If we separate the Chinese in multiple civs, it should be from a time period where had multiple chinese kingdoms as the 3 kingdom period.
I guess Sassanidas are a little more well know as Afsharids, but two are cool options.
We need to open a poll about that issue, because I'm in favor to just have Rome.
Well, yes, but then again, Carloingian Franks, Medieval Germans, the First Bulgarian and Serbians Empires, the Tsardom and Empire of Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Mussolini's Fascist State also viewed themselves as successors to the Roman Empire - it was a popular horse to ride, not just for modern fanboys. Hell, according to a reference by a near contemporary writer believed to be quoting the now mostly lost writings of Priscus, ambassador to the Court of Attila the Hun from Constantinople, Attila himself had apparently got the notion of claiming the title of Roman Augustus later in life, if he had defeated Flavius Aetius and Theodoric the Goth at the Battle of the Catalonian Fields and not accepted the tribute arranged by Pope Leo I, and had actually brought down the Western Roman Empire, himself (rather than just mortally wounding it).
This is just so twisted and out of touch - and doesn't make you look any less racist or uninformed on the issue.
I do agree that more African civ's (and more Indigenous New World civ's) are in order (though, as I've often said, we do NOT need a Black Pharoah, nor any more White Pharoahs, but Pharoahs who look like Egyptians), but the distribution of civ's should be managed wholisitcally, not ridiculous things like Continental quotas and caps, and other counter-productive notions.
The Chinese people (whether from the PRC, Taiwan, or the Diaspora) tend to overwhelmingly not resist the break-up of China into separate civ's by Dynasty, as they see the one nation and Mandate through history narrative. As far as I know, no other long-lasting civilikzation or people (except Japan, as well) are that fervent on the issue. The big exception is if a strategy game (or scenario or mod within one) focuses on a period of civil war or discord and centres on that national struggle (like the Summer and Autumn Period, the Warring States Period, the Three Kingdoms Period, or for Japan, popularly, the Sengoku Jedia Period), all of which had minimal outsider participation.If we separate the Chinese in multiple civs, it should be from a time period where had multiple chinese kingdoms as the 3 kingdom period.
If my research is right, this is a map of China on this 3 kingdom period, so the civs could be Wei, Wu and Shu.
As in the Dynasties method, I mean using something like "Mandate of Heaven" or "Dynastic Cycle" as the bonus for a China that is an amalgamation of all the dynasties, like in Civs 5 and 6
Age of Empires IV (which I have yet to buy - I have the other three, and Age of Mythology, and all of their Steam updates and best listed mods) apparently allows the Chinese civ to go from Dynasty to Dynasty while they progress in the game, giving them different bonuses and focuses, but not drastically so, dependning on which Dynasty they choose when they swap. I'm not sure EXACTLY how it works - again, I have yet to buy it, but it sounds like an intriguing system, though I don't know if it would work as well for a Civ iteration.
Well, a unique policy set or government set could work.
You have just that to say about what I said?
The problem is we don't know how the Egyptians look like, and since they are on Africa, they could be Black.
Not one that has been the voice of Spanish genocide and colonialism. Not one created by German "scientists" that helped fuel the Nazis.
We do know what Ancient Egyptians looked like. There are contemporary records, by them and outsiders, they dealt with, and DNA of mummies.
The 3 races theory can be created by the Germans, but isn't a Nazi ideology.
I think the best way to do it would the bonus would have to depend on the leader as to which dynasty bonus you get, which would mean multiple leaders need to return, maybe even changing mid-game in the process? Well at least we're returning back to topic.
Reminds me of a beach close to where I live, Crystal Beach. It is a beach but there is nothing "crystal" about it.
Dravidians, Papuans, Melanesians, and Australian Aboriginals do NOT regard themselves as part of the same, "Black race," with Africans, or those of African decent, and they demonstrate very different genetic features. "Yellows," is NOT a term properly used, anymore, except by racists - and Siberians/Mongolians, Han/Vietnamese, Kazahhs/Kyrgyz, Koreans, Japanese, Ainu, Mainland Southeast Asians, Malay/Indonesians, Filipines, Polynesians, Micronesians, and Taiwanese Aboriginals are very distinct from each other, genetically, as well. Among Africans, West Africans, East Africans, Africans from the Horm, Southern Africans, and the Twa/Khoisians (formerly called, "Pygmies,") and the tall Nilotes also exhibit very distinct racial and genetic traits from each other. Europeans of course have identifiable Mediterranean, Nordic, Celtic, Anglo-Franco-Germanic, Slavic, Magyar, Romani, Turkic, and Indo-Iranian divisions that are also very distinct from each other, genetically. The tan-skinned, wavy-black-haired, brown eyed gentic lineage predominant in much of the Middle East and North Africa (and the one the great majortiy of Pharoahs had, that you refuse to acknowledge) are not truly African, European, or Dravidian, genetically . Mixed races each have their own traits, and their own identities and ways of viewing things, and, "Pardo," is only one specific example of MANY. The Jewish, "race," is actually an ethno-religious-liguistic group that contains members of many genetic lineages due to the Diaspora. So, no race and genetic heritage is definitely NOT, "five sizes fits all," - and to say so, and insist on it, is racist.
Yellow is used by Brazilian governement to indicate people who have origin in far east.I also don't like that too much, but it is as it is.
As you pointed out, there is a lot of diversity among Black people, some races you said as Khoisians and Nilotes are more distant in genetics then Europeans to Japanese. But that don't change we can understand all they as Blacks.
But in the end you named thousand of races to make your point, is that your solution?
Perhaps my REAL point is that thinking of terms of RACE about everything, even in terms to how computer games must lay out by mandatory quotas, with leaders of minority groups within civ's used as props for such, too is a highly distorted take on affairs from the start. There is a LOT more to human endeavour, culture, history, and even diversity then race, and obsessing over race as one of the most pivotal aspects of humanity, to which all others fall to less priority by default, iis, at the end of the day, no matter how you dice it, or what other ideologies you push, a FAR-RIGHT-WING plank, in-and-of-itself.
Maybe there is some confusion since I used legacy when the correct word would be heritage. So to clarify, we know from medieval sources that the "Byzantine" people saw themselves as Romans, also every other culture around them beside the Western Europeans knew the "Byzantines" as Romans, turning the use of Roman not just a prestige title to their rulers and their state, but a true popular identiy element. That is why there is no equivalence to any others like Ottomans, Holy Roman-Germanic Empire or Tsarist Russia that pretended and flaunted the title of Rome but that title never was accompanied by a popular Roman identity, we can see it as how for example Bavarians did not claimed to be "Romans" under the HRE neither English saw Bohemians as "Romans", also quite evident in how Ottomans named Romans just the conquered "Byzantine" population and not to their own Ottoman(Turkish) population despite the claimed title over Rome.Well considering the Byzantine and the Roman Empire doesn't exist today it's hard to ask about how they feel, unlike Iran and China.
We could ask Italians and Greeks and I'm sure the consensus is they would want them to be separate. If anything, Byzantium could just as well be seen as a continuation of a Greek civilization too, but good luck getting rid of Classical Greece, which I wouldn't want either.
I was using those claims as a counter-point to the view that because the Byzantines stated themselves as successors to the Romans, they MUST be an inseparable civ, not to do the opposite and jump off the deep end like you propose. To be fully clear.
Ah, yes the Zulu who have been added for the exact same reason that Haiti would be- their opposition to whites. Just like the first Native American above Mexico who were added to Civ, the Sioux, who beat white people a couple of times.
And in my opinion it is important to represent prosperous POC nations to show that they have been prosperous. The Zulu were the first black Civ added to any Civilization game and they are a horrible Anglocentric choice, because they were chosen for their resistance to the British more then any other factor. Haiti suffers from the exact same issue, they would be only added for their opposition to white people instead of their own successful Civilization.
No, race is a social construct because it is entirely made up by humans. If everyone magically agreed who was black and who was white, it would still be a social construct.
The word is that they PROCLAIMED. Not that they were. And you are taking away Russia, France, Germany, and the Ottomans.
