If you were to design a future Indian DLC, which may split Dravidians along with adding some new ones which Civs would you include that’s not represented yet?

Although the recent Dynasties of India DLC is a very good addition to the game, I still feel that there are yet some medieval empires that are not properly represented in the game such as

  • Chalukyas
  • Pandyas
  • Rashtrakutas
  • (G)_ajapati
  • Vijayanagara
  • Ghurids
  • Rajputs

Dravidians will be split into Tamils and Kannadigas.

Although the Ghurids are mentioned in the Hindustanis representation they need a different civ as Ghurids controlled the now Afghanistan and they are completely separate from Hindustanis and represent different people and culture.

So, my suggestion for these would be:

  1. Tamils: Pandyas and Cholas combined

  2. Kannadigas: Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas combined

  3. (K)_alingas: (G)_ajapati Empire and Vijayanagara Empire combined

  4. Ghurids: New civ separate from the Hindustanis

  5. Rajputs: New civ separate from the Gurjaras, they represent the Rajput kingdoms in the medieval India.

Feel free to correct my mistakes as I’m no specialist in this topic, just an AOE2 enthusiast.

Also, I understand if people feel that another India DLC is too early. But just putting it out there, that there should be more Indian Civs in the game.


Multicultural and multilenguaje empires made up of millions of people? Nah, let’s add Venice.

Also, what do you think of also spliting again Hindustanis and Gurjaras?

1 Like

I don’t think Gurjaras need more splits, they just represent the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty and it works fine for me.

As for the Hindustanis, they seem to be representing a lot more than the Indian dynasties like Ghaznavids and Ghurids. I would appreciate a Ghurids civ split from Hindustanis.

However, I would also appreciate Turks and Persians split:

  • Turks - Ottomans and Seljuks
  • Persians - Sassanids, Safavids and Sogdians

Dynasties shouldn’t be civs.


Other than the Safavids, I think the others count as empires? That was my basis for wanting them in game. Then again I understand other’s logic for not adding them.

I’ll add Odiya mostly because of the fact that Indian Monastery is an Odiya temple.

Gurjaras represent northwest India and Hindu Pakistanis I believe. So they represent the Gurjaras, the Rajputs alongside probably others, maybe even the Guptas.

The splits shouldnt be based on empires but on peoples imo. So instead of splitting Persians you can just add an Azeri civ to represent the Safavids or a Sogdian civ (although honestly I dont think this is needed and either way Persians are quite boring so reworking them could be nice)


The (G) _ajapati Empire is based on Odiya, so (K) _alingas would represent them good enough IMO.

I checked the Wiki and it didn’t say they represented the Rajputs, so I didn’t bother splitting them. But thanks, I completely missed out on the Rajputs, I’ll add them to the list too.

I support more South Asian civs. These are all reasonable ones, although you are missing an important one in the Nepalese.

Also yeah, don’t split civs based on empires. Ironically the ones in the game are more based on ethnic groups.


If any expert is here, please correct me, but I think the Gurjaras are considered a rajput state. So for the moment we can consider this civ covers rapjuts in general.

Regarding new civs, the two major missing ones are the Kannadigas and the Oriya (the unmentionable Empire that starts with G). And renaming the Dravidians to Tamils.
I think the Vijayanagara Empire can be covered by the Kannadigas.

The Assamese could also be a third new civ too, covering North-Eastern India, which resisted foreign invasions for centuries. It could be a defensive div.

1 Like

Tamils (Dravidians)

If we had an unlimited number of dlc’s ahead of us, I’d say Kannada (Dravidian split) and Deccani (Hindustani split) for a South Indian dlc, Oriya and Assamese (Bengali split) for an East Indian dlc, and Afghan (2nd Hindustani split) and maybe Nepali to complete the subcontinent. Afghan may sound anachronistic, but it was apparently what the Pastun were called in medieval era, and aside from the Ghorids it could represent the Ghazvanid and short-lived Shuri empires. The name may not be popular in the US, though.

Dynasties of india DLC was a good idea ok, but I don’t think they will ever repeat the same thing again. There are still other American, Asian and African civilizations that need to be added first.


I like when these threads just transform into a mental battle who can without any other thought can list random names of some historical whatever. Your post therefore achieved to avoid any other detail and just go forward to the face with what it is all about.

Dharma mod is a good place to start.

I would personally rename dravidians to tamil(no change to civi) add deccani and oriya or sinhaleese.

1 Like

All people are posting the same list. So it is not random.

Not everyone got the time to entertain you with details.

If you think all people are like this, I recommend you leaving your bubble of people in this endless contest of naming more random civ names. Maybe one time you realise not every name that exists should have its own AoE civ. The game is not made for 200 civs. A pure “I want all names to have equal representation else the game is racist” approach is not really viable outside niche discussion and the aforementioned contest of showing off how apparently intelligent one feels, however a game cannot be responsibly taken care of like this.

Like please, where is more than just names. Where are the civs design, making them unique and show they are urgent to be added and not just checking off random civ name lists. What are their UUs UTs, what is the impact on global history? The campaign hero ? So many questions, and all we get is 20 names long lists…

Yes, I wouldn’t have said it better…I think that AoE 2 will reach 48 civs and that’s it…They will not put more and will focus on the later games that deserve a little more love…

I am also more interested in new civs for aoe3 or 4, since those games have more unique mechanics where these “exotic” (non-european basically) cultures would shine more, in aoe3 even more.
But we must be careful with our words, since those games (especially 3) are still vilified by a large part the aoe2 community.

1 Like

Let them continue to do so, I still don’t think they will change…