Main problem with adding more Indian civis is the name itself.I think we have discussed this issue more than enough now.
1 Like
I mean, he does bring up a point though, the OP didnât bother bringing any reasons or anything, just listed a bunch of Wikipedia articles.
I can understand why they are focusing on the Indian Subcontinent, thatâs pretty obvious, itâs largely neglected. but why do they feel those civs are the ones that should be added? and why do they feel that this one expansion should be 13 total civs when the biggest expansion before this point added 5 civs?
1 Like
I think hes suggesting the civs that should be added⊠the devs can decide to add any 3⊠also i disagree with most of them⊠adding 3 distinct civs to represent 3 regions of india like north , south, east should be enough⊠they can add tripartite civs (Rashtrakuta, Pala, Gujara) to cover mostly whole india
1 Like
But again, the point is, his post isnât clear and concise. it could very easily lead someone to believe something else.
The devs do not need to add 3 civs for India, just 2. there is already an Indians civ.
1 Like
No, the least number is 5, because they are already 4 Southeast Asian civs and people want Siamese.
I am free to share my opinion about the future of the game. I dont think we need more civs to make the game better. I think the focus need to be on other elements of the game. There are enough other things to fix or improve for this game. I much rather see progress there. There are already so many match ups that kind of no one is able to play every possible match up.
Als the following is true:
If you want more civs, then post why you want more civs and why these civs. And add things like how the civ is meant to play. This thread was just a list of some Wikipedia articles. You cant expect a fruitfull discussion about your suggested civs if you dont explain any thing. I would recommended to do at least some work if you request some new civs.
exactly. you could easily come into this and view it as the OP meaning we should add 13 new civs to the game in one expansions. which is just absurd. also no reason is given as to why these civs should be the ones, or why India deserves to have the biggest expansion ever (adding as many civs as the base game had, no less). I get it. I do. India needs more representation. I even agree with that. But they definitely donât need more then 3 more civs for starters if you ask me.
While I am not against new civs being added, i do think there is a point where there would be too many civs, and we should be careful when adding new ones to the game.
Afgans Bengals Sinhaleese Dravidians should technically not clash with the term indians but im sure someone will find a way for them to not work.
1 Like
reminds me of a silly idea of a ranged cav unit that can pull the enemy to him but with a cooldown also it would be manually selected
so like 3 umbrealla civs for collective civs of east west and south india ?
Well, this game is about umbrella civs.
I know that, i am not american but u cant rlly make interesting campaigns with indian civs, u can tell many stories in the mid east, central asia, africa and the russian steppe and the caucasus, there are many more enemies than the same 2 or 3 main enemies
1 Like
Chola Enemies in a Rajendra Chola Campaign: Sinhalese, Kannads, Bengalis, Burmese, more Tamils, Oriyas and Malay.
Mongols Huns both came from asia and they destroyed everybody they met.there are plenty of history and stories to tell.
The current design of indians has been a bit problematic since release. Some degree of change is indeed needed and an indian subcontinent DLC would be a good excuse to go into major reworks.
Or do you mean the name âindiansâ? A name change would only please those who care and wouldnât bother those who donât care about the historical background. I doubt someone would get angry just because he really liked the name indians. And it would not cause âmass confusionâ either. Not with the proper announcement (Weâve got a ânewsâ tab for something)
I though rajputs collectively refered to all the states of northwest india. Isnât delhi sultanate (despite being of turkic origin) also a rajput state? Genuine question, Iâm a bit ignorant in indian history.
This is a intresting topic to discuss. If a state is ruled by people belonging to a civ, but the majority of the population belongs to another civ, which one represent said state better? Is Williamâs england Frank or Briton? Are mughals Tatars or Indians? Rashidun persia: Saracen or Persians?
A new wonder must be made for the new civ anyway, so we could just transfer the current one to the new civ and create a new one for the indians/rajputs.
Then I want a full rework for Portuguese, Celts, Franks UU, Japanese UU, Saracens UUâŠ
See where this goes?
If they open the door for major reworks, then everyone will want theirs, and I will want Gunpowder Caravels with more Range than Cannon Galleons, and a direct-shot (but accurate) projectile, like the HCâs, but with a huge damage bonus vs Ships and Buildings, and I want it to be OP, because Caravels were OP in real life.
Rajpoots literally means âsons (poots) of king (raja)â. Rajpoots are a subclass of kshatriy (warrior class of people) and are indeed focussed more on the northwest part. But the Delhi region is seen as North, rather than North West. Since Rajpoots are Kshatriy and Kshatriy are Hindus, Delhi Sultanate cannot be Rajpoot, since they were Muslims.
1 Like
OP is âsheâ - female.
A simple - South Asian expansion can do wonders.
Prithviraj ruled in the Rajasthan - Delhi region. Rajasthan has a desert and hence camels. So the current Indian civ can be renamed to Rajpoots and conserve the camel identity. Thatâs 1 Indian civ.
Tamils from the South and Oriyas or Bengalis fron the East. Thatâs 3.
Since the expansion focuses on South Asia and not India, we can have a Tibet based civ also. Thatâs 4, the standard number of civs in an expansion.
This also deletes a civ, so the number of civs goes from 37 to 40, which is also a good number.