No More Divisions of Society!
- This topic has 34 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Every time I see a post/comment about how “X people were a great Kingdom/Empire, the must be a civ” the only thing in my mind is “Who cares about history?”.
The same applies to civ splits, it’s just like Forgotten Empires opened the Pandora’s Box with the Indians DLC, every civ must be split now.
Being accurate in representation is not the point of the game, building a base and eat others people’s TCs is the point.
If the devs add a space oriented UFO civ with Photon Man as they UU it’s great, the only question is “Is this making the game funnier than before?”
Most of the civs had no knowledge or they don’t used part of the “generic” techs and units anyway, this game never make sense from a objetive historical point of view anyway.
(Sorry if my English is bad)
I could possibly see a China split, but we really don’t need any new civs after that!
Im really against spliting up AoK civs they have been in the game since inseption.
Slavs are already split.
If anything they just need a rework to represent more specifically eastern slavs.
Conversely, Chinese themselves don’t really need much change but other “chinese” civilizations (Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts) would be great additions.
Saracens, on the other hand, are already split (Turks, Persians, Berbers, arguably Hindustanis and Tatars) and they have a very solid identity.
Your comments about China is hilarious.
There are so many ethnicities even in current China.
From a gameplay standpoint, I agree.
Even though I like the addition of new civs, I understand people who get frustrated with the balance issues it introduces.
I’ve previously played devil’s advocate for splitting Slavs into Novgorod, Muscovy, Kyiv, and Galicia-Volhynia.
The devs could ***probably*** research enough differences between those city-states to make new civs.
But the question is: Why?
There is limited space in the game for entirely new civilization bonuses, and if you get TOO creative, you might end up with gimmicky bonuses and units and end up with balance problems.
If new civs are to be added, I think under-represented areas, like sub-saharan Africa need first priority.
I think you are conflating things.
When people refer to “splitting China” they often mean adding civs that existed around China, that the current Chinese civ is used as a stand-in for.
Like for example, in the “Into China” level, the Jin & Tanguts are represented by Chinese, when those people were culturally and ethnically very different from Chinese.
Some requests are more unrealistic though, like Italians & Teutons being split.
As the civs in-game are mostly based on ethnic/cultural groups rather than “empires”.
So splitting Italians makes no sense in the games context, but adding more civs to flesh out East Asia does, as some are missing.
​
>Well the Chinese are the inhabitants of China, which has largely always been a unanimous land
Also no.
Just…no. “China” has been fractured, split, re-formed and fractured again for a long time.
Current Chinese in-game can represent the Han pretty well though.
The key point about China is actually take the time to read the suggestions about it.
A DLC named “Dynasties of China” would be as valid as “Dynasties of India” not because it would mean split-off Chinese civ but because it can represent different non-ethnic Han dynasties that claimed authority over the “The Middle Kingdom” like the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, the Tangut Xia Dynasty and the Khitan Liao Dynasty all in conflict with the Han Song Dynasty.
You can look out any of these non-Han dynasties that still are seen as “Imperial Chinese Dynasties” since ambitioned the land and titles of China, incorporating chinese custom in the process.
A main reason Mongols took over later was that China was already three centuries divided between dynasties of different ruling ethnicities fighting each others.
While I don’t advocate for or against civ splits, the idea of calling “Chinese” a single and unified country is absolutely laughable, which while from outside perspectives*could* be true, from those who live there it is/was most certainly not.
Imagine if you will, that all of the US, Canada,and Mexico was a generic civ called “North America” and combined only stereotypes of each of the associated groups.
That is, in essence what currently is the situation in-game.
I’ll keep repeating “people think this game should be like Europa Universalis” until people understand what civs in Age of Empires 2 are supposed to be.
Note: Slavs represent the Kievan Rus’, not the “Russians”.
Your take on China is both historically and linguistically inaccurate.
Hard agree with you.
People suggesting silly splits just want more for the sake of more.
I think their announcement about aoe1 in aoe2 engine should be focused on more civs
Pack it up everyone, thisishardcore_ has spoken.
But you see, Venetians and Genoese had their spaghetties boiled in different ways, so they deserve their own civs.
Unlike that ridiculous Indian split.
It’s not like the Indian subcontinent spans millions if Square kilometers and millions of people and a shit ton of languages and, and, and…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
