Hope that Uyghurs will be Uyghurs one day. If Poles, Bohemians, Sicilians and Burgundians a.k.a. small duchies can be in this game, Uyghurs should also be added.
1 Like
Armenia & Georgia.
@TungstenBoar It’s all about personal preference, for me, the appeal behind Armenia is that they are a very old civilization. They used to be allies with the Romans. Armenian tribes existed since the time of the Bronze Age. They were the Urartu.
2 Likes
The Uyghurs are really in a bad situation at the moment, with the Chinese government targeting them maybe even harder than they ever did with the Tibetans, so naming an entire civ after them could result in the game being banned in China and I doubt MS would take the risk. However, they could maybe be represented by a new Karluk or Chagatai civ (Karluk because the two civs had close ties and the modern day Uyghur language is classified as a Karluk language, and also because they were only relevant until the 9th century, and Chagatai because the Chagatai Khanate seems to be somewhat of a transition between the older and modern Uyghur people.
Would Gokturks also work here to replace them?
The difference is that Gokturks have a lot of people pushing for them as their own civ while nobody seem really interested in Chagatai (they got 0%) and even though I failed to put Karluks as an option because I didn’t know about them I didn’t receive a complaint, sooo… I guess people would be okay if a civ named after them received a campaign, an UU and tech trees/boni mostly representing the Uyghurs, while some Gokturk fans would be annoyed if they received such treatment.
I voted Georgians, Sogdians and maybe Yemenis
The point is I feel that adding the Uyghurs won’t bring anything new to the game, cause they have already been largely represented by the Turks if not the Tartars. However, if the devs ever decide to add them, just change their name to Karluks or Gokturks and it would be totally fine and China won’t object to it at all.
1 Like
Except Tibetans and Uyghurs, everything else works. It’s true that there’s censorship in China, but it isn’t as strict as a lot of people here have assumed. Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Nanzhao, etc. can all be added if the devs really want to make a China DLC.
Jurchens and Tanguts have already appeared in the Chinghis Khan campaign, yet China didn’t object to their appearance at all.
2 Likes
They are represented as Chinese right?
1 Like
Yeah honestly the scenario excuse is a bit silly. The reason I believe why adding Nanzhao, Tanguts, Khitan and Jurchen would be a problem is that these peoples have weak nationalist movements or just dont exist anymore, so China wouldnt really care that much
1 Like
I’m Chinese, and I do feel that adding Tibetans would put the game in a not-so-good spot in China. Better play it safe.
2 Likes
Yes, these peoples no longer exist or didn’t leave direct descendants or have already assimilated by Chinese and other peoples, hence they’re safe to add. It’s another story for Tibetans and Uyghurs.
2 Likes
Yes, but that’s because there’re no other civ to represent them. I don’t see a problem adding them into the game, cause unlike Tibetans and Uyghurs they no longer exist, having long been assimilated.
Unfortunate part is we still don’t have any campaigns for Chinese Korean and Japanese.
3 Likes
If we get a Chinese split, it will most certainly include a Chinese campaign.
3 Likes
It’s going to be hard.
Why would it be hard?
1 Like
CCP ban? Loss of sales?
Very unlikely either of them will happen
1 Like
Pretty sure ms will not risk it.