Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
well I am also crafting a " neolithic" DLC concept a blow gunner could be a unit for a civ like Tupis, Polinesians or Micronesians. ( many can argue that those were less developed, but still they were civilizations and some even created kingdoms and empires)
Eh, must be some miscommunication. Uzbeks are Karluk-descended and so they would be Karluks, not Kipchaks. Even modern Uzbek is still considered a Karluk-descended language today. The Chagatai were Karluk-descended as well.
Also, Kipchaks are not the 732-1202 civ. Not at all, in fact.
Kipchaks are the ancestors of the 1300-1550 Tatars who, like the Kipchaks, are unrelated to the 732-1202 Tatars, who were in turn just one of several Mongol confederacies and probably can just be left as part of the Mongol civ.
In my personal opinion, having a separate Kipchak and Tatar civ is unnecessary since one is largely ancestral to the other. Though I suppose it could be done if we have 100+ civs.
I agree, a full xpack could be made on the Turko-Mongol region. But, say we only have 2 or 3 more DLCs coming, then I'd like to "spread the love" a little around the entire world rather than having one hyperdetailed region and another very unrepresented. So I'd prefer having 1 or 2 Central Asian civs for now, leaving the opportunity to flesh the area out further if more DLCs are coming.
For a Turko-Mongol/Central Asian themed DLC though, I'd go (roughly in order of personal preference/priority)
-Tatars/Cumans/Kipchaks (pick whichever name)
-Karluks/Uzbeks/Chagatai (pick whichever name)
-Sakas (obviously not Turko-Mongol but do belong in a Central Asian DLC)
-Khazars
-Something from the Khorasan region
_______________________________________________________________
Re: civ names/distinct groups. I have to agree with Tawm.
Exonyms are obviously all over the place. Even 'Byzantines' is an exonym. That just comes with the fact that the game is localized in English.
Regarding distinct groups:
-Franks are a confusing mix of Germanic Franks and Latin French.
-Britons have the name of the Celtic inhabitants of Southern Britain but seem based on the Germanic Anglo-Normans/English.
-Malians have a unique unit of the Volta-Niger Fon people to which the Malians aren't even related.
-The Indian situation with completely unrelated Indo-Aryans and Dravidians put together in one group.
-Malays were stretched to include the Javanese, which, though related, are not Malays.
Now I wouldn't like it if any 'Tatar' civ was based on both the groups called by that name, but I can't say it's wholly unlike what has happened before in this game.
I basically agree with this list. It was also a good idea to mention Khazars, who certainly could be added.
IMO the Karluks have the strongest case going for them. Being the major population of Central Asia makes them more important than Sakas, and not being covered by another civ (while the Tatars are at least partially covered by Mongols) makes them more important than Tatars. So if we have to pick 2 civs (of course, ideally we want more), I'd say to pick Karluks + one of the others.
To strengthen my point, the Karluks would also give a nod to the Gokturk empire (one of the biggest empires in history), as the Karluks' "Uyghur khaganate" was a successor empire to the Gokturks. It just feels appropriate to me to have Gokturks somehow represented, even if the representation is very loosely. Tatars can't be used to represent Gokturks, IMO; they are so far apart ethnically, temporally and geographically, it'd be really unreasonable.
Honestly I'd be a bit disappointed if a future DLC doesn't have Karluks, Uzbeks or Uyghurs (one of those). That's kind of the minimum I hope to see. Timurids would be a possible substitute (better than nothing), but they are somewhat missing the point by shifting the focus away from the Turkic tribes and towards the Mongols. The great time of the Turkic empires was before the Mongols arrived.
Khorasan would be the civ that could have THE full stable.
>> Steppe from Ukraine-South Russia-North Kazakhstan:
1-OGHURS 400-800
Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars (early Turkic invasion displacing the Scythians)
2- EARLY KIPCHAKS 800-1200
Kimeks, Cumans, Kipchaks (second Turkic invasion from Altay region)
3- LATER KIPCHAKS 1200-1600
Tatars, Nogais, Kazakhs (mixed with the Mongol invasion)
>> Turan Lowlands-Southern Kazakhstan- Western China
1- EARLY KARLUKS
Karakhanids, Chagatais, Uyghurz
2- LATER KARLUKS
Uzbeks, Kyrghiz (mixed with Kipchaks and Mongols)
>> Mongolia
MONGOLS
Khitans, Mongols, Oirats, Buryats
>> Additionally the main inhabitans of Central Asia from Ancient times:
1- SCYTHIANS
Alans, Sarmatians, Chorasmians (ancient horse nomads)
2- SAKAS
Bactrians, Sogdians, Khotanese, Tocharians (early buddhist kingdoms)
3- "AFGHANS"
Pashto, Tajiks, Pamiri (late muslim kingdoms)
So for me Mongolia is properly covered, Huns (Tatars) need to change their building set and voices, and the real new civs must be Karluks and Sakas.
Okay fair enough. Would certainly be possible to conceptualize as two different civs.
100% my opinion.
Karluks and Sakas are uncovered by the current civs, while Tatars and Khazars can be considered partially covered. So for this reason alone I prefer Karluks and Sakas, but additional reasons also apply (that I've mentioned in earlier posts).
I think that my campaign suggestions for these two civs (plus the Persian standalone campaign) manage to pick representative points from Central Asian history and give the player an adequate overview of the 400-1250 period. The Mongolic period is already touched in the Mongols' campaign.
The campaign, although it's not a Gaelic faction would have to be Strongbow and the Norman adventurers in Ireland..
The game is arguably too Anglo-centric already. Popular depictions of the Middle Ages tend to be focused on the British Isles and France, but the world is much bigger than that.
Or it just means that we're polite. Nobody here took his proposition seriously, you know.
- Saint Michaels you are portraying a very imprecise and biased version of this thread in reddit.
- Thank you TheBattler for the clarifications in reddit!
I have already posted many times my 5 top civs (like others on this thread) and that list is:
- Balts
- Georgians
- Karluks (Tatars/Uzbeks/Timurids or something like that)
- Tibetans
- Dravidians
So where is the supposed "muh diversity"?
About Balts, We have even talk about 2 options for a Balt campaing and some scenarios, included their interaction with Timurids, Tatars, Ruthenians, Wends, Vikings and Teutons.
We dont talk too much about Balts like we did about central asian or "primitive" civs is because Balts are alredy an obvious choise and priority. If almost all agree about something why we should "discuss" about that?
Also, my "if we get 2 DLCs" version that are:
>> Eastern Europe + Central Asia DLC:
- Wends
- Balts
- Georgians
- Karluks
- Sakas
>> India + China DLC:
- Dravidians
- Bengalis
- Tais
- Tibetans
- Manchus
Include just civs that are representations of groups of states (not just one X kingdom) that cover the real big holes in the Eurasia continuity (the region with more population, wealth, interactions, recorded history, wars and technology) of medieval times.
So please stop this absurd and easy excuse of "they hate European civs".
In the same reddit map where you pointed the big hole of Balts you can see how Europe is the region with more civs in the smaller area (remember that the used world projection in the map make the northen part of the world looks biger that their real size).
In that map we also have:
- A enormous Slavs blob (thats why i want Wends)
- Georgians can cover Caucasus.
- The map dont have Huns, but they can cover from Ukraine to Kazhakstan.
- Karluks and Sakas can cover the area of Central Asia.
- The big hole of Tibet say "Hi!"
- One big medieval India is also a ridiculous blob (like if we have just Franks instead Franks-Teutons-Italians just because the Carolingian Empire)
- The map have covered with Burmese, Khmer and Chinese a region that was not realy covered by those civs that correspond to Tais, and that region is already bigger that the one of Vietnamese, Koreans or Japanese.
- Manchuria also say "Hi!"
So, look at those irrelevant not European neolithic civs that "steam people" want to force just for SJW reasons!
What a cheap excuse.
Link please?
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/7c1jiq/aoe_ii_world_map/
The map is already better that others with similar theme I saw before (love the small Crimean Goths state
There are some small thing to fix, but anyway is impossible to make a 100% accurate map of 1200 years of changing civs/peoples/states/cultures, without take subjective decisions.
It's because we've already kind of agreed upon European civs like Balts, Georgians and splitting the Slavs. And while our opinions still differ on Dutch & Swiss (although I concede myself and most of the "top posters" don't find them necessary due to both their overlap with both Teutons and Franks), have said all there is to say about that a while ago as well.
Europe doesn't occur much in the conversation now not because we are against it but because we just said all we have to say about it.
I guess our discussions would be really frustrating to follow since we've already agreed upon so many things that we just don't bring up anymore. It's a shame, because I'd say the more the merrier.