Indians is actually fine, the only thing most complain about, is lack of Battle Elephants.
Indians have not been OP in 1v1, for over a decade.
Hmm, I think their design is flawed because devs tried to have camels be a substitute to knight line…and it just doesn’t work, because it’s always either too strong or too weak.
BE should be a regional unit for SEA civilization indians already have a elephant uu to represent war elephant use.if I was a dev and had room to add more indianish civis all of them will have elephant uu’s and not the be line.
1 Like
I’m learning a lot of history involving human’s biology adaptation to environment but how did blond hair came from sexual strategy during starvation period and the so called wheat farming camouflage?
Blonde hair is preffered by most men, so women that developed it, catched the attention of favourable partners more often, which helped a lot of bloodlines survive starvation.
In cultures that grew tall wheat, it helped the farmer disguise himself among the what stalks, and avoid getting killed by still-nomadic humans, that raided the settled tribes.
This is all from the very Stone Age, I put links above.
1 Like
Yes, those aren’t people who live or where born in Europe, but still they have genetically more in common with Europeans than their Turkic, Mongol, and Chinese neighbors, because they’re part of the same race known as Indo-Europeans that spread from Central Asia to India, Iran, and throughout Europe to its western corners, giving it its today languages and culture. And we stil have yet to know more about the ancient Tocharians, one of the first known IE, peoples, who inhabited the same area now part of China and known as Xinjiang or Sinkiang
2 Likes
Are you saying that, as an indo-european, I have right to Central Asian territory, and that it is rightful european clay?
Also, how have uyghurs, a turk ethnic group, more in common with europeans than with turks?
Please re-read everything I said. Clearly not all central asian peoples are the same, but some aren’t like whatever stereotype you’re putting them in, they have their own different heritage. These are Kalasha people from modern Pakistan, not your typical Punjabi that would appear in Hollywood to represent the area.
These people attribute their ancestry to Alexander and his Macedonian army (greek ones, not the fake country calling itself Macedonia due to fake soviet policies)
The point being that there’s more in ethnicities and history that meets the eye, or at least there’s more than it’s even encouraged to discuss and explore. Attributing haplogroups causing different phenotypes to mere sunlight or ridiculous things like wheat farming camouflage (when traits like light colored hair and eyes first appeared in semi-nomadic pastoralists) is wilfully ignorant to say the least.
The world didn’t start with all whites in one side, and browns on the other, there were migration periods who are even partially represented in this AoE2 game, to a minimal point, because must of what we’ve learned from the first IE migrations has come from linguistic reconstruction and archaelogical findings, and there’s still lots more to discover (like what happened with Tocharians)
But at least we are sure that these people did not pop up from thin air and aren’t unrelated to today’s Europeans, even if they were born inside the political borders of other countries
3 Likes
Sandy Petersen, the same guy in the interview above, claimed in another interview that they did want to add Magyars in the Conquerors, but went with Huns instead. Not idea why.
Something of interest regarding the whole ethnicity discussion.
Which links? I just scrolled above mate there’s none for the blonde hair. Anyways I learned new stuff again. Fascinating anthropology.
Burgundians are in the Age of Realms mod whence the developers are drawing inspiration, and their lead is Dutch so they only way they could be included in a Medieval game was to include the Burgundians and the Flemish Revolution. Sicilians are beyond me.
All the while we got these two civs when the following empires are not included.
Kanembu
Pala
Tibet
Chola
Ghorids
Jurchen
It’s nonsensical.
That is likely, although it could also be that to launch an expansion of “Conquerors” they focused on civilizations that were characterized precisely by being a conquering civilization.
A user posted that they thought to put the Magiaren instead of the Huns, and that would explain why the Huns possess the “Central European” architecture (although the Huns most likely came from the steppes of Asia), it could be the argument that used by the designers of AoE 2 to include the Huns was: They are a world-renowned civilization, they put in jake the Roman civilization (and civilization in general) and could be an umbrella for the civilizations of Eastern Europe (such as the Magyars), obviously that logic is very far-fetched and unconvincing, but I don’t see any other historical logic for its inclusion.
Even if we try to compare it with other contemporary civilizations such as the Goths, the difference is still very great, because the Goda culture remained until the 15th century with the Crimean Goths, in addition to the fact that the Goths played an important role in the fall of the Roman Empire. Western and the rise of medieval Europe.
However, it must be admitted that the Huns, although they were a very important civilization at a global level in their time, was very ephemeral, to the point that they do not end up fitting in well with AoE 1 or AoE 2.
Having berbers would have been a better choice.they were conquerors and fits with the spanish campaign.
Pretty sure the devs wanted to scratch something from the available resources rather than make a new civi.only new asset for the huns was the uu skin.
1 Like