I agree; Central Asian would be a good compromise. I just want Middle Eastern architecture back because it’s nostalgic for me.
1 Like
No Central Asia is not fine. None of you don’t know a single thing about architecture design of India/Pakistan. India/Pakistan/Afghanistan is NOT Middle Eastern by any means. Taj Mahal itself represents the unique architecture from this area for the time. Central Asia got those blue Mosque which you will never see in Pakistan/India. There is few at Afghanistan since it has part of Uzbeks and Tajiks. Just do a google search.
Majority of areas population was always Hindu. Most rulers did not care much about sponsoring Islam from state compared to Middle East and North Africa. Very few did to some extent. Islam in India was spread by Arab/Persian merchants in Silk Road.
3 Likes
The point I made still stands. The Hindustanis predominantly represent the Islamic factions; while there are some Islamic regimes which ruled in Bengal and Western India, they are not the main representatives for these civs in game. Hence an Islamic mosque design for the Hindustanis would be appropriate, definitely more so than the Hindu temple design they have now.
they represent a mostly Hindu faction with muslim leaders.
From the in-game History section about the Hindustanis:
“the Delhi Sultanate (13th-16th centuries), which essentially consisted of a Muslim warrior-elite ruling over a culturally and socially majority Indian population”
2 Likes
That’s a silly argument. The Delhi Sultanate, Ghaznavids etc WERE Islamic factions. Fiercely so as well. Yes they ruled over subject Hindu populations but that’s not what Hindustanis represent.
1 Like
In theory current Hindustani is fine. Because population was of different religion(Hindu/Buddhist) but ruling class(Muslim) wasn’t.
Or give them a unique Mosque based on Indian architecture. No need to change it to Middle Eastern architecture because that’ll be very very inaccurate. Only giving Mosque will fix the problem that everyone talking about.
Then why does Ethiopia have a Mali mosque?
The game is Age of Empires, not Age of invaders. The Hindustani empire was majority Hindu. The temples are fine.
1 Like
Whereas I think the middle eastern set is one of the worst looking, and south asia looks a lot cooler. It also makes sense for all the civs in a geographically similar DLC to share architecture.
1 Like
Another thing to be fixed. But currently there aren’t enough African civs for another build set. If Ghana/Hausa and Nubia are introduced, then they could introduce an African church model.
@karthikriyer In the case of the Hindustanis there are plenty of options - either the Middle Eastern or Tatar mosque could be used.
Or they could use the temples, you know? There isn’t really a need for mosques there.
3 Likes
Its patently absurd for the Islamic Indian faction to use temples. Might as well given the Delhi Sultanate temples in AOE4 by that logic of yours.
It is not absurd at all. Quite the contrary. They’re the Hindustanis, not the Muslimstanis. This is age of empires, not the age of invaders. You have to consider the empire as a whole, not just the royalty. I wouldn’t really mind if they had the mosque, but having the temple is not an issue at all. It’s nice and representative of the population. It makes sense that the military buildings are Islamic because the army was islamic at the time, and it makes sense that the monastry building is a Temple because the people were Hindu. There would be no issue if the Delhi Sultanate were given temples too. Did you know that the Indians (Mughals) had the temple in AOE3 as well?
3 Likes
The Indians in AOE3 are an umbrella civ, representating Mughals, Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas, Gurkhas, etc. not the same as the Hindustanis in AOE2DE.
Before the DLC, fine, the temple would suffice but now there are variations, including castles. Even in the trade carts for the various Indian civs.
It was the same ridiculous situation as the Byzantines having ME architecture and the mosque until DE came along. Thankfully they replaced it with a church after DE (thought not perfectly but better than before).
1 Like
It was fine before the DLC and it is fine after the DLC as well, for reasons already explained to you. As for the Byzantines, the Byzantine people were Orthodox Christian, therefore the church. The Hindustani people were Hindus, so the Temple.
3 Likes
You do realize what you call “Muslim Indian factions” were actually having a Hindu population at the time?
Ugh, you do realize game is about conquest and other stuffs? Which means invasion? Word “Empire” says many things about it. Also Hindustanis mainly referred to people of Indus Valley Sindh River in this game? In civilization/ethnic sense, it’s not bad in name. You can call Pakistanis and West Indians as Hindustani in ethnic sense. If I remember Hinduism’s original name was “Sanatan Dharma”. Later after British rule started Hindus started calling them as Hindu.
There was sizeable growing Muslim population either way. Giving Mosque or a Temple really is optional in this case. Personally speaking I would really love various unique architecture designs to many civs in the game. I mean, We are getting Unique Castles now. Also unique Trade Carts few patches back. It does look nice to look at to big extent. Mughals/Delhi Sultanate despite having majority Hindu population was indeed famous for various unique Mosque throughout the subcontinent which rivals even various Middle Eastern mosques. Turning it to complete Islamic faction representation of India doesn’t look bad idea either way.
Secondly I would love another unique Stable/Archery Range for Indian civs. Especially with the Battle Elephant/Elephant Archer introduction. Bengali/Dravidians got access to Elephant but oddly enough having Camels. SEA civs meanwhile doesn’t suffer from same issue. I still have the belief devs will make a unique one for them.
1 Like
Ugh, you do realize game is about conquest and other stuffs? Which means invasion? Word “Empire” says many things about it. Also Hindustanis mainly referred to people of Indus Valley Sindh River in this game? In civilization/ethnic sense, it’s not bad in name. You can call Pakistanis and West Indians as Hindustani in ethnic sense. If I remember Hinduism’s original name was “Sanatan Dharma”. Later after British rule started Hindus started calling them as Hindu.
This is correct, but also not an irrefutable argument for mosques. Temples are fine, mosques are fine.
1 Like
This whole thread was made becoz OP felt ME architecture would be suitable since the civ is culturally representing Muslim faction. Felt it was suitable to give another architecture. Also he doesn’t know much about Indian culture. OP had an oriental sense of view on Hindustani. I had to break few things down. I just clarified how Hindustanis in game represents in ethnic sense.
Also I have to correct you again. Age Of Empire do encompasses invasions. Conquer is literally alternative word for invasion. That’s like in expansion name. So you can’t throw invasions out of bus in that way. Many civs are represented after invasions. Like Goths, Huns(after conquest of Rome), Turks(like Byzantines, Persia and Saracens), Vikings(Britons, Franks, Germany to some extent), etc.
1 Like
Thats where OP is factually wrong.
Check literally the first paragraph in the HISTORY section of the game!
“the Delhi Sultanate (13th-16th centuries), which essentially consisted of a Muslim warrior-elite ruling over a culturally and socially majority Indian population”
Muslim warrior elite being not even 1% of the population in that era
If the OP still insists on the HINDUstani civ being Islamic, then it doesn’t seem like the thread is made with good intentions
since the GAME itself specifies that the HINDUstani civ is CULTURALLY AND SOCIALLY MAJORITY HINDU population
Got it now? I see no point to this thread,
it can seem almost malicious after some point… hindustan represents HINDUS, and a few muslims as well, but not many
2 Likes