That 1 Indian civ that we have in-game doesn’t represent 95% of Indian civs since they decided to make it a weird camel specific tech tree civ which is unfit even to represent a generic Indian army composition. India is not a desert.
4 Likes
1 Like
Afghans and Marathas are a little odd choices for AoE2 timeline since both got prominent quite late during the 17th 18th century. They existed as subjects most of the time in medieval era, or mixed with other cultures.
Afghans held nobility positions in North Indian Sultanates (Delhi, Bengal), Marathas held prominent positions in Deccan Sultanates (Ahmednagar, Berar, Marathwada).
1 Like
How they can be different from Persians?
In my concept they are a Siege + Gunpowder civ. Their territory was surrounded by mountains so they wouldn’t have any Dock related bonuses like Persians and their Economy would be different. Siege basically cover the Ghurids while Gunpowder cover the late medieval Afghans. Also they would have Steppe Lancers, Scouts, Elephants, Camels and Knight, but with a very limited way, missing couple of upgrades like Bloodlines, Elite Battle Elephant. This civ would be the first without Elite Battle Elephant.
Maybe add some Balooch or Pashtun mercenaries as their UU. You can make them lack elephants completely if they are to be limited to Afghanistan region only.
3 Likes
The civilization’s name will be Ghurids, they have cool gunpowder units, it’s name will be the Afghan Raider. Yes, a gunpowder unit with good movement speed.
2 Likes
Afghans shouldn’t have elephants unless they expand into the Punjabi Territories where there is more Agricultural Lands. Elephants are not found in Afghanistan Plateaus.
They expanded their territories to Northern India where elephants lived so I decided to give them non Elite Elephants without Bloodlines and Plate Barding Armor
What? That’s hilariously wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif
There have been dozens, maybe hundreds of different dynasties in china, many of which existed simultaneously.
1 Like
What distinct identity though, literally every civ is the same bar UU and some very minor details that often aren’t noticed.
If you want distinct identities, AOE3 is there for it, but AOE2 is all about making civs work as similar as possible so that there’s less hassle for the player when trying out new civs. Unless you have some explanation as to why mesocivs can train champions.
So yes, there’s absolutely more room for improvement and by that I mean less euro civs and more everything else. The only thing I disagree with OP is that Indian civs need the split before the others. I think all non-euro civs should have been given way more visibility together but not prioritized.
3 Likes
i’m sorry, but just because civs have the same basic units do not mean they play teh same.
were not talking distinct identities like AoE3, WC3, or SC.
were talking distinct identities within the AoE2 game. just because Britons and Mayans are both archer civs does not mean they play the same. Franks and Spanish are both civs with access to Paladin, do they play the same? no.
what about Huns and Mongols, do they play the same?
yeah because we totally don’t see overlap as is with civ bonuses in the game already. you could add maybe 10 more unique civs without completely homogenizing the game right now.
2 Likes
What is next split China, Koreans , Italians , Spanish … ???
5 Likes
This is not a split. People in the Indian subcontinent DIFFERENT CULTURES. That means an umbrella can’t cover the Indians. It’s like Africans cover the Malians and the Ethiopians or Mesoamericans cover Mayans and Aztecs
6 Likes
while i agree with what you’re trying to say, you’re literally comparing a subcontinent to continents, kind of flawed logic.
That kind of logic saturated some steam forums through.
That’s why it’s called a subcontinent.
1 Like
Dynasties not equal to Cultures. Individual Cultures of Indians also have dozens of dynasties. Go read some history before bluffing here.
2 Likes
Neither of the civs you listed is comparable to the Subcontinent.
China= Han Chinese are a single large homogenous culture.
Koreans = one culture
Italians = different city states doesn’t mean different cultures. You may compare it with Gujaratis or Malayalam of Indians they had multiple city states.
Spanish = one culture.
1 Like
by that logic then before we focus on India, which actually has representation in the sub continent, we should focus on anything in the North American sub continent that isn’t Mexican Area, or the South African Sub continent, neither of which have ANY Representation at all.
6 Likes