same here, the exemple is weird, if you look the title of the thread.
I don’t think than any Spanish would find “unethical” to have Emirate of Cordoba before Spain at launch.
They would just be disaspointed to not have Spain, but it’s not unethical.
Or what is unethical, or against any natives from byzantine lands (whatever it means lol) if the latin empire (you are speaking about crusaders states ?) is released before Byzantines ???
I need an explanation on these exemples.
I am just trying to approach things from both sides. I can see the point that you make, it makes sense to me and I would possibly feel the same.
But I also see that the devs perhaps wanted a major power in this area of the world that interacted with the Mongols. The Mongols to me feel like they were designed as a highlight and that the game is structured in a way that everything else revolves around them.
Not saying that I am fond of that, it’s just what I get from the design so far.
@timtsilo
It’s not unethical as long as it is made clear that it is a foreign invading force and not presented as a native one. The Sultanate does that in its description as far as I can see. But yes, it would be disappointing to see my culture sidelined by the game for a foreign force that founded its state on my lands.
Oh I totally agree than the game shouldn’t be misleading, and the description and flavor being really clear about the delhi sultanate being foreigner rulers. To give the historical standpoint, and not falling in the biase of today nationalism.
And like you said … it would be disappointing but it’s not insulting, offending, unethical, or whatever it is claimed all the day on this forum, because some poeple seems to have real aversion for the muslim period… which is just a fact and an historical event which happened …
Timurids or Ottomans were invaders, it don’t stop any good historical games to highlight them, even if Timur had unequalled cruelty.
In the exemple of Ottomans, it don’t stop any Balkan poeple to be a bit salty to see Ottomans in all historical game (because Ottomans ruled them), it don’t stop Balkan poeple to play Ottomans, and accept than they are part of important event of history and it’s logical to highlight them for the campaign etc.
I am all up for the addition of an Indian civ (a dynasty/empire which fit with the period), which is promised by devs and possible because … Delhi sultanate is delhi sultanate, and not indians, from the start, and than poeple are just pushing some false controversy because salty of not having a civilization they wanted.
and there is only 8 civs in all, so how many of those should be used to represent India?
It doesn’t matter if none represents India. Just remove Delhi and and rename it Gaznavids
one of the most famous , is fine.Like Cholas are interesting because they were a strong naval power too, so it offers something else than an “elephant civ”
But as you can see ,the author of the thread is just interessed into historal revisionism .
Don’t rewrite history. If the sultanate was called Delhi Sultanate and the capital was in Delhi you can’t remove Delhi from the name.
It is like if I said: “Plzz devs, remove Cordoba Caliphate name and change it to Moors”.
The Delhi Sultanate is an existing state, on the territory of India, I see no reason for its removal, except for your personal wishes. For a wide audience, this is quite a normal Indian faction, because they occupied a significant part of it.
Sorry for example examples if you find it rude. It’s nothing personal. But I apologize for that.
They were also called Gaznavids and succeeded by Tughlaqs and Khilji
In publicly available sources, the Delhi Sultanate is written, I do not think that the general public wants to delve so much into the intricacies of the history of India, it’s easier and more understandable. I guarantee you that no one will delete or rename anything.
but Delhi Sultanate cover fived different dynasty, not only the gaznavids. So I understand the dev choosed the political entity (the Sultanate which is equivalent to Kingdom I think) instead of the dynasty naming.
Just to give my finale opinion : a good description about delhi sultanate, which is not misleading for the players, and the addition on another Civilization from the indian continent, seems really good to me.
I don’t see anything which raise big controversy about that.
And honestly, a thread which would be really healthy for the community is suggesting and discussing a good additionnal civ from indian continent. Because there is a lot of choice in this area
Looks like many Indians hate Muslims here.
Not Muslims.
Just Gaznavids & Khiljis
just add another civilization that will represent Indians as far as I read on forums related to this topic no one has anything against adding Indian civilization
The problem with Indian civ is that, to the best of my knowledge, in the mid to late middle ages no larger part of India was united by a local power for a significant time, whereas the Delhi Sultanate, while very much “foreign” culturally, was the state that came the closest to having, at least from the geographic perspective become a united Indian state. The ethnic Indians are understandably not too happy about this. However, adding too many civs would be a very dangerous rabbit hole, because that way, we would have 40+ civs in no-time.
Even though I prefer the devs to be conservative when it comes to number of new civs, I would like to offer a compromise: The Delhi Sultanate could be a spiritual successor to the AOE2 Persians, while culturally representing the modern states of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (which were themselves for the most part dominated states like the Ilkhanate and Timurid empire, neither too fitting to represent them, I would imagine). On the other hand, the devs could create 1 more civ, for example Vijayanagar, which would represent the multiple local dynasties that ruled southern India, including the Cholas. That way, Indians would have a civ which they could call their own. This civ would not satisfy everyone 100% (nothing would), but I believe that it would be the best way to solve this conundrum.
am the only one who has nothing against 40 civilizations, they would all fall into 10 new principles and you would not need too much knowledge, let’s compare e.g. with LOL we have 155 champions and each has different ability items and way of playing in different stages of the match, and yet it proved to be a very successful game, I will remind you that these are reactions in a split second, nothing like strategy games. if you want the game to be good in multiplayer and competitive you have to have a lot of civilizations. it is also the only item that has held AOE 2 alive for so long. I know that for technical reasons it will be slow. I think the number 40 is unrealistic but I think the final version should have at least 30. I don’t see why everything should be simplified, if you play a game and if you are interested in it remembering 30 civilizations where dlc will be released every 4 months it is impossible not to adopt them
also since the announcement we are only a few months away, 2 civilizations have not been presented, and we know that it must precede the beta, I think it is a bigger problem than adding a new civilization, where the developers themselves declared and where it is clear that we will have another civilization from the Indian subcontinent
Renaming it to Persians would be an option too, Mongols can go and sack them.
I find it silly that the initial civis dont include Byzantines and Persians when you have arabs and mongols.
it would be interesting to see Persia with Indian architecture 