If India got further expanded, would Sindh+Kannadigas+Sinhalese be a good compromise?
I have no idea what current Dravidians could be renamed to. Tamils?
I also don’t know much about Indian history, so this is based on what I usually see people suggest/request.
2 Likes
Obvious Dravidian split is Tamils Kannadigas and Telungu.
2 Likes
If the devs are willing to do a four civ DLC again.
We’d need at least one more arch set tho, otherwise the South Asian one would be as overused as the East European one
There are multiple good civis that can be added like kalingans sinhaleese too but that would be too much.
Kannadigas is by far the biggest miss of the last DLC imo
No other region remained the heart of a major regional power in India in the time period
In fact I cant think of a single civilization which remained a great power from 400 to 1600 uninterrumped
Also Kalingas are very important and arent covered rn
Selecting the right civilizations depends entirely on your primary criteria:
1. Diversity and Gameplay Style
If you prioritize unique mechanics and cultural flavor, the Kashmiris and Ahoms stand out as the most distinctive additions.
2. Historical Impact and Legacy
For civilizations that carried the most historical weight during the game’s era, the Kannadas, Kalingans, and Telugus are the premier choices.
3. Modern Relevance
If you prefer civilizations that bridge the gap between historical uniqueness and modern national identity, the Sinhalas and Sindhis are excellent options.
4. Expanded Timelines
Should you choose to look slightly beyond the traditional AoE2 timeframe to find influential powers, the Punjabis, Marathas, Biharis, and Gujaratis become strong contenders.
5. Other Choices
Other good choices from the Subcontinent can be Gonds, Manipuris, Nepalis and Malabaris.
Top Campaign Candidates
The richest storytelling potential lies with these legendary figures:
-
Lalitaditya (Kashmiris)
-
Kapilendra (Kalingans)
-
Krishnadevaraya (Kannadas)
-
Rudramadevi (Telugus)
Design Note: To maintain accuracy, adding the Kannadas and Telugus would require renaming the current “Dravidians” to Tamils. Similarly, introducing the Gujaratis and Punjabis would necessitate renaming “Gurjaras” to Rajputs.
4 Likes
The Sinhalese would likely be the first choice. In promotional materials, simply mentioning Sri Lanka would make consumers who are not familiar with South Asian history or ethnic groups feel a sense of familiarity, since it is a relatively well-known name.
While quickly browsing Indian history, I noticed the Kalachuris, and I feel like they could also be quite suitable. There were several dynasties under this name, lasting a considerable length of time. They were located roughly in central India and the lower Ganges region, and had conflicts with the Gurjaras to the west, the Bengalis to the east, and the Dravidians to the south. Yet, I rarely see them mentioned by others.
Kalachuris are a dynasty with unrelated branches across multiple civilizations in central India. It wouldn’t be suitable to be one civilization. It’s like having a Habsburg Civilization comprising diverse territories with shared dynasty but distinct languages and cultures.
Best civilization to represent Kalachuris is perhaps Gonds / Raj Gonds as their areas largely overlap.
Some sources even mention Garha Mandla Gonds as descendants of Tripuri Kalachuris.
But still it is very loose approximation as Kalachuri rulers were themselves not Gonds (Dravidians) but mostly Rajputs (Indo-Aryans).
1 Like
Wont sindh be under the current hindustani?they too might need a rename.
If we are to keep everything as it is and add more then oriya sinhalese nepalese like civis can stay.Kashmir is bit too problematic with current world status.
1 Like
If you group by culture, Sindhis fall under Gurjaras; if you group by faith, they fall under Hindustanis.
1 Like
Even the (non-elite) Shrivamsha Rider model uses Sindhi cavalry as inspiration. So either Sindhis were supposed to be covered by Gurjaras, or the devs couldn’t find a Gujarati horseman design and decided one of the neighbors was close enough.
You can also add Ahoms without overlapping any existing civs with nearly 600 years of continuous sovereignty.
What about Manipuris? They’re included in Burmese via Arambais and their UU, but they’re actually from the Indian subcontinent.
1 Like
Yes they are a good choice too. But as you said, the unique unit is creating overlap problems.
Obviously they’d be removed from the Burmese.
1 Like
My reply to Mahazona focused on civs that don’t require changing current ones. However, adding the Manipuri would be great, especially considering the Kangleipak Kingdom’s legacy and the uniqueness of Sanamahism.
I like the idea of adding the Kannadigas, who would represent various Kannada empires and dynasties, like the Rashtrakutas, Chalukya Dynasty, Western Chalukyas, Hoysala Dynasty, and the Vijayanagara Empire.
And it means we can have a South Asian civ with heavy cavalry.
If you mean Knights, that would be quite unusual for an Indian civ. However, in my concept, their Castle UU is heavy cavalry.
If we are to add more civis based on religions maybe punjabis would also fit even tho they are bit late.currently we have civis for Jainism mahayana Buddhism Islam and Hinduism.