It is but it isn't? Kind of like Georgia? I think of Indonesia as being more Oceania than SE Asia, but regardless of the distinction it's still not a newly designed civ and we would still only have two civs in a region that was as dense with empires as Europe.
I don't necessarily see the lack of representation if we get say a Vietnam or Burma Civ civ and either a Hanoi/Pagan/Bangkok city-state.
To be fair we also just got Singapore and to me city-states don't necessary matter when talking about is this area of the world represented. Playable Civs to me matter.
As a matter of pure meritocracy, to have both the Olmec and the Zapotec, both the Ashanti and the Nok, both Ireland and Wales...and to have one measly city-state next to Khmer, it would still feel paltry.
I don't want to derail the thread though talking about Asia in a Byzantine Empire thread. Though I guess to be fair the Byzantines had territory in Asia. I also forgot to mention that they did introduce Georgia after Scythia. Geographically it is Asia, even though culturally it's closer to being European, like the Byzantines.
Tbh I'm not sure why we have yet another Byzantine thread. It gets plenty of attention as it is.
I've said elsewhere in other threads, if Rome replaced the bath UI with a hippodrome or circus, Byzantium could quite comfortably be an alternate leader. Just include an Alexios or Irene with greek fire dromons and a religious-ish agenda. I think the "all roads lead to Rome" UA suits Constantinople, the legion and Roman fort reasonably represents early Byzantium, and Magna Mater refers to an Anatolian deity which equally works for Byzantium.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
