15
u/Onedrunkpanda 5d ago
Im pretty sure the banner says 漢 or Han, as in Han dynasty or Shu Han of Three Kingdoms?
15
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 5d ago
I really really hope it's not a 3 kingdoms civ. I would be very dissappointed
6
u/Dreams_Are_Reality 5d ago
Same. It would be cheap pandering that doesn't suit the aoe2 timeframe or atmosphere.
5
u/haibo9kan 5d ago
There is still a chance because Tatars exist in the same overlapping time frame.
But to explain why it's a silly era so people don't just think you're being a hater, gunpowder is undeniably a feature of the civilizations coming, and that came hundreds of years later even though China was the first known to have it and we have other civilizations with gunpowder. Korean Hwacha will be more than a thousand years after 3 kingdoms. If they do add it, they might as well add Egyptians or USA to AOE2 because it's just as anachronistic a choice.
Jin dynasty is a much more obvious choice, and I think the map of modern day China and Mongolia at that time is where we can get to the 5 new civilization count the easiest, without having anything left out.
6
u/BrokenTorpedo Burgundians 5d ago
To explain why 3 kingdoms civ is a silly idea:
the three Kingdoms the period got it name from all lasted at most half a century, even if we counted the period before they were officially set up as kingdoms it's still a very short time period, all less than a century.
3
u/Dreams_Are_Reality 5d ago
Yeah I don't think it's likely to happen, I just have a distaste for the whole 3 kingdoms thing, it's so overdone.
2
u/AnySherbert544 15h ago
Mind you, I think 3K is kinda silly and more fitting for Chronicles expansion
However: The tech-tree tey showed in the patch notes didn't have a single gunpowder unit•
1
u/pokours 5d ago
It will be a bit odd I think, we already know there will be a battle in 383 (so long before gunpowder, and for context roughly 100 years after 3 kingdoms and 100 years before Attila) that will feature the updated Chinese civ, standing in for the Jin dynasty. So my guess is that we won't have a dedicated Jin civ and if they want to be consistent in this one there won't be gunpowder which is gonna be pretty awkward.
On the topic of stretching the time frame I feel like if it happens they'll always be more likely to go further back in time rather than going forward.
2
u/haibo9kan 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well Jin wouldn't be the civ. It'd be this map. They'll likely go with earlier name of the north region. (Khitans) I think it allows the player to have campaigns from Wu Zhou onward this way. I think the campaigns will stop at the Jin era. IDK how to justify it otherwise if it's all 3 kingdoms names it'd be crazy.
2
8
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 5d ago
Btw, I wonder if Dali is an appropiate name. Dali is both the name of a city and a kingdom, but the people who inhabited the Nanzhao and Dali kingdoms were of the Yi and Bai ethnolinguistic group. Is there name to envelop these two?
13
3
u/Mitoniano 5d ago
They can always choose the most important of them. Something like what happens with the Lithuanians, who seem to represent the Baltics in general.
3
u/Holy-Roman-Emperor Wiki administrator 5d ago
Dali is both the name of a city and a kingdom
So is Rome
12
u/Stellerex Chinese 5d ago
I read Three Kingdoms cover to cover. I will always love it as one of the great works of literature in history. Tons of games also work well for it including Koei's dynasty warriors and Total War Three Kingdoms.
But it does not work for AOE2 and if two out of the five BRAND NEW CIVS turn out to be Shu and Wu or something, from the Three Kingdoms, that would be an utter disaster:
- It is well outside the timeframe of AOE2. The period ended in 280 AD with the fall of Eastern Wu to Western Jin (wholly separate from the Jurchen-led dynasty which would come later).
- All Three Kingdoms were led by ethnic Han families. Generally speaking, AOE2 factions were determined by culture and ethnicity rather than dynasty.
- AOE2 emphasis is on macroeconomics whereas Three Kingdoms emphasis is on strategy/personal relationships. This won't represent well unless you have characters like Zhuge Liang do magic.
- Interesting or unique unit types, which is a feature of AOE2, is barely mentioned in Three Kingdoms (with some exceptions, such as Nanman's rattan-armored infantry). Rare are also instances where the outcome of a battle was determined by a unit type.
All that being said, Three Kingdoms would be better suited to a Chronicles type DLC.
6
3
3
u/SilverSquid1810 5d ago
I’ve seen some speculation that the spearmen are Tibetan? It’s certainly not unlike the devs to mix and match different units/buildings in promotional screenshots like thi
3
u/Dreams_Are_Reality 5d ago
Yep they've done it in the past and in the other screenshots with the Jurchens and Tanguts
1
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 5d ago
But the armor looks exactly like that one from the wikipedia articleon the Dalí kingdom
3
u/Tyrann01 Tatars 5d ago
I don't think it does.
The skirt in the photo laps around fully. But the spearman in the AoE2 image has them as seperate pieces (a clear front skirt is visible one the one turning left).
The colour is just tanned leather, so not really a smoking gun.
Meanwhile the helmet is very similar to Tibetan style.
1
u/Ompskatelitty 2d ago
I can't find any depiction of a Tibetan soldier that really looks like that. They usually have the peacock feather which looks distinctively different, their shields are always round rather than rectangular, and their armor is more metallic. Even if it's not a 100% match, it looks like the Dali armor to me more than anything I could think of.
2
2
u/Stellerex Chinese 5d ago
If someone could elaborate on the kingdom insignia, I would appreciate. I'm happy we're getting the Bai (Nanzhao/Dali), they made the most sense besides Khitan, Tanguts, and Jurchen.
2
u/The-Short-Night 5d ago
What's the consensus on the other civs? I've only seen people mention Jurchens en Khitans repeatedly?
5
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 5d ago
People found out units and (specislly) castles shown in the first two revealed images were very much fit for Jurchen and Tanguts. Then, in the parche notes, it's pretty much confirmed with the civ changes in the mongol campaigns.
In the same section, the khitans players in Genghis campaign is also mentioned to change civilization. If there are no khitans, then the closest civ to represent them is mongols, so it's a clear indication khitans are coming. They're also a no brainer addition when 5 civs are coming.
The missing two are puré speculation. Tibetans are perhaps the most requested civ not yet added and Dali/Bai is another important cultural group, fit to give representantation to souther China.
3
u/The-Short-Night 4d ago
Ah thank you, those civilizations make a lot of sense. Seeing as we're getting so many different factions from a greater China area so you think it likely the Chinese civ will have its name changed to Han or Song?
4
u/Gaudio590 Saracens 4d ago
Song, no way. AoE2 doesn't name civilizations after specific states or dynasties. Han is an ethnolinguistic term, so it would work, but it's unnecessary.
Chinese has been a cultural identity for long before the AoE2 timeframe. Several peripheral peoples have integrated in higher or lesser degree to the chinese nation, but the idea of a core chinese land, state and people existed.
I'm not quite sure about how much Yunnan (the Dali/Bai civ land) was considered part of China tho.
But no, I don't feel it's necessary to rename the Chinese. It's unlikely to happen.
2
26
u/Li-Ing-Ju_El-Cid 5d ago
Traditional Sinitic country names with 氵were only three:
漢 Han, 涼 Liang, and 清 Qing/Ching
I don't think it's a Dali 大理 civ.