just wanna chime in here, if anyone is willing to put in the effort instead of making such empty remarks…
do some research on how many indian players actually play aoe2 or aoe3, vs any european country…
unfortunately for you guys, you will quickly discover you are actually the vocal minority, in a predominantly european(predominant)/ american(still high)/ east asian(not as high) player base…
if there is such a term, overwhelming minority… so as much noise as you guys make, the vast majority of the players are actually not even remotely from the areas you guys keep complaining about…
even a tiny country like belgium has a larger online presence that actually plays online instead of shouting endlessly on the forums
well just to inform you, this is a representation of the rest of the player base, there arent like 1million indians hiding off line and secretly playing aoe2, whatever the number is, it is far less than the global representation, for any number of reasons, but more than likely financial situations… but whatever, clearly you want to believe whatever it is you think is right, and no amount of evidence will say otherwise…
Clearly ! you have a rage filled inside i hope u are satisfied venting it all out, though, all the facts stated regarding and willing to have a Indian civs remains the same.
There exists a vast scope of the Indian Civs to exist in much better way. Than many of the others.
Or maybe people just dont play the game as much, maybe there is some other more popular game that exists.
But as you said, the things that apply for you:
(And, apart from users on other platforms, there is a huge Indian Diaspora abroad that also plays the game, apparantly they arent in millions as the franchise is in thousands itself)
i will say that the Indian community does sometimes come off as quiet entitled.
i full see why people want another Indian faction to AOE 4, esp since the current one is a muslim ruled one. and i definitely think there are other candidates that could make sense.
but to go from there to wanting for example 3 dynasties that all controlled more or less the same area is a bit far fetched, that would be the equivalent of having Western Rome, Franks and French all in the game. in similar story we dont need several versions of a Chinese dynasty.
i remember in the AOE 3 chat at some point there where some people who wanted entirely nonsense factions like the “Sikh Empire” into the game, while kindly ignoring that 1) it already exist as a minor faction and 2) it existed for less than 50 years and imploded the second it got in contact with the British Raj. and also that the Indians in AOE 3 are suppose to be a mixture of several entities in the periode like the Mughals and British Raj.
Wouldn’t you look at that? The true size of modern day India can actually fit over the capitals of the English, French, HRE, and Rus. I daresay it would not be against the grain to give two civs to a country that overlaps four AoE4 civs. (You can play for yourself at https://thetruesize.com/)
while i agree that India is large and that 1 extra civ isn’t too much to ask, i also think context matters here.
the context is that since rome no major european power has managed to cover an area that large in europe.
the argument i hold against some indian civs is that essentially they are the same area, but again i dont think Dehli counts out someone like the Chola. but Chola would count out some of the others.
there definitely could be another Indian civ, but i dont think there can be 4 more.
How many civ coming from chinese can you get then? To me 3 euro civ is a way to much (brit and france wasn’t that great comparatively to China/Mongol/India whatever their name).
There are a lot of better civ to do than a second “India” area civ but probably because they have already did the mistake in europe this argument is not valide anymore.
I agree that Europe is about saturated. The Byzantines seem like a worthy selection, and I really dont understand how the Rus got a seat at the table before them.
As for China, I do not know enough about Chinese history to give you an intelligent answer. I know that the Dehli Sultanate and Chola appear to always be considered separate empires. I don’t know if there were separate competing empires during our era that would justify the game having an additional civ from modern China in the near future.
honestly i am surprised we get the HRE and RUS over say Byzantine and Danes, perhaps the devs think those factions would sell well as a DLC and that is why they are holding them? same thing with Japan, i think they are holding them for DLC.
as for china really honestly they are just different dynasties of the same overarching civilization. sometimes they split, sometimes even for a long time, but by the end the vast majority where Han.
Because In the timeframe of the game as Byzantines were were getting more and more unimportant Russians were rising. Also there was no Byzantine empire in the time in which Imperial age in AoE 4 is occurring.
I’m slightly bewildered as to how a small vocal group of the total player base can have such a significant influence on the decision making. Of course it’s great news to them but instead of browbeating a majority who does not care about another India civ, could we look at for instance unique Castle units instead before discussing the need for 3 different civs for the Danes and Anglics and the Germanic tribes who made the kingdom of Denmark equally incredibly ‘diverse’. Or another great missing civ could be the kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex or East Anglia.
I’m kidding of course but where are the British folks creating havoc about this shameful disregard of the many historical deeds of the kings of Northumbria? And where is the Welsh or Irish kingdom that brought forth the tales of Beowulf?
Exactly, odd isn’t it? (I played aoe3 frequently and I have only ever seen 1 player from India in the multiplayer lobby and even though he was the nicest guy ever, he always had a red ping.).
I’ll be honest - the fact that they called it the Delhi Sultanate, rather than the Indians, seems to indicate to me that this was pretty much the plan the whole time. The surprisingly strong backlash to Delhi may have prompted the developers to make their intentions a bit more clear (and maybe moved up the timeline?), but I don’t think it fundamentally changed their thinking on the topic.
I don’t get it. So they included the most dominant force in the continent, but people are upset that it’s not actual indians that that are the bosses of these forces? If dehli were the dominant force, they were the dominant force. Imagine having a war game with scottish independent nation in a period scotland was under england…
Maybe it’s just something that I haven’t grasped about this debate yet
