I think this is an argument against Sumeria's inclusion. Not necessarily an argument against an earlier start.Yeah, but there is just so little time and space in that area. Even the super short Babylonian and Harappan UHVs last 2500 years.
Pre-dynastic Egyptian city states (4500BC) and Sumerian city states (not sure but really early, I think the first large farming settlement with pottery and temples is dated to 6500bc-ish) both existed before 4000BC. I know you don't like the idea of including Sumeria, but you could include a Mesopotamian civ and an Egyptian civ.There need to be at least two civs at the beginning of the game or it would be an instant win.
given that chinese and han are synonymous. yes, it does.Folks, let's not get too ethno-centric. Does it matter if the earliest polities in today China were Han or not?
given that chinese and han are synonymous. yes, it does.
Quite hard.How hard would it be to make multiplayer?
Because Chinese history could only possibly unfold in this one particular way it did? Let's just ignore all other emerging polities then, the nation is history and history is the nation.
Yes, but half of Venice should eventually try to join Austria if civic upkeep becomes too high.Also, Venice!
This doesn't make any sense. In this context, "Han" means literally the exact same thing as "Chinese", no more, no less.
In the context that the Chinese word for Ethnically Chinese is Han maybeIn what context? I feel like the circular logic just continues.
In what context? I feel like the circular logic just continues.