Why is it called "Dynasties" of India?

Hindustanis, Bengalis, Dravidians are not a dynasty.
If you know the meaning of the word “dynasty” you know what that it is wrong title.

1 Like

Mughals, Palas, Cholas and Chahamanas are all famous Indian dynasties in the campaigns… Whats the issue?

6 Likes

What @PeakHornet46539 said.
Also, I guess it sounded nice and marketable. I personally think they should have kept the word “Dynasties” for a possible future dlc about China, but ultimately dlc names are not something that will keep me awake at night.

2 Likes

Emperors of the East for the Chinese DLC. There you have it, a suitable regal title.

1 Like

Emperors of India and Dynasties of China would make more sense.

3 Likes

India was always multiple empires with dynasties of their own fighting for power with each other while china was one unified empire with changing dynasties.

I have this name in mind ever since DOTD. E comes after D. So next DLC should be EOTE (Emperor of the East).

2 Likes

The reason why I say it should be emperors of China is because the DLC should focus on the various Emperors, Song Taizu (Song), Zhu Yuanzhang (Ming), Tang Taizong, Wu Zetian, but also include the other emperors like Aguda of the Jurchens, and the Tibetan Empire. And we hopefully would get a Korean and Japanese campaign along with the Tibetans, Jurchens and Chinese (it would make sense for two Chinese campaigns, one on Tang and one on the Ming Dynasty. China is very large and storied. It should be a blockbuster DLC.

Fights of the …
… over the Galicia
Hastening on the …

1 Like

We also have ROTR.

I can come up with more.

Kings of …
Lords of …
Monarchs of …
Nobles of …
Sultans of Steppe/Savannah.

1 Like

The issue is weird groups of vocal fans that are full of complexes and insecurities and split every hair in search of anything that could boost their home country/ethnic group/region etc; as if that’s a popularity contest and a virtual battleground where real-life policies derive from.
You see it everywhere on any given day of the week- an endless stream of demands and complaints about various things, pleads to add completely uninteresting or obscure civs, minor civ, tribal groups, merc that are unappealing business-wise, let alone realistic to implement so late in the life of this re-release.

It would be totally fine in the ‘Fan fiction’ subforum or in a general thread about personal wishlists, but these are often really serious manifests, completely out of touch with what can and/or should be done with the game, and even what this game is and was designed to be as back in the day.

2 Likes

If it were for them we’d have Venetia and Western Roman Empire, even when there’s a 50/50 split on including each of those, or split HRGE in every duchie, instead of Burmese or Dravidians

1 Like

Be that as it may… I was only explaining why Dynasties of India works ok as a title.

1 Like

Because it sounds cool.

1 Like

Sons of Heaven (China DLC)

FE, please

3 Likes

Lords of the west and age of kings are already taken.

1 Like

Lords of the west and age of kings are already taken.

And forum is not letting me post this,saying content is too similar.

I forgot LOTW. LOL (pun intended. A DLC name as LOL :joy:) will be better.

Age of Kings and Kings of (Input a word) will be different. However we have a regular tournament named as King of the Desert. So maybe avoiding another King title is better choice imo.

WOTW = Wonders/Wealth of Warlords.
Sounds really dumb even to me tbh.

LoL would make an interesting dlc name

Legends of (insert something staring with L)

Legends of Low Elo.

11 = LOL

5 Likes