they can always fix that later 
1 Like
the simplest and most correct is to add another Indian civilization, I don’t see why we should erase the Delhi Sultanate from history?
7 Likes
yes ! and it wouldve been way better ! that they had introduced an Indian Civs , then after launch they shouldve added Delhi sultanate !
But as the bad track records of the dev goes, Indian civs always gets neglected, especially considering, India was included after Forgotten Empire, and some misrepresentation in AoE3 , and many disregards previously.
i want the game to be famous and, if you search country having cheapest internet, one of greatest number of online user, and highest number of online transactions, future seems pretty sad to me, that this might turn away that new user base, or atleast contribute to it. and when u consider even a small part of 1.3 billion people , it usually surpasses, population of most countries 
When delhi sultanate launched, many of my old aoe3 mates were not so happy, to say the least and decided to not buy aoe4 right away (whatever their reason was, the francshise lost potential new players) , so thats also my concern.
2 Likes
I wonder how Pakistan players feel about the Delhi Sultanate in the game.
I think the best thing they could have done was not add an Indian civilization at all, there would have been no more discussions and complaints about this.
I just can’t believe that even today we just cant be united and get along on this planet, immediately we have to bring religions, cultures, ethnicity, nationalism etc into discussion, we want to divide.
I’m happy to accept any civilization into the game, will be playing with them regardless.
4 Likes
In any talk about the Medieval period, you HAVE TO bring up Religion all the time.
Religion was the Politics of the period. More people had allegiance to the Pope or the Caliph, than to their local ruler or king.
This was before the idea of nation-state got firmly implanted in the public consciousness.
To the Medieval Man, his Family/Clan, Village and Religion were his cultural denominators, not the larger political entity his birthplace was claimed by.
2 Likes
Yes, but we do not live in the Medieval Ages anymore. We just play a game set in that period and I don’t think we should care too much if I or you from today are represented or not following a lineage.
But it absolutely matters when youy are arguing for civ inclusion.
1 Like
That’s what Im saying, that shouldnt be a thing, or else should we have all people on this planet whose medieval civs were not included complaining about it?
No, we should have player inclusion today. Am I able to play the game with impaired vision, as a person not understanding English etc? When it comes to civs, we now live in different times when we should all accept eachother.
It is one thing talking about religion etc. during that time but a totally different to bring today’s cultures and religions into the discussions.
2 Likes
Maybe, but Abbasids only make sense when you account for the Caliphate (Theocratic Statehood), for example.
Well, first its VERY VERY IMPORTANT to note:
Abrahamic Religions, affect Western World
(Christianity,Islam and Judaism)
Differently
than Dharmic Religions, that originated in India, do to the East
(Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism)
But yes, they both have similar and important affects to their own lands! and their role and factor cant be ignored totally.
Yet, I dont want to go into religion, fofr this particular topic I want to stick to the cultural point.
That there should’ve been, proper representation of the sub continent’s culture in the form of a proper Indic Civ,
In Indian Sub-continent ull find sub-cultures too old and too prominent, as much as, french or british or spainish are in the europeon continent. So in this particular case ! there should’ve been a Indic civ, coz this civ might have more factor to culture than that of just a religion or a language or something else.
2 Likes
you are aware than for exemple, French are basically the gallo-roman people which were conquered, assihimilated / influenced (it was in both way) by the Franks. I really don’t understand these arguments and exemples about “being prominent” which justify nothing.
Age of Empires was always a serie with historical context, which create scenario and campaigns between civ. Delhi Sultanate were maybe not prominent in the ethnical and linguistic aspects for Indian continent … but they were prominent in an historical context for their conquest and battles with mongols.
2 Likes
because that was another game ,not this one 
Ahh, ya ya , this Age of Mongols, argument, got ur point!! yet its just a dodge and excuse IMO, Why isn’t there a Ming Dynasty 
instead of China , devs action will decide what its gonna be , until then , threads like this will be coming up, in every while.
And till now trust gained in this particular matter is absolute zero 
Well I seriously don’t have will power and enough knowledge and word limit n time to type history of last several thousands of years, of the sub-continent. My point was, cultural factor is should be handled and given more importance when considering Indian sub-continent.
Ming Dynasty is one of the dynastic choice when you are playing the chinese. You can take a look to the gameplay page of Chinese. And they will be highlighted in the Mongols campaign apparently.
And because Ming were chinese … When Delhi Sultanat were not indians, it’s why they are named Delhi Sultanate, and not Indians
1 Like
No one is asking for just a rename either
well, the author of this thread there is some few post asked for “removing them, or just renaming them persian or gaznavids”
cough cough 
What??? NO it’s not.
The Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire completely held North India from roughly 1200 to 1800.
The Moors did hold large portions of Spain for roughly 500 years, but the difference is that A- Historically unlike the Muslim rulers of India, Spanish kingdoms existed very strongly after only 100 years of the Moors occupied Spain.
The difference here is that you can’t say there was a Delhi political state that existed outside of the Muslim rulers for nearly half of the entire Middle Ages. For Spain, only for 100 years a Spanish kingdom didn’t exist, then for all of medieval history there existed Spanish kingdoms.
False equivalencies aren’t sexy, dude.
2 Likes
The problem with focusing on geographic diversity is most of the civs in the game would have no historical interaction with each other. If the game had France, Aztecs, China, Mali, Byzantium, etc how would you stitch any campaigns togeather? It would probably be a whole lot of mirror matches. They would also need to have unique assets for every civ. I noticed that English and French and Abbasides and Delhi Sultinate share some architecture like the mosque and houses. I imagine some units will look the same too between French and English.
5 Likes