Circassian

I guess I see this in more black and white than most people... to me; the question of "are video games art?" Is like asking "is Basketball a sport?" "Is chess a board game?"

Will do. Thanks

Lets just agree to disagree on the first and I accept your second point. Anyway I am wasting your time; after reading kumaryu and Sighvatr's post I have a better understanding on how my "global empires from all over the world" idea is in conflict with the goals of 0AD. --- Personal stuff... Off topic: Dont get me wrong: I like the game the way it is, and I love the way its progressing. As a person who played from aoe 1 through all expansions &clones (Cossacks, RoN, EE) I haven't been this excited since aok was announced. I just would have prefered a more of a World History game direction; where (as absurd as it may be) one player might take control Han Chinese and battle against the Romans. In an arena like map. While the setting would be absolutely ahistorical, the individual civs would be presented in a historically accurate way. Not much different than aoe games. Geographically still disconnected but same/comparable time period. Campaigns themselves would be historically sensible with perhaps some "what ifs scenarios" Han conquest of Korea / Rome vs Carthage in punic wars. ex. what ifs: and old Alexander turns west against Carthage & Rome. --- Back to topic: Africa If we are going to focus on civs that were in contact with Helenistic and Roman civs, I can only think of adding Nubia and Numidians (Numidians will be a large part of Carthagian army in anycase). Axum might be slighly too far away from action but if Mauryan Empire is in why not I guess... right? Btw: lets take a look at: Eastern Europe. There is a big gap here in the game right now. Do you guys agree? How about Sarmatia & Scythians, Bosphoran Kingdom, Colchis & Iberia (Caucasus). Can think of alot more.

True, AOE 2 & AOE 3 (expansions changed this a bit) was more eurocentric than aoe 1. Thanks for the info!

One thing that really annoyed me about Age of Empires series was the euro-centrism... Its not just Africa the entire world is usually skipped. This is not an issue of Age of Empires or 0ad, its a far far larger issue that we face today when we try to study "WORLD history"; it quickly becomes obvious you are almost entirely going to find (mostly Western) European History with a few mentions of other great civilizations mostly in relation to European powers. History is written by victors and Western Europeans started taking over after 1500ad, began to really dominate in 19 century until WW II. Most historical games reflect this. Only a few exceptions like Rise of Nations broke away from this. I get this is probably going to only be included in the shape of a mod or expansion to base game (if ever). Here are my thoughts (& dreams) on Africa. Southeast Asia & Ocenia, North & South America, East Asia. Gonna try to limit these civs to 2-3 for each region. Africa: I think Bantu (Africa's Celts), and Axum (or Kush*) also deserve consideration. + Nubia*. Not sure about Numidia. East Asia: Han China* is obvious. Goguryeo (Korea). Yomato (Japan). North America & South Americas: (early) Maya* & Chimu South East Asia &Ocenia: Malay*, Polynesia Funan not included (lack of info) The star* civs are my top recommendation. I choose these civs because they were the most influencial in their region and we know quite a bit about them.