Which factions do you think should be added to West Asia?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1
  • Abkhazian (Kingdom of Abkhazia, 778-1008)
  • Afghan (Ghurid Empire, 879-1215)
  • Alan/Scythian (Alania, 9th c.-13th c.)
  • Armenian (Kingdom of Armenia, 885-1045; Cilicia, 1080-1375)
  • Avar (Kingdom of Sarir, 5th c.-12th c.; Avar Khanate 13th c.-1864; possibly Avar Khaganate, 567-822)
  • Azeri (Qara Qoyunlu, 1374-1468; Aq Qoyunlu, 1378-1503)
  • Baloch (Khanate of Kalat, 1512-1839)
  • Bedouin (Rashidun Caliphate, 632-661; Quarmatian Republic, 899-1077)
  • Chagatai (Chagatai Khanate/Moghulistan, 1228-1487)
  • Circassian (Grand Principalty of Circassia, 1427-1453)
  • Crusader/Outremer (Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291; Principalty of Antioch, 1098-1268)
  • Georgian (Iberia, 588-1008; Kingdom of Georgia, 1008-1490)
  • Göktürk (Göktürk Khaganate, 552-603)
  • Hephtalite (Imperial Hephtalites, 442-560)
  • Khitan (Great Liao/Khitan Empire, 916-1125; Qara Khitai, 1125-1218)
  • Kazakh (Kazakh Khanate, 1465-1847)
  • Khazar (Khazar Khaganate, 650-969)
  • Kurds (Shaddadids, 951-1199; Rawadids, 955-1070; Marwanids, 983-1085)
  • Kyrgyz (Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate, 840-1207)
  • Levantine/Syrian (Umayyad Caliphate, 661-750, Abbasid Caliphate, 750-1258)
  • Omani (Imamate of Oman, 751-1959)
  • Pecheneg (Pecheneg Khaganate, 860-1091)
  • Sogdian (city states, 6th c. BCE-11th c. AD; Samanid Empire, 819-999)
  • Tajik (Kart, 1244-1381)
  • Uyghur (Uyghur Khaganate, 744-840; Ganzhou Uyghur Kingdom, 894-1036)
  • Uzbek (Uzbek Khanate, 1428-1471
  • Yemeni (Himyarite Kingdom, 110 BCE-570 CE; Sulayhids, 1047-1138; Rasulids, 1229-1454; Tahirids, 1454-1517)
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
  • None

0 voters

Second poll, how many factions do you think should be added to this region?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5+
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
  • None

0 voters

As announced in my poll about Sout Asia, here is a second one regarding civs you think should be added to “West” Asia. For context, this area covers the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia (including the Tarim Basin) and the Pontic Steppe, and yes, I know nobody else uses this subdivision. It was just more a pratical way to group together Turkic, Iranian and Arabic cultural areas and their close/enclaved neighbours.
This time I’ve put at least one exemple of a relevant state to represent each civ in this time period, though a few of them may have been a stretch. I hope it helps you tell who’s who in some case, and that it doesn’t damage the poll’s readability.

A few things I need to mention or reiterate:

  • Again, I don’t pretend to know everything there is to know about this area and time period. I may have forgotten, overlooked or never heard about important informations about the matter at hand. Don’t hesitate to point it out if you think something is missing.
  • It goes without saying that just because I put one civ in this poll doesn’t mean I support its addition to the game, I just tried to be as exhaustive as I could. Noticeably, I put a lot of Arabic factions in this poll because many people are asking for a Saracen split and I’m not really sure what they want to see in game (I didn’t put Egyptians in for the simple reason that the current Saracens represent medieval Egypt better than anything else).
  • As I already said in my previous poll, I picked those civs without taking into account how they should be represented in game, I think it’s up to you to think about those things while voting especially since you may know more about a specific civ than I do.
  • Yes, Afghans and Baloch are back from my South Asian poll, because they are relevant for both areas and could be put in a dlc covering either of those. Likewise, some of the factions in the current poll will be there again if I ever do a poll for East Asia.
3 Likes
2

Definitely some form of Georgia or Armenia, probably don’t need both. Khitans just keep looking better and better to me, along with Jurchens for East Asia. Afghan would probably be the most recognizable and best overall civ for east Iranians. Omani sounds fun due to differences from the Mameluk/Fatimids we have in Saracens. And the Crusader States just so we can get Knights Templar.

1 Like
3

Some more civs using the Central Asian architecture set as well as getting a new Caucasian set sounds nice to me.

A Outremer civ doesn’t sound civ enough to me. It’s basically just an amalgamation of European civs in the Middle East. Especially which language should such a civ even have? Sicilians is basically one of our Crusaders/Normans civ, IMO we don’t need even more of those.

5 Likes
4

Georgians, Armenians, Avar

2 Likes
5

Crusaders arent a civ.

2 Likes
6

Avars are one of the worse horde civs that we could add honestly. They were too shortlived and not very impressive

Also I dont get the hype behind Armenia. They are okay but theres way better options out there

7

Avars already sort of represented by Huns.

3 Likes
8

I think the use of the term “West Asia” is a bit misleading.

If we consider West Asia and the so-called Middle East roughly the same region, it is difficult for this region to have more civs except the Persians and Turks because the Saracens are very powerful in assimilation. I remember that on this point, someone in this forum has given examples and explanations to prove the high homogeneity of Muslims in West Asia/Middle East. In other words, the Saracens themselves are a classic large aggregate to represent Muslims in West Asia, not just Arabs, Abbasids and Mamluks.

On the other hand, the Central Asia is the another different problem.

The Huns actually represent the Avars in the current campaign very well. In my opinion, the Huns should cover the Avars or they would have too less contents.

The intricacies of the Turkic groups make the civ pick have to be careful, better cover the largest number of tribes and khanates with the smallest number of civilizations as much as possible. The Göktürks are the 3rd and last Turkic group worth independence I consider. The large regimes under the direct control of the Ashina clan lasted until 745 and their influence continued for centuries after that. In addition to political entities, they can also represent primitive Turkic society who believe in Tengrism. So that except the Göktürks themselves, their civ can also represent people such as the Pechenegs, Türgesh, Khazars, Yenisei Kyrgyz, etc.

In contrast, the Tatars represented other Central Asian Turkic tribes that opposed the rule of Ashina and were later influenced by Mongols or/and Islamic culture, such like the Tiele, Xueyantuo, Karluks, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Kara-Khanids and so on. The Göktürks and Tatars could well present the medieval Inner Asian Turkic forces while the current Turks already have enough contents to specifically represent the Azerbaijans, Seljuks and Ottomans in the West Asia.

The Sogdians were the Eastern Iranians, devout Zoroastrians and Buddhists, developing both cities and nomadic culture. They mastered the Silk Road, having an indelible influence on the Sassanian Empire, the Turkic Khanate and the Tang Dynasty and leave plenty of brilliant artistic and religious creations. In addition to representing their own city-states, they can also represent the Scythians, Hephthalites, Tocharians, Tajiks, Samanids and so on who related to them or were also the Eastern Iranians from Central Asia.

The Sogdians also have relations with the Bactrians and Pashtuns (Afghans). Meanwhile, the Afghans have historically been famous for invading India as Ghurid Dynasty. So that if we can only have 1 Eastern Iranian civ, the name “Iranians” may be a good solution or we have to choose between the Sogdians and the Afghans. In my opinion, I regard the Sogdians have more potential.

The Khitans are very very famous in the Chinese history. As a nomadic group, they were good at forging, valuing the diplomacy, the refugee admissions and the espionage, developing a semi-nomadic society with a large population and ethnic diversity. Through a famous diplomatic negotiation, their Liao Dynasty successfully gained the surrender from Song Chinese and obtained substantial economic income and peace. The Qara Khitai even defeated more with less, repelling the eastward expansion of the Seljuks, further preventing East Asia from being Islamized. This deed made the term “Cathay” an elegant name for China in ancient Europe. In addition to the Liao and Qara Khitai, they could also represent the Xianbei and the Rourans who are their ancestors.

I think the Caucasus should be an extension of Europe culturally, so I won’t discuss it much. But I can make it clear that Georgians are the most potential candidates in the region and Armenians can form a good theme DLC with them.

3 Likes
9

I don’t know about any other group, but I want Scythians just because they’re already in the Hun campaign lol

10

I’d like to see some representation of the Khazars and others of that ilk, considering how unique they and their history would sound to a lot of people.

11

Yeah amd they are kind of meh. Compared to Khitan, Gokturks, Uyghurs or even Khazars they arent a good option

Unless you only care about Europe they arent making a good case for being addef

12

TbI think Gokturks or Uyghurs should be added representing the pre Mongol Turks for sure

2 Likes
13

Are they not covered under tatars already?

14

Tatars are the western muslim Turkic groups with a big focus on the latedieval ages

So no. It would be like making Charlemagne’s French represent the late medieval HRE and Castille. If the muslim western Tatars represent these two 6 to 12th khaganates built around tengrinism we shouldnt get any more Euro civs and like two more asian and African civs at best

15

I understand.

As I stated, the Gokturks basically represent the primitive Turkic society who believe in Tengrism, so the early medieval groups like the Pechenegs, the Türgesh, the Khazars could be covered well.

The Tatars are not only the western Muslim Turkic groups but also the Turco-Mongols and the Turks who submit to the Mongols so that is why their UUs are the Keshiks. Even if the Uyghurs are the Turkic people, they had opposed the rule of the Gokturks, obeyed the Mongols, joined the army of the Mongol Empire and converted to Islam. Those things that are close to the settings of Tatars are such similar to the Tatars in the Cuman campaign, making them actually suitable to be represented by the Tatars.

Perhaps we might use the Gokturks rather than the Tatars to represent the early Uyghurs for emphasizing their Tengri faith, but the late Uyghurs fit the Tatars undoubtedly.

2 Likes
16

Sorry for political opinion.
Adding Uyghurs will result in an immediate ban in China. Either only the expansion or in worst case, the whole game. So it is not a possibility to add even if devs want to.

17

Eh once we get to use Gokturks to represent the Uyghurs I would rather stick with that. Either waynot sure either of them are marketeable wnough to get addex

18

In my opinion I would like to stick with that they are represented by the Tatars.
At least at the period the Uyghurs were active are closer to the Tatars than the Gokturks.

Anyway each of them is finer than being represented by the Mongols, the Turks or the Chinese.

19

Nah gonna disagree on that. The period they were a major regional power (744-1100-ish) tbey are basically a successor state to Gokturks and were pretty similar. They even spoke very closely related lamguages I think

Not to mention a new Gokturk/Uyghur civ can represent east asia turks in general and it could work pretty well

20

By rebellion. Haha.

Put aside the other reasons which may make the dev as far from the Uyghurs as possible, I consider that the Tatars play the role of the Uyghurs well at the time of Mongol campaigns, the climax of this game. Basing on the argument that the late Uyghurs fit the Tatars undoubtedly, It is also a concise way to directly designate them to be represented by the Tatars.

In the another potential campaign, the An-Lushan Rebellion, the Gokturks are one of the main opponents and the Uyghurs are the one of the allies. To emphasize the difference, I am also willing to set the Uyghurs the Tatars so that they can use non-Gokturk units like keshiks and cavalry archers in silk armor.

Anyway this is not important until the Gokturks are added into the game. :joy: