Some people will say Monk Elephant. But I think it is weird you are healing people sitting on top of such a tall platform.
1 Like
You mean a ranged warrior priest unit? Interesting idea but rest of the units would be too similar to dravidians.dravidians are anyway bad this would be a worse version of them.
I agree on the elephant monk its very unrealistic.
2 Likes
Actually, Australia has the largest population of Arabian camels in the world, even more than Saudi Arabia itself. The latter country actually imports its camels from Australia!
Sinhalese people are Indo-Aryan, not Dravidian, hence they are not represented by Dravidians. Dravidians are just a stand-in for Sinhalese in the Rajendra campaign. Georgians in Tamerlane were Persians, but Georgians are not related to Persians. Hungarians were Teutons in the Genghis Khan mission for 15 years, but they are not related either.
Kannadas and Tamils were extremely big seperately with different empires, military etc. It is like grouping Franks and Teutons together. People are fine with spliting civs, as long as they make sense. Everyone wanted Slavs and Indian splits and a big majority oppose Italian and Teuton splits. The two major civilizations from India are definitely the Kannadas and Kalingans. For a third civ I would add Sinhalese or Deccanis but preferably both of them. Sinhalese would appear in Rajendra. Deccanis would appear in Kapilendra and in a Kannada campaign.
Half of the European civs focus on cavalry and they are next to each other. Spanish, Franks, Burgundians, Teutons, Magyars, Poles, Lithuanians, Slavs, Bulgarians etc. Of course these civs have multiple strengths and Kalingans would not only have elephants but also specialize in other areas as well.
1 Like
I would back more South Asian civs in a heartbeat.
There’s a lot more that can be done with the concept of civs without knights and cavalry archers.
3 Likes
I disagree. Knights are such a fundamental part of the game that trying to design civs without them is likely to get quite challenging to a degree where they will either end up broken or completely garbage.
1 Like
You mean dravidians 
1 Like
You certainly don’t know how to play.
3 Likes
Laughs in Eagle Warrior.
5 Likes
Yeah, filling the role of knights with diferent more nichw cav units or with UUs or infantry is just fun
2 Likes
Yes they can go even further to have no knight, only Steppe Cavalry civ. Perhaps Afghanis or Tibetans to have another unique variant.
The variety of unit combos rather than plain old knight play every single game is so much more flavoursome.
I know how to play better than you.
No doubt you sure do 
If there was an archer line separate from the crossbowmen that would help make more diversity for India. The naval orientation is already there with the Dravidians.
How will you make the Crossbowman different though? Ignore armour and Anti-Cavalry ideas are already taken by the Composite Bowman and Genoese Crossbowman
Seems like this little informative thread blew up into a civ addition thread. Well am proud it did. 
1 Like
There were also direct dynastic connections between Kalinga and Nusantara.
For Example:
-
This Indianized kingdom:
Kalingga Kingdom - Wikipedia -
Shailendra Dynasty being a continuation of Shailodbhava Dynasty:
Shailendra dynasty - Wikipedia
Shailodbhava dynasty - Wikipedia -
Funan Kingdom founded by Kaundinya I:
Kaundinya I - Wikipedia
Kalinga and Funan : A Study in Ancient Relations.pdf
1 Like
Maybe take away crossbow line for Indians, SE Asians, Africans, Japanese, American, Mongol, Cuman, Romans, Huns, Goths civs. There can be two upgrades to replace the Crossbowman and Arbalester. Composite and Longbows or something similar. Yumi bow for the Japanese.
Are you of the misconception that outside Europe
and ancient Europe crossbow was not used? Why take away crossbow lines from those civs?
If you say we can divide archer line and crossbow line then fine I support you. But taking away from selective civs unnecessarily is unnecessary.
Because Roman Japanese, Indians used Crossbowman.
