Indian DLC for AoE2 and if it means anything for us

So the fact that Indians in AoE2 are being diversified is great news for the franchise.

So naturally i’m imclined to think if this means anything for the Indian civ in AoE3.

So I realize that asking for a new civ is too much. Like Germany, maybe in AoE3 the Indians are designed to be one civ that represents all of the Indian subcontinent. I personally believe this isn’t possible. But its okay, I’ll accept it for now.

However, maybe we can get some consistency in the Indian civ?

The Indian civ at present mixes together different time periods in India. Some parts of it, such as elephants etc are very Mughal, while Sepoys seem to be from the British period. The Indian villager sometimes says “hello” when you click on it, also indicative of the British time period.

There are also various errors too…Sowars were primarily horse riders, not camel riders and Brahmins are not fighters. They are more suited to the role of the Hausa griot than to a unit that explores and fights wild animals.

Such discussions go on and on in the official discord. And one day it is a hope of a lot of people that Indians in AoE3 will be more correctly depicted. Adding new cards to give more options to the India civ is great, but hopefully some of the issues not really related to strategy will be fixed too.

At the end of the day, I feel like only AoE3 is capable of doing a proper cultural depiction of a civ, and while im very happy that India is getting representation in AoE2, what will excite me the most is if AoE3 gives its India a makeover that depicts the culture more correctly (and i have no doubt it will also be fun to play.)

Longingly waiting for some India related changes to drop for AoE3 with AoE2’s DLC release.

6 Likes

I support making Indians more accurate in ways other than adding new civilizations.
The fact is that all three Asian civilizations need it. But I don’t think it has anything to do with AoE2.

Hero Zamindar.
Sowars on horseback.
Remove the ethnic distinctions from Barracks.
Replacement of European style ships.
There are many feasible and intuitive ways to improve Indians’ situation significantly.

6 Likes

Why?

(Twenty characters)

2 Likes

The content of a civilization of AoE3 is obviously larger, more complex and richer than that of AoE2. There is a significant difference in the cost of developing and learning a civilization between the two games. AoE3 does not need and is not suitable to have such a large number of civilizations as AoE2. Personally, 30 is the max.

In addition, AoE3 also has many better mechanics other than complete civilization to supplement the representatives of many historical cultures, such as cards, minor civs, mercenaries, revolutions, etc. It can only fill the deficiencies by the development of totally new civs in AoE2, but there is no need to work so much in AoE3 . For both the development team and the community I think that it is the most appropriate way to make the kingdoms or empires that were not powerful enough but still special in the era to appear in the game as mercenaries. In fact, there are successful precedents for doing so.

Anyway, it should not be assumed that how AoE2 develops should AoE3 do the same. We should treat them as different games. Splitting umbrella civilizations is a trend in AOE2, not AoE3.

8 Likes

I can sympathize with people who want better historical accuracy but at the same time there are so many civs we would like added to the game and more content in general. Redesigning old civs at the cost of adding new ones is a trade-off I am not in support of. If Mircosoft decided to throw a ton of $$$ to increase support for AoE3DE then fine.

AoE2 is a completely different animal for reasons stated above my post. I could see some tweaks to go along with the Indian DLC but that’s it.

AoE3 suffers from three different developers who all had/have their visions and design philosophies for the game. I have no doubt FE would have done a better job with the TAD civs had they worked on them instead of BHG.

We also have to consider at the time there most likely were no plans of adding civs that used Elephants and Camels that people love in their AoE games. So instead, they shoehorned them into the Indian civ at the cost of historical accuracy. It wasn’t a malicious thing on their part.

It is what it is. Let’s see what tweaks will bring, and even then people have to keep their expectations in check. These tweaks are meant to freshen the civs up, not to completely rework them as many desire. It’s hard work.

6 Likes

I would like to point out that the current Indian civ is like 75% British India with a Mughal flag. Sepoys and Gurkhas are basically the highlight of the civ and there are cards like British East India Company, Royal Green Jackets, Conscript Sepoys, Sepoy Resistance (The last two have some historical context of the Indian Rebellion of 1857). Even the civ bonus seems to resemble a little (Getting a vill with each manor → Getting a vill with each shipment). Also, Elephants weren’t a Mughals-only thing, they were also used by many other kingdoms…like Marathas and Rajputs. Same goes for camels. Only few things like the Mughal Architecture card, Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, Akbar and the flag itself are actually reminiscent of the Mughal Empire. The flag was changed in DE from the fictional flag with the only applicable reason of Akbar being the AI personality.

I vaguely remember someone starting a thread based on the Mughal flag during the launch when the game was in a super bad state. I think now or some point in the future might be the right time to address it, and also to fix some of the stereotypical/wrong depictions of the civ like the Brahmin thing that OP pointed out (It is actually wrong and I’m Indian if that helps). What I would not like to see is changing the core design of the civ in favour of historical accuracy like most threads here demand.

Starting with something as simple as name changes would suffice. For example, Gurkhas had “An Indian skirmisher” in their description before DE, but they are actually Nepalese. Let’s begin with small changes like that instead of tearing the civ into two. This isn’t aoe 2. Also, we can be sure that the civ is going to get new cards as a legacy civ at this point, let them represent the Indian kingdoms and cultures even better, without breaking the game ofc. I want to say something similar for Germans that’s been receiving these mind-blowing requests. I’m sure if devs are ever going to make Italians, they will take a page off both Indians and Germans. This game has no problem with the so called umbrella civs.

4 Likes

Yes absolutely. No need to split the civ in two or three like in AoE2. There’s no need for any civ bloat in this game.

3 Likes

India civ and Germans civ has needed a break of umbrellas.

I hope for two new civs for German region and for Indian subcontinent. Austria-Hungary, Prussians and Dravidians, Bengalis.

Southeast Asia needed a Siamese, Vietnamese and civ like Malay.

I would be okey for some model / name changes but not for gameplay changes.

What they could be?

Yes, I think model/name changes are sufficient.

However I would not be against gameplay changes if the current India is also one of the available ways to play.

More like how Mexico can divert into many civs through revolts, India also could have options like that somehow. So if you like the current way to play, you still can.

Name and model changes are required tho…

Correct me if I’m wrong:

Brahmin monks are a little bit off as military leaders (they can be changed by skins)

Would be cool to avoid ethnic units: Gurkhas could use another name while Rajputs… I doubt that Pata sword were so commonly used. Maybe a spearman would be more historical correct.

Camels and Elephants weren’t so widespread in modern military age.

Sowar should be cavalry, and Zamburak are more a Persian thing.

IDK about Urumi and Flail Elephants. Elephants carried cannons, but the cannons weren’t used on top the elephants.

  1. Brahmins are not military leaders, correct. Reskin them.

  2. Gurkhas and Rajputs are a community. They could just be called Banduqchi rifleman and Pata warrior. (The problem is that Gurkhas and Rajputs are probably not from the same timeframe, so this renaming will help) The sepoy should be called a sipahi or something, since the word Sepoy is the anglicization of sipahi for a soldier working for the British.

  3. Elephants are fine. Camels are not so widespread in India, as much as horses are. So the Sowar should be a horse unit, that looks like the Jat Lancer. The Zamburak is fine as a niche camel that India can share with Persia.

  4. Considering that the entire civ is based on North India, the Urumi seem a bit out of place since they are Dravidian tools. But they are okay. I wish there were more South Indian units.

  5. Flail elephants were probably not a thing but I think attaching a flail to an elephant is not utter blasphemy so it can stay.

  6. The siege elephant is alright. Elephants did carry culverin on their backs. But the amount of sound that these culverin make is wrong. The sound is the issue that will spook the animal. So i think they should change the sound of the explosion to that of a culverin shot. It won’t feel like its great against buildings with a quieter sound but maybe it can shoot an explosive grenade instead?

  7. PLEASE Please please get rid of things like pet tigers in the monastery. Pet tigers were never used for war. And Brahmins cannot train pet tigers in any form. If you must, allow the explorer unit to train something like a tiger claw unit that is good against treasure guardians.

  8. The Agra Fort, Delhi Gate and Red Fort are different buildings. The upgrade of the Agra Fort should not be Delhi Gate and Red Fort…other wonders are acceptable.

  9. Indian people actually eat all other livestock except cows for religious purposes (and pork for muslims). The fact that they can’t eat goats or sheep is weird.

  10. Remove “Hello” from Villager voicelines. Also correct the verbs in some voicelines where a female villager uses male verbs. (Low priority)

6 Likes

But Pata sword were so widespread on war, or just an special weapon?

Well, Zamburak and Gatling camel (if the latter ever existed) were used with the camel sitting, so I can understand the simplification with the siege elephant.

I completely agree about pets. The thing with other animals tjat can be eaten is for gameplay purpouses.

The thing with non European/vanilla civs is that they were made very exotic and based around myths. (Japan was the more correct Asian one)

I think they should still be some kind of Warrior monks upon reskin and name change, since that’s the archetype set for all Asian civ explorers. Also, it would be easier that way.

No, Gurkhas are also great soldiers. So many of them served in the Indian army, they still do even today. I’m glad they’re being represented in the game. I mean Swedes have Finnish speaking Hackapelits, so I guess that’s fine.

Sowars could just use a name change because the Camel upgrade cards that India has doesn’t affect horses. Jat Lancers might need a cost and pop reduction, so that they’re actually put to use (currently they’re as expensive as mamelukes but also rather underwhelming). A new elite cavalry that rides horses named Sowar could be introduced through a card, with the camel unit being renamed… This would be perhaps exclusive to homecity and cost a lot to send (Preferably in age 4).

Other changes look pretty solid imo but not sure about the Agra Fort one.

2 Likes

The warrior monk thing is not a thing in India. And honestly a warrior monk being an explorer is a bad TAD stereotype for Asian civs.

Gurkha is the name of a community. Sure, this community has fighters. Then at least call them Gurkha riflemen. Not just “Gurkha”. AND, they are a bit anachronistic. The British mostly used them. I wish that they wouldn’t include things from British India. I would personally like an Indian army that isn’t a British Raj army, since our India is an elephant civ. And elephants are mostly before British times.

Agra Fort is in Agra. Red Fort is in Delhi. These two cities are different cities. The two forts are different buildings. One isn’t the upgrade of another.

4 Likes

Oh and the camel card can just be renamed. Instead of camel attack, call it “Sowar and Zamburak Attack”…or something.

It apparently affects all camels though, even the Berber ones and maybe even gatling camels. Sowars as camelry isn’t actually wrong either. There were apparently some Sowar camels even if they were vastly outnumbered by horsemen.

True !

Gurkhas are Nepalese, but Many Armies around the world recruit them to this day, mainly British and Indian Army.

camel attack increases all camel attack, that includes gattling camels, berbers etc , when avaialble.

But excluding Horses is still very very ODD!!

Yes, correct. Utsowar (meaning camel rider) is the word for camel sowar.

If you say just “Sowar”, it usually means horse.

Sowar is a rider ! Though the common impression of a sowar is of horse rider itself.

a Ghud sowar = Horse rider

Unt Sowar = Camel rider .

1 Like