(Dakshinapatha is a historical region that literally means the route to the south, it is demarcated by Narmadā and Mahānadi Rivers dividing India into North and South. This DLC aims to fill the missing gap)
Traits: Archers can be trained from Outposts as well but slower. Unique commander unit ‘Nāyak’ who boosts the range and accuracy of archers when nearby with his aura.
2 variants here are not enough. I ain’t pressin no botton.
My variant is: someday after they make dlcs about Far East, Central Asia, Rus, Balkans, Muslims, Africa and America. No way we can have 2nd India content in near future, this will put down too many interested sides.
We already have 1 dlc + Prithviraj free campaign and they are all totally glorious. I liked absolutely everything except for the fact that some missions are totally impossible on gold. Just wonderful stories striking emotions all sides. If 2nd try would be same good then I am for it BUT other cultures and continents must be given their turn.
@OceanEcho
I am glad you found the stories of Dynasties of India glorious. I am sure you will love the stories of both Govindā III and Narasimha Deva I as well. I will write more about them later.
I personally pray for second Indian DLC as soon as possible though I am not against venturing into other region DLCs either. This is just meant to be a concept post. There are many Indian players who play the game. And India is just so diverse and there is a lot to cover. We have just touched the tip of the iceberg.
@TwerDefender I have faith in the developers that they will soon resume work after Age of Mythology is out. Fingers Crossed for the bright future of Age of Empires 2.
You Indian?
If yes, how do you find historical accuracy in 4 stories we have?
Are Indian people really that diverse to have so many sides?
Why you described only 2 new sides when kinda 3 is needed?
I seriously advice you to add more variants to your survey because otherwise you will get “No” in the end for sure.
Going with “No”. I think you should split Dravidians in a better way. I understand both of your proposal can be called “Dravidians” currently. But a direct “Tamils” or “Telegus” or “Kannadigas” are better choices imho.
Even though Deccanis seems fine from your description, the rest will continue with the trend of no knights, no CA which means we get more abysmal civs like Dravidians.
Potentially more naval civs, some redundant unnecessary elephant units and bonuses on them.
Let future DLCs be from parts of the world which had at least 4 of out of these 5 - good economy, cavalry, archers, siege and gunpowder
@OceanEcho I have included some maps in the original post for your reference. This should explain why I chose the particular two civs out of many.
@SMUM15236 No. Dravidians do not cover anything apart from Tamils and Malyalam. The two above mentioned civ are not a split from Dravidian. They are separate entities.
@Pulikesi25 I see you have a preference for Knights. Deccanis can have them as they had some very heavy cavalry units in later periods. Pulakeshin-II had ties with Khosrow-II.
Cavalry Archers can be given to Kalingas, they have many references to archers and horses in their battles. Read about Battle of Katasin and Umardan. And don’t worry about gunpowder, both these civs can have them.
With such restrictions, designs have to be more creative to find their way around the problems of not having main-line units.
I think the South Asian design is very interesting and has the opportunities for more interesting civs. There is no mounted-archer focused South Asian civ, heavy-cavalry focused civ or archer focused civ for example.
Yes, they are. They’re my favorite animal. I once posted a Siamese civ concept that heavily leaned in on every existing elephant unit at the time (and my revisions are even more that way), and one of the guys critiquing it didn’t like it because he didn’t care for elephants. In my head, I was like, “Well, excuse me, I made a civ that I would want to play, not you. I like elephants. So there!”
“The community (of the Deccanis) traces its origins to the shifting of the Delhi Sultanate’s capital from Delhi to Daulatabad in 1327 during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq. […] The migration of Muslim Hindavi-speaking people to the Deccan and intermarriage with the local Hindus whom converted to Islam, led to the creation of a new community of Hindustani-speaking Muslims, known as the Deccani, who would come to play an important role in the politics of the Deccan.”
Seems that the Hindustanis can represent them.
The Somavamshi dynasty is said to have been a Rajput (the Gurjaras) dynasty.
The Gangas seems to have been related to the Chalukya (the Gurjaras) dynasty and the Chola Empire (the Dravidians).
The Shailodbhava dynasty and the Bhauma-Kara dynasty have no clear known origin, but the early Shailodbhava rulers were feudatories of the Gauda Kingdom of Bengal, and they were Buddhists until the accession of a daughter of Western Ganga king to the throne of Bhauma-Kara.
Perhaps the native Odia people who had been ruled by the dynasties were very unique and have nothing to do with the Bengalis, Dravidians, and Rajputs, but I don’t know.
During my search for Kalinga I found the Kalachuri dynasties. The Kalachuris of Mahismati, Sarayupara, Tripuri, Ratnapura and Kalyani had fought against the Chalukyas, Chandelas (Rajputs), Chandra dynasty of Bengal, Chola Empire, Eastern Gangas and many more. They look interesting so far.
Maybe two new Indian civs could be introduced, one for the Kalachuris or Kalingans and one for the Sinhalese. In the distant and unforeseen future, but before splitting the Teutons, Italians, Spanish, Vikings, Britons.
Facts. Depending on your interpretation, Dravidians could even be considered half or most of India, with them being the dark-skinned Indians as opposed to the lighter-skinned Aryan Indians. It really is a bad term.
