Chinese DLC when?

[Alicante]

As there ary many hints that the next DLC will be about a Chinese split in 3-4 civs, when will it take place? There was a roadmap, wasn't it?
Architecture set for china already existing as a mod, good civ ideas also (jurchen, tanguts, song, tibetans). It is a low hanging fruit and india split DLC was also very successful.

[Crossil]

Messaggio originale di Alicante:

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

I do. But I don't see how it's the same as Indians if the Chinese civ remains the same. There isn't a split.

And if you want a split at the same time you could use this time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#/media/File:China_-_Song_Dynasty-en.svg

There you have tibetans, Han, Tanguts and Khitan facing each other

I don't see a split. It's just a Chinese dynasty. So it's Chinese

Do you understand what a split is? A split to me is where a civ gets broken into other civs, wherein the original civ is no longer preserved. The Chinese would remain as they were. I don't see why they would be changed in any way when the others are added.

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

Messaggio originale di aguswings:

um.. Tibetans, Urchen etc. aren't Chinese. That statement is as ignorant as calling Native American "Indian".

How ironic when those natives are called "Americans" despite they fought back Americans to end being displaced and absorbed as second class population.

Both "Indians" and native "Americans" are terms that derive from a foreign perspective, not a native common identity. Similarly Tibetans, Jurchens, Khitans, etc. Were not Hans (proper Chinese) but in the context of a region historicaly related to the "Middle Kingdom" and currently under modern Chinese control should be valid to see these peoples as "Native Chinese" if we are so "practical" (hypocrites) to call Lakota or Seminole "Native Americans".

But you guys are trying to derive historical identities based on modern terms. In the game's time period, they wouldn't be Chinese at any point in time. Nor is the Chinese civ in game based on modern terminology, but on the time period accurate naming. Jurchens and Tibetans were not by any terminology Chinese in the time period.

[Crossil]

Messaggio originale di Whakahoatanga:

Messaggio originale di Alicante:

Ah yes, I meant the one after that 11. Also I don't see that rome DLC as an expansion DLC but more kind of integrating another game

Considering that it will add Romans to the game, it is a little bit an expansion. A pointless one if you ask me and I find it honestly smudging the heritage of the original devs to add Romans to the game but it is what it is considering they explicitly set the game after the Fall of Rome.

Going to skip that one probably or at least wait until it's 50% off and they've added something which fits more with the spirit of the original game like some more African/American content. Maybe one day we'll get Oceania too which would be nice.

I actually wonder if this isn't just a roundabout way for them to make a Belisarius campaign, treating it as a Roman campaign as he was viewed as the "Last of the Romans".

[Alicante]

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

Messaggio originale di Alicante:

And if you want a split at the same time you could use this time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#/media/File:China_-_Song_Dynasty-en.svg

There you have tibetans, Han, Tanguts and Khitan facing each other

I don't see a split. It's just a Chinese dynasty. So it's Chinese

Do you understand what a split is? A split to me is where a civ gets broken into other civs, wherein the original civ is no longer preserved. The Chinese would remain as they were. I don't see why they would be changed in any way when the others are added.

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

How ironic when those natives are called "Americans" despite they fought back Americans to end being displaced and absorbed as second class population.

Both "Indians" and native "Americans" are terms that derive from a foreign perspective, not a native common identity. Similarly Tibetans, Jurchens, Khitans, etc. Were not Hans (proper Chinese) but in the context of a region historicaly related to the "Middle Kingdom" and currently under modern Chinese control should be valid to see these peoples as "Native Chinese" if we are so "practical" (hypocrites) to call Lakota or Seminole "Native Americans".

But you guys are trying to derive historical identities based on modern terms. In the game's time period, they wouldn't be Chinese at any point in time. Nor is the Chinese civ in game based on modern terminology, but on the time period accurate naming. Jurchens and Tibetans were not by any terminology Chinese in the time period.

You can read? ^^Let's try again in an image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#/media/File:China_-_Song_Dynasty-en.svg
Is that a split or isn't it?^^
Following your logic it would be just India and the split to hinustanis, bengalis, dravidians and gurjaras would be impossible... Try again.^^

You can split China in Han, Jurchen, Tanguts, Khitan and you can then add tibetans also... not that hard to comprehend ^^
What you don't understand is, that there was not only one kind of Chinese as Han Chinese do not represent ALL Chinese. The different dynasties were mixtures of Han Chinese with Jurchen, Khitan etc. that then became also Chinese... just not Han Chinese but rather Jurchen Chinese, Tangut Chinese or Khitan Chinese. Well there was even a time where tibetans where the most important ppl in China.

In the posted picture you see 3 different chinas at once (Han CHinese, Tangut Chinese, Khitan Chinese) + Tibetan Empire.

[BuchiTaton]

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

Messaggio originale di Alicante:

And if you want a split at the same time you could use this time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#/media/File:China_-_Song_Dynasty-en.svg

There you have tibetans, Han, Tanguts and Khitan facing each other

I don't see a split. It's just a Chinese dynasty. So it's Chinese

Do you understand what a split is? A split to me is where a civ gets broken into other civs, wherein the original civ is no longer preserved. The Chinese would remain as they were. I don't see why they would be changed in any way when the others are added.

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

How ironic when those natives are called "Americans" despite they fought back Americans to end being displaced and absorbed as second class population.

Both "Indians" and native "Americans" are terms that derive from a foreign perspective, not a native common identity. Similarly Tibetans, Jurchens, Khitans, etc. Were not Hans (proper Chinese) but in the context of a region historicaly related to the "Middle Kingdom" and currently under modern Chinese control should be valid to see these peoples as "Native Chinese" if we are so "practical" (hypocrites) to call Lakota or Seminole "Native Americans".

But you guys are trying to derive historical identities based on modern terms. In the game's time period, they wouldn't be Chinese at any point in time. Nor is the Chinese civ in game based on modern terminology, but on the time period accurate naming. Jurchens and Tibetans were not by any terminology Chinese in the time period.

Most chinese imperial dynasties were Han but there were a lot of dynasties that despite being recognized as ethnically foreign are seen as "CHINESE Dynasties" because they were heavely chinese influenced, ambitioned the control of the whole "Middle Kingdom" and actualy conquered Han population.
- The Khitan Liao Dynasty
- The Tangut Xia Dynasty
- The Jurchen Jin Dynasty
Also these same groups were under other chinese dynasties for centuries. Basically were either dominating china or being dominated by other chinese dynasty.

Finally, OP original post clearly mentioned ethnically independent cultures so is obvious that the whole idea of "Chinese civs" imply the whole sinified region. The game is sold to contemporary players for whom it is easy to understand the idea of a DLC named "Dynasties of China" that include Jurchen, Tangut and Khitan civ as cultures that founded CHINESE dynasties and lived on current Chinese territory.

[Alicante]

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

I don't see a split. It's just a Chinese dynasty. So it's Chinese

Do you understand what a split is? A split to me is where a civ gets broken into other civs, wherein the original civ is no longer preserved. The Chinese would remain as they were. I don't see why they would be changed in any way when the others are added.



But you guys are trying to derive historical identities based on modern terms. In the game's time period, they wouldn't be Chinese at any point in time. Nor is the Chinese civ in game based on modern terminology, but on the time period accurate naming. Jurchens and Tibetans were not by any terminology Chinese in the time period.

Most chinese imperial dynasties were Han but there were a lot of dynasties that despite being recognized as ethnically foreign are seen as "CHINESE Dynasties" because they were heavely chinese influenced, ambitioned the control of the whole "Middle Kingdom" and actualy conquered Han population.
- The Khitan Liao Dynasty
- The Tangut Xia Dynasty
- The Jurchen Jin Dynasty
Also these same groups were under other chinese dynasties for centuries. Basically were either dominating china or being dominated by other chinese dynasty.

Finally, OP original post clearly mentioned ethnically independent cultures so is obvious that the whole idea of "Chinese civs" imply the whole sinified region. The game is sold to contemporary players for whom it is easy to understand the idea of a DLC named "Dynasties of China" that include Jurchen, Tangut and Khitan civ as cultures that founded CHINESE dynasties and lived on current Chinese territory.

Thank you, you get the concept :)

[Crossil]

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

I don't see a split. It's just a Chinese dynasty. So it's Chinese

Do you understand what a split is? A split to me is where a civ gets broken into other civs, wherein the original civ is no longer preserved. The Chinese would remain as they were. I don't see why they would be changed in any way when the others are added.



But you guys are trying to derive historical identities based on modern terms. In the game's time period, they wouldn't be Chinese at any point in time. Nor is the Chinese civ in game based on modern terminology, but on the time period accurate naming. Jurchens and Tibetans were not by any terminology Chinese in the time period.

Most chinese imperial dynasties were Han but there were a lot of dynasties that despite being recognized as ethnically foreign are seen as "CHINESE Dynasties" because they were heavely chinese influenced, ambitioned the control of the whole "Middle Kingdom" and actualy conquered Han population.
- The Khitan Liao Dynasty
- The Tangut Xia Dynasty
- The Jurchen Jin Dynasty
Also these same groups were under other chinese dynasties for centuries. Basically were either dominating china or being dominated by other chinese dynasty.

Finally, OP original post clearly mentioned ethnically independent cultures so is obvious that the whole idea of "Chinese civs" imply the whole sinified region. The game is sold to contemporary players for whom it is easy to understand the idea of a DLC named "Dynasties of China" that include Jurchen, Tangut and Khitan civ as cultures that founded CHINESE dynasties and lived on current Chinese territory.

..... no? The entire point of the "conquest dynasties" is that they are -foreign- dynasties from foreign cultures that came to conquer China.

I don't disagree with the idea of a DLC that would focus on China (or generally on East Asia). I'm disagreeing with this bizarre notion that it would be a "Chinese" split. Because it isn't. We're not playing dynasties here, we're playing civilizations here. And these are characterized as non-Chinese cultures that had dynasties that ruled China, the conquest dynasties. it isn't a split. It's completely different civilizations.

[Alicante]

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

Most chinese imperial dynasties were Han but there were a lot of dynasties that despite being recognized as ethnically foreign are seen as "CHINESE Dynasties" because they were heavely chinese influenced, ambitioned the control of the whole "Middle Kingdom" and actualy conquered Han population.
- The Khitan Liao Dynasty
- The Tangut Xia Dynasty
- The Jurchen Jin Dynasty
Also these same groups were under other chinese dynasties for centuries. Basically were either dominating china or being dominated by other chinese dynasty.

Finally, OP original post clearly mentioned ethnically independent cultures so is obvious that the whole idea of "Chinese civs" imply the whole sinified region. The game is sold to contemporary players for whom it is easy to understand the idea of a DLC named "Dynasties of China" that include Jurchen, Tangut and Khitan civ as cultures that founded CHINESE dynasties and lived on current Chinese territory.

..... no? The entire point of the "conquest dynasties" is that they are -foreign- dynasties from foreign cultures that came to conquer China.

I don't disagree with the idea of a DLC that would focus on China (or generally on East Asia). I'm disagreeing with this bizarre notion that it would be a "Chinese" split. Because it isn't. We're not playing dynasties here, we're playing civilizations here. And these are characterized as non-Chinese cultures that had dynasties that ruled China, the conquest dynasties. it isn't a split.

As the current civ is called Chinese and not Han it is a split... i am out, enough explanations given from 2 people... Nice evening

[Crossil]

Messaggio originale di Alicante:

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

..... no? The entire point of the "conquest dynasties" is that they are -foreign- dynasties from foreign cultures that came to conquer China.

I don't disagree with the idea of a DLC that would focus on China (or generally on East Asia). I'm disagreeing with this bizarre notion that it would be a "Chinese" split. Because it isn't. We're not playing dynasties here, we're playing civilizations here. And these are characterized as non-Chinese cultures that had dynasties that ruled China, the conquest dynasties. it isn't a split.

As the current civ is called Chinese and not Han it is a split... i am out, enough explanations given from 2 people... Nice evening

And the Aztecs are called Aztecs rather than Nahuatl. Incas are called Incas rather than Quechua. Byzantines are called Byzantines rather than Romans or Greeks.

Chinese equals Han.

You haven't proved any point in my eyes.

[Crossil]

In fact, just to make a point, Jurchens and Khitans aren't even culturally connected to the Chinese. They're Tungusic and Proto-Mongolian peoples. And the Tanguts are of the same language tree of the Chinese and Tibetans, but part of a separate smaller branch, which I gather is closer to the Burmese.

It's more like 3 different cultures that came to dominate parts of China having a DLC all to their own.

It's not a split. The DLC would be themed around dynasties of China, but it has nothing to do with a civilizational Chinese split.

[BuchiTaton]

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

Messaggio originale di Alicante:

As the current civ is called Chinese and not Han it is a split... i am out, enough explanations given from 2 people... Nice evening

And the Aztecs are called Aztecs rather than Nahuatl. Incas are called Incas rather than Quechua. Byzantines are called Byzantines rather than Romans or Greeks.

Chinese equals Han.

You haven't proved any point in my eyes.

1- Chinese to Han mean go from a broad term to a specific part of it. Also the whole concept of the "Middle Kingdom" was historically claimed by non-Han people.
2- Aztecs are already part of the Nahua people so you are going from a part to a wider group.
3- The Quechua title of Sapa Inca was only used in the Tawantinsuyu.
4-There is a chance that the new DLC would include a playable Roman civ for AoE2 (apart from the whole stand alone port of AoE1 civs) so funny enough the use of "Byzantines" would finally have some use to not have two Roman civs.

You are losing the point of the practical use for PLAYERS, there is not need to change Aztecs or Incas if we are not detaling the group they already represent. In the case of China is useful to introduce groups whose biggest achievements were build CHINESE DYNASTIES.

[Crossil]

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

And the Aztecs are called Aztecs rather than Nahuatl. Incas are called Incas rather than Quechua. Byzantines are called Byzantines rather than Romans or Greeks.

Chinese equals Han.

You haven't proved any point in my eyes.

1- Chinese to Han mean go from a broad term to a specific part of it. Also the whole concept of the "Middle Kingdom" was historically claimed by non-Han people.
2- Aztecs are already part of the Nahua people so you are going from a part to a wider group.
3- The Quechua title of Sapa Inca was only used in the Tawantinsuyu.
4-There is a chance that the new DLC would include a playable Roman civ for AoE2 (apart from the whole stand alone port of AoE1 civs) so funny enough the use of "Byzantines" would finally have some use to not have two Roman civs.

You are losing the point of the practical use for PLAYERS, there is not need to change Aztecs or Incas if we are not detaling the group they already represent. In the case of China is useful to introduce groups whose biggest achievements were build CHINESE DYNASTIES.

1 - Not really, no. You guys want to generalize Chinese to include cultures that aren't Chinese. By the same logic, because the Mongols ruled China as the Yuan dynasty, then the Mongols are Chinese. That makes no sense, now does it?
2 - Except the Aztecs in-game represent all of the Nahuatl people. A specific empire encompassing more than one. If those other ones were added, you would still have Aztecs because they would then be a specific empire. The same way that the Chinese culture tag would simply narrow down to the Han, without losing anything of its former identity which was already Han.
3 - And Tawantinsuyu, the Incas, ruled all of Quechua people + other peoples. It's an overbearing tag, like you guys claim Chinese is.
4 - And? The Byzantine tag as is covers several different cultures. But it goes to show my point. Romans getting added doesn't constitute a "Byzantine split".

I'm not losing any point. Again and again, I'm saying that there is no chinese split. Han Chinese would be termed Chinese in the game, whether or not there are other civs who's dynasties ruled China. You have the Mongolians who ruled all of China rather than parts of it unlike the other ones, and it didn't make Chinese civ any less Chinese.

The Indian split was monumental, as it effectively dismembered the Indian civ into four new civs. The Hindustanis are the closest civ to the original, but only in concept. I don't see Chinese being dismembered the same way.

You continuously miss my point. I don't care about the conception of the DLC. I agree with it. But this isn't about the conception of the DLC. There would simply not be a "civilizational split" of the Chinese civ in-game as claimed by OP.

[BuchiTaton]

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

1- Chinese to Han mean go from a broad term to a specific part of it. Also the whole concept of the "Middle Kingdom" was historically claimed by non-Han people.
2- Aztecs are already part of the Nahua people so you are going from a part to a wider group.
3- The Quechua title of Sapa Inca was only used in the Tawantinsuyu.
4-There is a chance that the new DLC would include a playable Roman civ for AoE2 (apart from the whole stand alone port of AoE1 civs) so funny enough the use of "Byzantines" would finally have some use to not have two Roman civs.

You are losing the point of the practical use for PLAYERS, there is not need to change Aztecs or Incas if we are not detaling the group they already represent. In the case of China is useful to introduce groups whose biggest achievements were build CHINESE DYNASTIES.

1 - Not really, no. You guys want to generalize Chinese to include cultures that aren't Chinese. By the same logic, because the Mongols ruled China as the Yuan dynasty, then the Mongols are Chinese. That makes no sense, now does it?
2 - Except the Aztecs in-game represent all of the Nahuatl people. A specific empire encompassing more than one. If those other ones were added, you would still have Aztecs because they would then be a specific empire. The same way that the Chinese culture tag would simply narrow down to the Han, without losing anything of its former identity which was already Han.
3 - And Tawantinsuyu, the Incas, ruled all of Quechua people + other peoples. It's an overbearing tag, like you guys claim Chinese is.
4 - And? The Byzantine tag as is covers several different cultures. But it goes to show my point. Romans getting added doesn't constitute a "Byzantine split".

I'm not losing any point. Again and again, I'm saying that there is no chinese split. Han Chinese would be termed Chinese in the game, whether or not there are other civs who's dynasties ruled China. You have the Mongolians who ruled all of China rather than parts of it unlike the other ones, and it didn't make Chinese civ any less Chinese.

The Indian split was monumental, as it effectively dismembered the Indian civ into four new civs. The Hindustanis are the closest civ to the original, but only in concept. I don't see Chinese being dismembered the same way.

You continuously miss my point. I don't care about the conception of the DLC. I agree with it. But this isn't about the conception of the DLC. There would simply not be a "civilizational split" of the Chinese civ in-game as claimed by OP.

The PRACTICAL point to SELL the game just jump over you.

Games like EU4, Three Kingdoms:TW and CIV6 (Path of Nirvana) sold in China when others games were banned, this because despite they represent scenarios of a divided China this was done in a historical context using dynastic/ethnic names.

Have a game where you have a civ named Chinese while others ethnic groups from that country are their own civ could be seen as divisive stance from MS againts Chinese unity. Use dynastic names is the safer way to avoid possible chinese banning.

1- Mongolia is currently a recognized country by China so can not ban the game because it.
2- Wrong. Not all Nahua were under the "Aztec Empire" neither is correct to use the term "Aztec" for the specific Triple Alliance since Aztec come from their original land Aztlán, but not just Mexica, Tepaneca and Acolhua come from there, the Tlaxcalteca die-hard Mexica's enemies come from Aztlán. The historical name for the "Aztec Empire" was Mexicas (since they were the de facto leaders of the Triple Alliance), the term Aztec was used only in historiographical context but they were not commonly identified as such.
3- Losing the point one again, if there are not addition of peoples under the "Inca" Empire there is not need to change the name, neither Aymara or Chimur claimed a Quechua title.
4- Again Byzantines are not under this dilemma.

[Alicante]

Messaggio originale di Crossil:

Messaggio originale di BuchiTaton:

1- Chinese to Han mean go from a broad term to a specific part of it. Also the whole concept of the "Middle Kingdom" was historically claimed by non-Han people.
2- Aztecs are already part of the Nahua people so you are going from a part to a wider group.
3- The Quechua title of Sapa Inca was only used in the Tawantinsuyu.
4-There is a chance that the new DLC would include a playable Roman civ for AoE2 (apart from the whole stand alone port of AoE1 civs) so funny enough the use of "Byzantines" would finally have some use to not have two Roman civs.

You are losing the point of the practical use for PLAYERS, there is not need to change Aztecs or Incas if we are not detaling the group they already represent. In the case of China is useful to introduce groups whose biggest achievements were build CHINESE DYNASTIES.

1 - Not really, no. You guys want to generalize Chinese to include cultures that aren't Chinese. By the same logic, because the Mongols ruled China as the Yuan dynasty, then the Mongols are Chinese. That makes no sense, now does it?
2 - Except the Aztecs in-game represent all of the Nahuatl people. A specific empire encompassing more than one. If those other ones were added, you would still have Aztecs because they would then be a specific empire. The same way that the Chinese culture tag would simply narrow down to the Han, without losing anything of its former identity which was already Han.
3 - And Tawantinsuyu, the Incas, ruled all of Quechua people + other peoples. It's an overbearing tag, like you guys claim Chinese is.
4 - And? The Byzantine tag as is covers several different cultures. But it goes to show my point. Romans getting added doesn't constitute a "Byzantine split".

I'm not losing any point. Again and again, I'm saying that there is no chinese split. Han Chinese would be termed Chinese in the game, whether or not there are other civs who's dynasties ruled China. You have the Mongolians who ruled all of China rather than parts of it unlike the other ones, and it didn't make Chinese civ any less Chinese.

The Indian split was monumental, as it effectively dismembered the Indian civ into four new civs. The Hindustanis are the closest civ to the original, but only in concept. I don't see Chinese being dismembered the same way.

You continuously miss my point. I don't care about the conception of the DLC. I agree with it. But this isn't about the conception of the DLC. There would simply not be a "civilizational split" of the Chinese civ in-game as claimed by OP.

You miss my point. Spanish are just a mix of visigoths, romans and arabs. Still, they are something else. Following your logic they shouldnt be in there as we have saracens, goths and byzantines?
Parts of China are and were not simply Han but also mixes.
And cmon, Hindustanis in the game simply describe the india under persian rule. So, where is the difference?
And where is the difference of chinese with tangut influence to indians with bengali influence. Bangladesh is also another country? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh

Fact is: India and China consist of MAAAAANY different cultures and languages and can therefore be split easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Chinese_history
You find Jurchen etc there

I can accept that you want to say Han = Chinese, but then why do you accept bengalis or even persian india to be a dismembered part of india?

"The Hindustanis are a South Asian civilization introduced in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition - Dynasties of India as one of the splits of the Indians, based on the Persianized sultanates located in northern India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan such as the Mughal Empire, the Delhi Sultanate, Mamluk Dynasty, Ghaznavid dynasty, and Ghurid dynasty that covered different ethnic groups including Punjabis and Pashtuns. "

LOL

[Flakstruk]

Devs will go off the ability to make interesting civs not dissertations abouy ethnic extraction.

[多摩多摩]

hey bro how can I remove the Japanese translation of background