Venice is represented by spanish in one historical battle and portuguese in the italian campaign.slavs were represented by goths before they got added so is it that hard to see one faction stand in for another?
Last time I checked civilization limit was 48 and teutons and goths or mongols and huns speaking the same language had no real effect on the gameplay.
If one indian faction can represent all of the current sarrc countries one tatar faction is enough for all of central asian horse people.
Yeah because thats such a good example.
The first thing you say is wrong since Spain is representing a coalition and not just Venice. And Venice was replaced by Portugal because they thought it was fitting and they thought it diversified Sforza which is pretty much 99% of the time Italian mirrors
And the other example is just silly really. And even as an example it is bad because it would mean that the Huns/Tatars arent representing the Gokturks properly since Goths werent representing Polish fairly either.
Thank you, makes sense, now I understand better. Can’t Khitans just be shown as Mongols? That seems to fit quite well. Yes, they have been influenced by Chinese, but this also happened to Mongols proper.
Concerning Afghans: Thanks for clarifying the origin of the word Afghan, I didn’t know that. I named Ghaznavid and Ghurid because they are sometimes proposed as Afghan empires (you also listed Ghurid empire). I would rather see them as Persian empires (with Turkic influences). So I suggested a campaign about Mahmud of Ghazni in my India DLC concept, as he was also deploying war elephants which fits nicely. But perhaps you are right and Afghans could be separate. The Pashtun area was so frequently ruled by others (Turks, Persians, Mongols, Timurids/Tatars) that I am not sure if a separate civ is worth it.
In Chinese speaking world, the Khitans are never regarded as a part of the Mongols.
According to the records of Song and Yuan Dynasty, even if the Mongols and the Khitans did not regard themselves to belong to the each other ever.
Besides, they also differ in politics, military establishment, tactics, culture, etc. For example, the Khitans more often use heavy armored units to cooperate with light armored cavalry archers, and they are more willing to accept Chinese culture ideologically too.
We would not use Teutons to represent all Germanic peoples, use Turks to represent all Turkic peoples, use Rus to represent all Slavic peoples and use Indians to represent all peoples in the Subcontinent, right? The Mongol Empire and the Four Khanates, the Mongols have enough contents already. We can look for the real opponents of the Chinese in history, instead of always taking the Mongols to prevaricate.
They are pretty influential, and although they were loosely Mongol related and they were both nomadic in no way form part of the Mongols themselves. Also the devs would love to do a Kushluk campaign I imagine
Either way I think I would rather add other civs first
Oh, the Khitan can certainly fall under the Mongol umbrella for simplicity sake, they are represented as such in the first two missions and are apparently viewed as a “para-Mongolic” people in modern historiography, which means they were not Mongols per se but sort of their cousins. Yet again, umbrella civs are far from perfect in many cases, and as @UpmostRook9474 said, the Khitans are by far different enough from the Mongols to justify having their own civ, just as the Cumans and Tatars were broken apart for the insanely huge umbrella that were (and sort of still are) the Turks.
Regarding the Afghans, I’m not sure they should be used to represent the Ghaznavids. As far as I know, despite having their capital in modern day Afghanistan and using Persian as a court language, their military was mostly Turkish and kept using Turkic tactics during their whole history (which isn’t surprising considering that, if I remember correctly, their dynasty was founded by Turkish war leaders who overthrew the Samanids). As such, I think the Turks are better to represent them in a game mostly focused on military, secondarily on economics and not really on court politics).
However, the Ghurids are a whole other story. As far as I know, the origin of their dynasty is uncertain (possibly Tajik, which is still Eastern Iranian), but they rose to prominence as sultans of Ghor and, even though I’m not certain of it, I think the core of their armies were actually Afghans? According to what I found, they mostly used light cavalry and ranged cavalry against Prithviraj, so if anything they would better be represented by Turks or Tatars rather than Prsians from a gameplay perspective (and they are actually represented by all three of them in Prithviraj’s campaign), but I think they probably deserve a chance to stand on their own.
Mahmud of Ghazni would probably make for an interesting campaign (as either Persian or Turkish, I guess), but I would be also be glad to see an Afghan campaign centered around the brothers Ghiyath and Mu’izz al-Din Muhammad of Ghor.
Aren’t Tatars already Gokturks?
And if you mean these Tocharians, they’re not Turkic, are they?
Now we have Hindustanis for Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Delhi Sultanate and Mughals…
Nope. Tatars are mongolized Turks, while Gokturks dissappeared like 400 years before the rise of the Mongols
Theres no civ representing the early Khaganates
Eh, I dont think it represents the Gaznavids
Also I see no problem with an Eastern Iranian civ representing Sogdians, Ghorids and whatever else
Why not? They have the horse archers, the ghulams and the elephants (siege).
Khitans, Tibetans or Jurchens could cover the miscellaneous polities between the fall of the Tang till the rise of the Mongols
Because Gaznavids were mostly a Persia based power (and Ghulams as an argument doesnt really work when they were so widespread). Tbh I dont think they need a new civ for them, but they arent really Hindustanis
None of those really work honestly.
Uyghurs are already in-game as the Mongols in the Genghis Khan campaign.
A campaign appearence in which they are included into the Mongol Khanate isnt the same as making them an independent civ
But they are in-game, and not as the chinese civilization. I didnt see this game get banned for that
As far as I know, Ghazvanids mostly settled in Iran. It’s debatable wether they’re better represented by Persians, Turks or maybe Tatars, but I don’t think Hindustani.
As for Ghorids, I guess they can be represented by Hindustani, but I still hope the Afghan civ will be added at some point for them and the short-lived Suri Empire. After all, contrary to the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire, the Ghorids always kept their capital outside of India.
YEah but making them a minor player represented by another civ in an scenario in which they are annexed by other faction isnt the same as getting their own civ and campaign
They are Tatar in DE.