalry inspired European civs. We can have two or three more hordes
The whole discussion about khitans being worthy/unworthy of being a civ of its own is pointless if both of ou don’t take into account the most important factor, that is, the game can’t handle many more civs. At most I can see a maximum of 48 or 50 total civilizations, if you want to extend it further you have to invent really weird bonuses (and there we’re playing a different game) or overlap existing ones.
The discussion should not be whether khitans are worthy or unworthy of being its own civ, but rather if they fit better into the game than Georgians, Thai, Tibetans, Swahilis, Missisipians, Tamils, and many other civs many people ask for.