Let’s talk about the periods that can or cannot be portrayed and what is seen both in AoE2 and what is seen and talked about by the developers for AoE4:
In AoE2 we have a few campaigns that portray the 16th century, generally in the Americas, Asia and Africa. Remembering that AoE2 also portrays campaigns in ancient periods such as the 4th and 5th centuries. In short, AoE2 covers the period from the end of the 4th century to the mid-16th century.
As for AoE4, the developers announced at the time that the game would portray a more modern period than that seen in AoE2. Therefore, they mentioned that AoE4 would start later and end later if compared to AoE2.
We can therefore conclude that the 16th century and perhaps even the mid-17th century could be portrayed in campaigns in AoE4.
So suffice it to say that the 16th Century is very safe to be worked on in AoE4, just look at the modern arsenal seen in the game it is much larger than what was seen in AoE2 in addition to the developers themselves having confirmed that AoE4 will go beyond what was seen in AoE2.
So the Empires: Chola and Viyanagara, both can be placed in the game. However, I imagine that one will be the variant of the other, since we have this new variant system. And the purpose of the variants is precisely to cover a specific period of that Civilization/Culture/Empire.
In short, we can easily portray the Empires in AoE4: Pala Empire (750–1161), Ghazanavid Empire (977-1186), Chola Empire (848–1279) & Viyanagara Empire (1336–1646), Bengal Sultanate (1332–1539 and 1554–1576), Mughal Empire (1526–1857) in the case of Mughal would obviously not retract the full period. Some of these, like the Mughal itself, would be a Variant Civil.
We also have Kingdom of Mysore (1399–1947) and Maratha Empire (1674—1818). I believe that Maratha would be too modern even for a variant.
Yes, but we are talking about the Middle Ages and during the Middle Ages the Persians were occupied by the different Arab Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid), by the Mongols (Ilkhanate) and the Tatars (Timurid Empire), when they were recently able to free themselves from the Timurids by Ismail Safavida and becoming a gunpowder empire, it was already the early modern age (that is, already in the period of AoE 3)…before that you have the Sassanids who came from late antiquity and the periods of semi-independence between the 800 and the 1000 CE…
That’s true…but they were referring to the fact that AoE 4 started in the year 800 and ended in the year 1650 (AoE 2 starts in the year 400 and ends in the year 1600)…for now no campaign reaches the 17th century, so the latest it is reached is in the last mission of the Rus, which is in the siege of Khazan in 1552, to connect with Ivan the Terrible and AoE 3 (we know that what AoE 3 lacks is from more campaigns in the 16th and 17th centuries)…
Of course, of course…
I find the Mughal Empire difficult, since its climax is in the 1700s… Mysore and Maratha forget it, it goes to AoE 3…
I would go with the Cholas because they lasted longer and because they represent pre-feudal India and Viyanagara would make it a variant of civ more focused on gunpowder…
Of course, remember that AoE 3 exists, that’s why I consider 1600 as the end for AoE 2 (and by extension AoE 4), since the Thirty Years’ War (which lasts until 1648) and the general crisis of the XVII century is not considered part of the Middle Ages and more of the Early Modern Age…
Yes, perhaps in the next dlcs they will include campaigns that border on 1600, but I don’t see that they are going to include the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) or the fall of the Ming in 1644… perhaps a Japanese campaign that ends in the siege of Osaka in 1615 and little more…an Ottoman campaign would reach maximum in 1566, an Aztec campaign in 1520, a Spanish campaign against Ottomans in 1571 and so on…
But in my opinion, if I can only choose ONE new civilization… I would vote like this:
First point:
The next Indian civilization should have a unique architecture. Given this, the South of India would be perfect to contrast with the North (Delhi).
In South India, to cover AoE4, the best options are: Chola Empire (848–1279) and Viyanagara Empire (1336–1646).
Second Point:
We know that AoE4 has many more different gunpowder units compared to AoE2. Therefore AoE4 is more modern, just as the developers said it would be.
As India’s NEW civilization I would place the Viyanagara Empire (1336–1646). The main reason is because they are better armed with gunpowder weapons, so they would fit better in the Imperial age, end of the game.
I vote for → New civilization: Viyanagara Empire (1336–1646).
Third Point:
We know at the moment that the VARIANTS will focus on heroes/leaders, if this is to happen most of the time. The recommended option is to leave the Chola Empire (848–1279) as a variant. Chola has charismatic and very famous leaders in South India. Remembering that the Chola Campaign combined with its leader and its maritime expansion, would be truly incredible.
I vote for → New variant for Viyanagara : Chola Empire (848–1279).
Example of the video below about a Chola leader/hero, his name is Rajendra:
To keep in mind Vijaynagar are “”“sort of”“” an evolution/Diversion etc of Chola Empire after decline of Chola power. Administratively the Founders of Vijaynagar empire were From Kakatiya Dynasty which were in pact with the Cholas.
I think could be a great choice in all regards but one: the limited timespan. It would be the shortest lived civ of the game buuuut I think it’s still doable. Who knows?! Maybe one day…
LoL No. Very incorrectly understood and confused post of yours buddy. Here’s some clarification:
Vijayanagar was started by Sangama Dynasty (which is related to Yadavas of Maharashtra). The first two rulers Buka and Harihara were called Hindu Sultans because they were previously generals of delhi sultanate when khilji had his expeditions down south and later they revolted and restored the Hoysala Kingdom when Khilji grew weak.
It is primarily a Kannada Empire. It incorporated the Telugus by giving them ministerial roles. They posted these Telugu Nayakas of Rayalaseema to rule in Tamil regions but the people hated them.
Tamils constantly revolted within Vijayanagar. Cholas were defeated within Tamil region by the Pandyas who had previously aligned with Delhi Sultanate to form Madurai Sultanate.
There are groups like Saurashtrians who migrated from Gujarat to down south who contributed to Vijayanagar’s development as well.
Mysore and Malabar coast remained independent. While Jaffna (North Sri Lanka) was a vassal to Vijayanagar.
The Kakatiyas (Telugu) you mentioned are from Telangana, they were vassalized under the Bahmani Sultanate later revolted by the help of Odisha interference by extending support to Velama Chiefs. The Reddies (Telugu) of Andhra kept switching side between Odisha and Vijayanagar.
Vijayanagar Empire is the continuation of Hoysala Empire after the brief overtake by Delhi. So if you count 10th to 14th century of Hoysala too then it won’t be the shortest.
I know, thats why I meantioned “Sort of”, as it was the ““standardization and base laid”” during chola period that was adopted by most of the dynasties that emerged after the chola period.
And kakatiyas have a “brief” debatable encestory of Cholas as well.
All in all, I didnt mean they(founders of Vijaynagar) were direct part/continuation of the Cholas.
I was more of referring to absence of foreign intervention mostly. And the OG systems/influence set during Chola period still being alive and intact, while the rise of Vijaynagar, rest is history.
Unlike the Northern areas where the continuous invasions didn’t allowed any period of stability after the Gurjaras-Pratiharas.
Yes, in short the Cholas declined in the 13th century and in their place the Viyanagara empire rose in the 14th century, which lasted until its own decline in which the Maratha empire was formed in the 17th century…you have the empires of the North India on the one hand and the South Indian empires on the other…
No. Vijayanagar is the continuation of Chalukyas/Hoysalas (Kannadigas) not the Cholas (Tamils). The two were arch-rivals throughout the medieval age.
Marathas was not formed from Vijayanagar. Vijayanagar ended due to Deccan Sultanate’s final blow to it at Battle of Talikota. And then the Deccan Sultanates fought a pitched war with Mughals that drained the Mughals. This created a power vacuum for Maratha Confederacy to rise from the ashes of Deccan.
Imperial Cholas (Tamils), Vijayanagar Empire (Kannadigas) and Maratha Confederacy (Marathis) are all different people.
Well, I believe that with the Variant civs the problem of what to do when 2 or more civs share architecture or model of basic units and language in the same region is solved.
That being the case, there could be several civs for India, sharing the military Base Unit model (spearman, archers, horsemans, etc.), and perhaps one or two cases of variance in architecture in imperial.
Chola (South).- Tamil Language, Tamil Architecture, BaseUnit Models: Hindu
Easter Gangas (East).- Odia Language, Architecture: Kalinga, BaseUnit Models: Hindu
Rajputs (West).- Gurjara Language, North-Indian Architecture, BaseUnit Models: Hindu
Vijayanagara (Central and South).- Variant of Chola in Language: Tamil, Architecture: Tamil, BaseUnit Model: Hindu
The Delhi Sultanate (North, Northwest), Already Exists, Persian Speaking, North-Indian Architecture, Models: Delhi.
Mainly in the main point that the architecture and geographical region are the same, this generally ends up maintaining the language and often the religion, even though they are from different periods.
There is no need to make an entirely new civilization in the look of the buildings, if the architecture still remains the same. However, the variant itself ends up being a new civilization, as you can change the way you play, change technologies, change unique units and who knows, even change some landmarks.
The variants still promise a lot of surprises, whether in this DLC or in the next.
Of course, there may be exessions, through regions where several empires/dynasties passed, but the architecture evolved and acquired new details, due to foreign technologies and influences that mixed over time.
I don’t know if the Persians would be an example of this, as they improved over the centuries, perhaps the Persians could have 2 architectures, depending on the era that will be portrayed (Currently we have Abbasid architecture, which covered Persia until a certain period).
I don’t see why the architecture needs to remain the same. We have different European civs with different architecture, so it’s not an issue if different Indian civs have different architecture. We don’t say that there should be one European civ, and that the English, French and HRE should be variants of that, do we?
