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

I wouldn’t like to see any of the Architecture Sets overcrowded neither the Indian Set unless they are willing to break it up as well. Which is way too much ambitious to hope for. Same reason why I don’t want too many Mesoamericans or Africans unless they can have more Architecture Sets.
Africans need to be broken into West African, East African and Bantu. American need to broken into Central American, Andes and North American. Indian will need to be broken into Dravidian, East Indian and West Indian Architectures. Only then talk about including more Civs from those region. Overcrowding any set is not a good idea.

8 civilization is too many unless you can give 8 each to every other Architecture set.

1 Like

agree completely that overcrowding is bad but you’re asking for a lot asking for so many more new civs that we need how many more new sets is listed there? 4? i highly doubt they add just 1 new civ for each set.

1 Like

Yeah we shouldn’t over-represent any particular region. Also it is very unlikely that a new Architecture Set will be included if they want to do some minor fixes by including only a few more civs.

1 Like

which is precisely why i’m heavily against adding any new civs to anywhere in Europe.

It would have been so good if they can simply bring the civ count in each Architecture set to 4 or 5. By that logic we can also have a few more European Civs. And each set will have almost balanced representation.

1 Like

the problem this brings is how to design all those new civs without stepping on existing civs toes. team bonuses are already starting to get to the point where some are just straight up awful (looking at your Portuguese) or only useful in team games (looking at you Spanish), and were already seeing slight overlaps in civ bonuses.

1 Like

Yes it does. The Indians in AoE2 is the Mughal Empire. In this time period they were the major power in the region. Their tech tree clearly shows this with camels and gunpowder and siege. A hood mix between Indian, Turkic and Mongolian civs. They make 100% sense.

1 Like

Yes, AoE2 Indians is Mughals.

They have some references to other parts of India, but it is clear to see they are the Muslim North, which is what Europeans and most Asians would see as India in best part of the Middle Ages.

No the ones that are really the Mughals are the Indians of AOE3, check AI names and game history.

1 Like

AoE2 Tech Tree says Mughals, no matter how many non-Mughal AI names they dropped. An Indian Camel civ is a dead giveaway that this civ is the Mughals.

Sultanate of Deli in my opinion.
But maybe Mughals is also a true answer, since I thinks the in-game Indians is defined that include all Islamic Indians.

Guptas are also included.

Wonder is a vijayanagar building so south too maybe even decanni area with the lc line.

at first, this sentence made me rethink,
but when i remembered something
the movement by the community to give the persians the central asian architecture set
i realized that making them less islam is what a lot of the community wants
and to cover that hole left by the less islamic persians i present the Afghans

No, it is Delhi sultanate or Rajputs. Play the campaign, compare timelines, check architecture, check king names.

First of all Mughals are a early modern empire not a medieval empire. They finally succeeded to unite (most of) India by 1700 AD, too late to be in the game. Even then East and South were never in firm control, they quickly broke away.

The only Mughal thing in AoE2 Indians was the UI in HD that had the Shir-o-kurshid symbol.

1 Like

i don’t like to disagree
but gunpowder and camel?
i’m making a rajput civ for that reason
to better represent them and hand this to mughals

doesn’t that fit Rajputs of Thar Desert?

1 Like

not rajputs of the horse back

1 Like

Isn’t prithviraj also a cav archer?

my point is mughals are very late comers. (early modern empire) they are just a branch of tatars (timurids) that we already have in game.

Aoe2 indians are based mostly on rajputs/delhi sultanate not mughals. the campaign of prithviraj and king names, camel bonus, cav archers, sultans research, hindi language point towards it.

Delhi Sultanate defeated mongols using cav archers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtw2adDL3k

mughals used very heavy gunpowder (great bombards similar to ottomans) though they came into india very late and finally successful in conquering (most of) india in 1700 under aurangzeb, but that too was just momentary, south and east india (deccans) quickly broke away from their control.

1 Like

they group them as indians, so they could have done any campaign, like how in the khmer campaighn they represent cholas

these are from all over the place

anyways, i don’t want to argue but i hope you can at least understand my point of view that they are using mughals to represent everyone

anyways, if they do make a rajput civ we can get a mughal campaign, and re-write the prithviraj hints
also, as players dont play aoe3 as much, i feel it is not as punishing to expand the timeline a bit