Slavic history mentions that the Bulgarian Empire was founded by a non slavic people; the bulgars. the civ represents the mix of Bulgars+Slavs. A similar case with the Tatars.
But adding another Indian civ would make the “Indians” civ pointless as a name and then how you would name the indians (“Rajputs”, “Mughals”, “Delhite” aren’t good names).
And to quote a FE dev about civ names:
“Back on topic- Cysion is absolutely right about the civ name choices. The goal of ES was to use “umbrella” descriptors for civ names and AoF follows suit- Italians instead of one of the many kingdoms in that peninsula during the Middle Ages, Magyars instead of Hungarians (recognizing that there are more people descended from the Magyars than just the Hungarians, just like there are more people descended from the Franks than just the French), and Indians instead of “Kingdom of Ajmer” or “Sultanate of Sindh”, to name a couple. Naming the Slavs “Russians” would be doing a great disservice to the other Eastern European peoples with slavic descent who happen to share characteristics with the Russians (Wallachia and Bulgaria also had Boyars as a nobility class, for example).”
I do understand creating umbrellas, but Indians seem me to be a very egregious one like I said before. Renaming the civ very likely won’t ever happen though it’s a great disservice to a subcontinent which has a medieval history at least as rich as whole Europe.
Yes is hard to face off but its is how AOE civs are designed.
But Indians shows some things not merely mughal or delhi (Cheaper villagers and fishing bonus come from southern india).
The Elephant Archer represents the common unit that nearly all of the Indian Kingdoms used in battle in the Medieval Era.
Dr. Greg Street (Conquerors Lead Designer) on the topic of having a “Indian” expansion:
" We really wanted to do this, but worried about it being too obscure for most people.
PRO: Great architecture. Civs like the Moguls and Khmers. More elephants!!! CON: Do most fans know anything about medieval India? Campaigns would be pretty obscure."
Also again from a FE dev:
“We wanted to keep with that naming model instead of choosing ridiculously specific names that only cover short periods of time and small regions.”
Some other civs outside Indian nations mau use the indian architecture set.
The problem I see is that mongol steppe lancer seems more usable in castle than a vanilla battle elephant, specially when compared to their alternative mongol knight or indian camel.
If we want to make indians an elephant civ i would buff the elephant archer because elephant archers sprites are pretty indian, and i dont want another useless and niche elephant unit in their rooster.
Maybe they can do both things: add non_elite battle elephant and also add an elephant bonus that affect both units. For example: elephants are created 15% faster.
If it’s ins’t you, then it’s going to be all those who want to see streamers/pros use Indian BE. It’s why for instance people want the Teutonic knight to be buffed: after all, besides the fact it’s a footman instead of a mounted warrior, this guy has “DEUS VULT” and “Crusade!” written all over it, which is 100% fitting for Teuton, and yet people aren’t happy with the fact it’s never used seriously.
" Explore one of the most culturally vibrant and coveted regions in all of Asia! Wage war across the rich Indian subcontinent, the land of a thousand kingdoms and sultanates. Place vast armies under your command led by lethal camelry and durable Elephant Archers to terrify the invaders of your homeland. Prosperity is dearly won, yet your empire and deeds will stand the test of time. "
Indians description from FE AOE2DE civ descriptions
To be honest, the game could use more Crusade related units in the Editor.
Stuff like:
-Crusader Sargeants with Spear and Shield
-Axe Ghulams
-Knights Templar
-Sassanian Knights
-Giant Golden Cross
-Hashashins
-Turcopole Cavalry
-Holks (Medieval Roundships that were used for transport and war)
-Knights of the Holy Sepulchre
Likely because it also has 33% less melee armor and 40% less pierce armor. As to why they have it in the first place, it’s because I guess rebalancing it after Mongols received it (they are going slow on the balance, like trying +1 attack last patch). Tbh if the Battle ele was a bad unit their addition to Indian wouldn’t be that much of a hassle to discuss.
To be honest said stats make 0 sense especially for high level. https://aoestats.io/civ/Indians/RM_1v1/1650+
I don’t think they can actually both 100% counter 5 civs while being 100% countered by 5 others.
Unfortunately this wouldn’t be enough. I know I’m repeating myself but I don’t think that most people who asked for BE on Indian will be happy to see they are the worse BE civ. Just imagine Franks being the worse knight civ or Brits the worse archer civ. We do have Spanish being so bad at crossbows they don’t get it but this issue has been 100% accepted by Spanish fans/citizens (as to why: no idea)
Sure he disagrees about this decision. Just like you could disagree about the fact his team completely screwed Korean design. In the end both of these innacuracies are just AoE things.
he knows alot about the history of medieval era. (He may have exaggerated tho at that moment)
You could really make 8 and even more civs in the subcontinent, I don’t think he was exaggerating ! After all, in medieval times South Asia(=Indian subcontinent) was more populous than Europe and Africa combined!
i meant exaggerating not kidding*
Devs, do consider this plea though, thank you.
We are only denying FU EBE because FU EBE may be OP, whereas denying even regular BE would be a significant injustice to their history written in the games itself.
This step is similar to how Byzantines lack FU Heavy Cavalry even though they had some of the fiercest cavalry in history.
I’m pretty sure Lead Designer of AoC is Sandy Petersen.
Didn’t say he was, but since @Juggernaut8704 questioned the 8 specific civs, I said maybe he exaggerated on them being 8. (I don’t think so either)
But imo, FE can balance the indians by asking this guy (remember, TriRem actually gave feedback from this dude to FE regarding Mongols not having Steppe Lancers, the comment is on the video)
Paladin without these two improvements are still better than generic Cavalier and Catas are quite a fierce cavalry unit, so they are for from being the worse cav civ ever, while a civ with just normal BE would be the worse ele civ hand down.
Wasn’t he OK with the Indian having the Ele archer?
He may have been thinkin of empires/kingdoms instead of civilizations. In the timespan of aoe2 there were about 8 to 10 relevant empires in the indian subcontinent or so but this game don’t treat every empire that existed as its own civ. I think that 2 or maybe 3 umbrella civs depicting north, west and northeast india respectively are enough for representing the whole indian subcontinent from an eurocentric point of view (Let’s be honest, since its origins this game has been extremely eurocentric).
“You cannot risk portraying the most major civilization. . . Incorrectly”
Okay. What’s the risk realistically?
Is someone going to get upset and write a slander campaign about age of empires because they took it too seriously?
" incorrectlyespecially just because **‘itll be excess unnecessary work’"
This has never been the case.
"or 'it was meant to be only a Camel Civ in The Meta’ “”
And why not?
They were meant to be a camel and gunpowder civ. Game design and balance shouldn’t be sacrificed to appease historical accuracy lol. The french had Arbalesters. If you gave them Arbalesters in aoe2 that would break them. Same for chinese and gunpowder.
When it comes in an argument versus balance and historical accuracy, balance should win every time because the game being balanced is way more important than representation
If you’re making the argument that the balance of a civilization should be broken to represent them accurately, then you’re not playing the game for the game it is. You’re not appreciating the game as a strategy game on a fundamental level - you’re playing it for the representation. Ruining a game’s defined balance to crowd please is a bad idea. AoE isn’t just about historical accuracy, it’s a game before anything else. Design concessions have to be made for the game to remain balanced and therefore enjoyable. Once you throw that notion out the window, the game stops being focused on being a game and stops being enjoyable.
A lot of people don’t seem to have been around long enough to know that Battle Elephants weren’t a thing when Indians were made. They get elephant archers which are a decent support unit to represent elephant units in their real armies.
Giving Indians battle elephants/any form of heavy cavalry would break them. The food they save on villagers (not even talking about their fish bonus on some maps) would let them spam elephants like crazy on the level of Malay and still boom easily behind. It would be ridiculous.
No, they are Americacentric. No European would give Middle Ages Celts a Woad Warrior from the Iron Ages, or Franks a Throwing Axeman from Roman times (with a Fantasy double bladed throwing axe, that does not represent what a Francisca was like at all).
Europeans would also have the Longswordsman be the Two-Handed Sowrdsman, since Longswords were two-handed weapons.
This game was made by people in the USA, for people in the USA. They do not actually know a lot about the Middle Ages there.
Heck, they even made unmounted Teutonic Knights, and they are not even weilding the famous Zweihanders. Not to mention they made Goths have bad Cavalry.
This is precisely the point. AoE2 is a game, not a simulation, nor representative work. It is a game, and plays by game logic.
A lot of people ranted about those who suggested the addition of the Steppe Lancer to the Mongols with the 30%HP boost, after reading I found that arguments against Indian BEs are nearly similar to those against Mongol Steppe Lancer (Game Balance, Too OP, Too Broken, etc). and then when the update was released none cared (even the Steppe Lancer was improved yet people said nothing).
Yes the Balance and gameplay are important but this is historical based game afterall (Or you want a civ like RTW Bronze age Egyptians??), changes could be possible and even be accepted by the people in general if they see that in action.