Indians need MOST of any civ to be split into many civilizations

I’m not particularly going for a Hindu-Muslim thing here, I’m going by influence and relevance across the timeframe of the game (450-1550 roughly with some extensions). Religion really means nothing to me.

But making Karnata a gunpowder civilisation would be an obvious Muslim / Christian influence (bombard cannons being copied from Adil Shah and hand cannons being from the Christian traders). However, there is also about 1000s years prior to that to keep in mind (which is why Monks on one hand and the wonder on the other that I mentioned in the other thread).

2 Likes

You forgot their Telingana region, the Hyderabad City built by Deccan Sultanates.
Large population of Dakhini Muslims live there.

There is a reason why Telugu split into two states even within India, Telingana and Andhra. Andhra may further split into Raylaseema and Andhra in future. Different rulers have actually influenced the same Telugus a lot.

Bahmani and Deccan Sultanates are actually within the medieval era itself and do need some unique representation. Considering they are mostly Persianised Shia Dynasties (Bahmani, Bijapur, Berar) as opposed to Turkic Sunni Dynasties in the North. Also their language Dakhini is very unique to the region heavily influences city such as Hyderabad, Bidar, Ahmednagar.

1 Like

Yeah, yeah, of course. I am not saying they weren’t. But there are two goals: (1) Not oversaturate the number of civilisations in the game (2) Choose the civilisations that are most appropriate for the timeframe selected. As I said, we could have 15 different civilisations in the game from Bahamani to Sultanates to Guptas to what not, but we need to make sure they are all unique and differently playable. In my opinion, “Bahamani” as a civ doesn’t necessarily represent the medieval deccan as much as the Kannadigas. However making them a gunpowder civilisation certainly shifts the timeline to include the cannon-armed battled between the different Hindu, Persian, and Turkic kingdoms in the southern deccan. so that is indeed a good compromise (while also giving the cavalry and infantry of the earlier centuries a strong representation). Anyway the locals in the Bahamani Sultanate were the same Kannadigas who lived under the previous empires too.

As far as the northern Sultans go, they might have been of Turkic origin, but they certainly used Persian in their daily life and in courts going all the way back to the Ghurids. Every single one of them: Ghurid, Khilji, Lodi, Mamluk, Tughlaq, and Sayyid. Of course the Mughals till Shah Jahan also had exclusively Persian, and Persian was scrapped as an official language in Delhi only in 1857.

1 Like

i think the Sinhalese are a good choice with their battle of independence from the Chola,
good historical battle if not campaign

1 Like

made a civ idea fro the tamils, however i already posted it on
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/poll-updated-which-civs-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-game-all-popularly-requested-civs-included/

No language is based of off Tamils. Sinhala are not dravidians they are of East Aryan group along with Oriya-Bengali.

4 Likes

Sinhalese battled the Cholas for independence, i ever said they were Dravidians
many languages are based off of tamil, which is one of the oldest languages still spoken

Actually, if we make “Magadhi” as a civilisation instead of Vanga or Kalinga, including Sinhalese as Magadhi people would be so trivially simple :smiley:

no too sure about that, but it could work
however, i would separate them

Well, Tamil is one of the three languages of the Tamil-Kannada branch. It might be one of the oldest written languages in India, but other Dravidian languages (except likely Malayalam) are not Tamil derivatives.

As I said. We could separate everyone and make 20 civilisations. That doesn’t lead anywhere, though.

The old-ness is only in terms of written tradition. Orally it seems they’re all about the same, and oldest sculpted records are all in the 500 BC - 100 BC range for Kannada, Tamil, and Telugu. Tulu, I’m sure, is also somewhere there.

1 Like

That’s like including all Romance-speaking civilisations (Spanish, Italians, Franks) into one. Also geographically and politically, it doesn’t make that much sense. One was land-based and the other naval.

1 Like

Still peeves me off that Mongols and Tatars are separate civilisations but Indians is one :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

Tamil Telugu Kannada and Malayalam are based off of a Proto-Dravidian Language. Each one of them is original.
There are 6 classical languages in India (that have not changed since thousands of years):
All 4 Dravidian languages listed above and Oriya and Sanskrit.

3 Likes

The languages have actually changed quite a lot, but they have an unbroken tradition wherein you can trace the changes back to millennia ago. For example, old Kannada is very similar to old Tamil, but today it’s not as much. Also old Tamil is much harder to understand than even 1000 years ago. Think of it like how Pali is much more similar to Sanskrit than to Bengali or Maithili or Sinhala.

so what are the civs we are going to ad in the anticipated expansion of the subcontinent
tamil
and who else?

I made a big post of what I like in this thread here.

But I guess there is still officially no new civilisations.

1 Like

Bengali is quite recent in its creation. In wikipedia Pala empire is mentioned to be using Proto-Bengali. Also they were not as much numerous as they are now compared to their other East Aryan neighbours. Their population boomed in British colonial age when large chunks of lands was forcefully incorporated into Bengal State (Cooch Behar, Midnapur)

Kalinga and Magadha are the centers of development of the East Indian Culture.