Please introduce a real INDIAN civ

If you stopped deleting history from Indian books you would know that early medieval Indian subcontinent was like a clown fiesta of emerging and falling dynasties who are barely known outside of India (except maybe for the southern empires like vijayanagara Empire and Chola, those are cool but only Chola could be considered early Medieval).

You can say all you want but the most defining empires in medieval and modern era Indian subcontinent were the Delhi and the Mughal.

4 Likes

The hatred of Delhi largely comes from modern-day anti-Islam Indian movements (in part due to the tensions between Indian and Pakistani peoples). There was a significant amount of pillaging and destruction of cultures, but not excessively so when you compare to civilizations like the Mongols, HRE, English or Abbasids.

Also the idea of an INDIAN civilization in a game made before 1900 is laughable. India was never in anyway unified prior to British colonization. The idea of a civilization that represents India would be like trying to make 1 civilization to represent all of Europe. There were so many diverse cultures and nations across the subcontinent that were only vaguely related to eachother through race or religion (and even then less unified that continental europe as a whole)

8 Likes

But I think you understand the gist of what is being requested, right? Since India was never in any way unified, it is pretty well accepted that the Dehli Sultanate does not serve a very good proxy for the historic people of modern day India. Though whether a proxy can be achieved with just one more civ is certainly debatable. It may be that those asking for an Indian civ are understating things – it may be that several would be necessary to give that area of the world a similar representation as, say, Europe presently has.

I cannot imagine the blowback around here, though, to such a suggestion.

2 Likes

Well the blowback was more in regards to the post about how Delhi shouldn’t be a civ since they were “villain invaders” when like half the civs in the game could be categorized as such (I mean Mongols anyone?)

I’m also hoping India eventually gets a 2nd civ perhaps in a DLC with a SEA civ or Portugal, as both would have a decent campaign to make.

Keep in mind there are only 8 civs so far and we are missing big ones like Byzantine/ottomans and all of Africa is currently represented by the Abbasid/Mamluk dynasties (also muslim invaders of north africa and Spain.)

4 Likes

I am very curious to see how new civs are developed. I fear that they may have painted themselves into a corner with their categorization of shared units on the one hand and units totally unique to one civ on the other hand. Perhaps they will break that mold. I think it will be necessary. Otherwise there will only ever be one civ with war elephants or camels?

1 Like

I doubt they will share uniques, it will probably something more akin to both Rus and Mongols have horse archers. There’s definately lots of design space left for elephants. (AOE2 had much different SEA elephants than Persian afterall)

1 Like

I don’t think that AoE4 needs to stick to the AoE2 mindset of only 2 civs per DLC. AoE4 only has 8 civs, whereas AoE2 only had 35 before the Lords of the West, as well as being hardcapped to 48 civs total. I think therefore, that it could be reasonable to expect up to four more civs per DLC, although it could be anything really.

1 Like

Right I didn’t mean anything regarding number of civs, but I just assume any DLC they make with have an accompanying campaign and considering how they are trying to make civs unique and based on the starting civ numbers I expect DLC to be like 2-4 civs from a region or related somehow (I included portugal cause a large part of their impact was their exploration and colonization of Africa and India).

Maybe they will have a full India DLC to correct the travesty that is AOE2 Indians (which is way worse than Delhi, calling a civ indians and making them a camel civ that doesn’t have access to elephants is actually wtf)

1 Like

All the different civilizations should be equally respected and just because your favorite isn’t in this game (yet) doesn’t make those who have been added to this game less worthy or less important.

6 Likes

What modern day anti-islam movements you are talking about? If you are muslim please stop being so biased. Sorry for the aggressive language used for the post whoever wrote it. You understand that representing with one civilization is not good enough for India as it has been mix of various different cultures. Why represent with a culture that has no impact today? Or we can say negative impact today? Are you afraid of reading about their history and damage they caused or are you suggesting we should glorify and accept those deeds. They have been called and always will be called foreign or invaders since India was created.

The main problem is that it gives wrong impression about India. India is vastly diversed which is accepted but to be represented by Delhi Sultanate should never have been a choice.

2 Likes

I’m not muslim? religion and foreign rule is a large cause of modern-day tensions with Pakistan and the cause for Pakistan to be seperate from India. Also the game is representing countries that had impact at their time not today. Delhi was a military power with one of the largest Indian empires ever and one of the very few civilizations that repelled Mongol aggression.

Not to mention the Relic and historical experts that assisted in making the game thought Delhi had much historical etc impact.

2 Likes

What clown fiesta you are talking about? Certainly you have no idea.

Clown fiesta was Delhi sultanate. Timur would have ended their rule in end 14th century had he decided to stay and create empire. Maybe Delhi sultanate was too stupid for him. He just defeated them ransacked and left. Certainly a sad moment too but certainly shows how weak sultanate were.

Talking about deleting history,
It was the malmuk Ghaznavids or Ghurids who tried their best to delete Indian history by destroying universities and temples and later Sultante and Mughals by converting people and destroying temples. Too bad they got such negative reputation today for that. Well evil deeds doesn’t serve good to anyone.
Are you too afraid too to read about their history.

Trying to justify this by saying ‘Everyone does that’ is not logical.

Just asking to look at things from a neutral point of view and represent a civilization of a country which represent true culture and tradition of today’s date. Otherwise it will end up creating a wrong impression.

3 Likes

Just mentioned earlier. Timur kicked thier ■■■ very badly. he could have ended their rule there itself half way.

Another post I mentioned repelled Mongol briefly, that too only Khilji.

You need to read all the events and that too in details.

I would certainly like to see what expertise was used and what research was done. If they could come up with a blog or article explaining things that would be nicer.
You cant just this by saying generic statements Detailed and concrete answers are important.

1 Like

I know they were so weak that they managed to conquer basically all of India, I guess if Delhi is so weak they conquered the whole continent there must be no one in India at this time frame that is worthy to be a civ then by your argument.

Timur also kicked the Ottoman’s butt really badly causing the empire to fracture, but they were still one of the behemoth civs that basically shaped modern day balkan and Persian history

1 Like

Most of the part they were lucky. There were not so serious contenders at that moment. Sultanate Capability was not strong. That too was short period of time or their strong hold. If you take history their have been other dynasties who had more area under capture and dont forget the influence which civilization makes. You can have half of the world under you at one point of time with no influence,

Anatolia was not the core of Ottomans while Delhi was the core of DELHI sultanate. Ottomans bounced back that shows their supremacy, I agree with that. Sultante nowhere near comparable to them. Did Sultanate bounce back? Eventually lost to Mongol descendant babur who started Mughal.

Comparing Sultanate and Ottoman is completely illogical. One bounced back other succumbed later. It was not a copy paste. Also you keep on forgetting Sultanate was 5 short lived dynasties and not one dynasty like Ottoman. Please don’t insult Ottomans next time like that.

Ottoman was much bigger than Sultanate and should have been one of the core civilization. Sultanate with 5 dynasties was not strong enough to be core civs, also represent India wrongly.

2 Likes

I mean it wasn’t just that the lost anatolia, but they had their Sultan taken prisoner and executed, got multiple cities ransacked and devolved into civil war that almost ended the Ottoman Sultante before it truly became a world power. Also the Delhi sultanate was the most powerful entity in the Indian subcontinent in the game’s timeframe. I agree if this were like a world history game Delhi would be an odd choice, but if we are choosing a civilization in power for ~900-1600 AD, Delhi is the obvious choice for the region.

Mughals were much more influential and powerful sure but they aren’t part of this game’s timeline.

Also interestingly enough, the devs decided to have Delhi also represent the Ghurid dynasty, while the following dynasties represent the Delhi Sultanate, similar to how there are various Chinese dynasties.

Also per the professional historians Relic hired, the Delhi Sultanate was “at the forefront of technological innovation. and they shaped an independent Indo-Islamic region, adopting technology present in India”

1 Like

I think the devs do their best to give an accurate model of the differne t viva and do everything they can to show them each the respect they deserve but in the end people be taking ■■■■ WAY to serious nowadays ITS A ■■■■■■■ GAME YO :video_game::video_game:🤦🤦🤦:joy::rofl::joy::rofl::joy:

1 Like

The chinese dynasties on Chinese soil has been represented for a period of 1000 years. over around 650 A.D to 1600. Even though they mention since 907, Tang finshed by that time, it really started around 650 A.D. Its very different how Indian soil is represented. Particularly North Indian region.

Its impossible to represent a region with a single dynasty/civilizations. For Chinese they have represnted with various over 1000 years, but for Northern Indian over 300 years only. Talking about most influential. Rajputs have influence over 500 years since 700-1200. Similar with varying dynasties. Its just one example. Their influence in India is much more stamped today as well. More people could have related to them.

For me the real concern started when it was not even given a proper Indian language. While for chinese its Mandarin which everyone knows is modern chinese language. Talking about historical correctness only for the Delhi. This makes it COMPLETE alien. Too bad delhi is associated with it. Should have just put name Ghaznavid civilization. With Mamluk/Tughlaq/Lodi dunasty coming in later ages like feudal to imperial. Then not having proper Indian language (for me Sanskrit/hindi) woulnt be a problem. i would just have considered okay there is no Indian civ, maybe it will come later.

2 Likes

Just taking it as a game. But have to reply people who come up with wrong argument and justify wrong things.

The thought by dev is good, appreciate that, but the execution could have been done more properly. Good to see there are upcoming Indian indigenous civs. When they come it will be of more motivation. But you know how much time it takes for new versions to release, patience is difficult. Had it come earlier I personally could have grabbed at least 5 friends from other games to be continuous AOE players. Its a motivation when people have to play with something they can relate. I just hope it comes before I get old or my nervous system is still working to play Digital games.

1 Like

yeah i understand what your saying it just kills me how serious people get over stuff like that lol

1 Like