We don’t need all the civs to connect historically. This isn’t a web of interactions. Nothing in this game makes sense really. There is 0% immersion in Japanese fighting the Celts. There’s no way to make sense of the Chinese fighting the Saracens inside Scandinavia.
For Campaigns, we know that Aztecs or the Mayans had other conflicts prior to European contact. We could just make up some cool historical campaign through the history of them from what we know.
I don’t require a campaign that shows the Conquistadors fighting the Aztecs to assist myself in “immersion” so that I can have the Aztecs fighting in a team of Germans and Saracens against a full team of French, while we’re inside Mongolia.
As long as the campaigns show something historical, regardless of the range of contact with the in-game civs, then it’s immersive enough for me.
Indians did something similar to the reconquista with native Hindu kingdoms like the Vijayanagara Empire. Hindu kingdoms did exist within this timeframe. And I think that everyone in here agrees with the significance of India and its tremendous cultural impact as the birthplace of religions like Buddhism and Hinduism.
I bet however anything you want that this forum would be equally filled with angry Spanish, had the Emirate of Cordoba been featured instead of a local kingdom and I wouldn’t blame them.
Simply because if you want to portray an Islamic civ there are far better options than going to a region with a Christian/Visigothic/Hispano-Roman native background where a foreign force imposed itself. You can save this region to add a civ of a local culture.
That’s what I tried to say before with the examples of Cordoba and the Latin empire. If you want to portray a Latin/French speaking Catholic civ, you also won’t go to a crusader state that imposed itself in a Greek Orthodox region. You can just as well add unique cultures in their native geographies and have all Islamic, French, Spanish, Catholic, Greek, Orthodox, Slavic, Hindu civs.
At least this is how I personally see it and prefer it, it makes more sense to my mind if the civs are as much unique as possible and represent distinct groups around the globe even if their states were not as much powerful.
Even better if this cultural uniqueness is fused with and reflected in asymmetrical gameplay.
For example, the obvious example for an Islamic civ would be the Caliphate and we got it. Then I’d prefer a native Hindu civ (FYI: Vijayanagara empire was still very powerful, certainly more than any small kingdom in Iberia) from India. It adds more to the diversity of the game, and for me personally makes it much more interesting.
It does some justice and shows more respect to these native cultures and people.
Someone mentioned the Ottomans before, but from the ~16th to ~19th century all of the Balkan nations were completely under Ottoman rule. We know that some Hindu kingdoms existed in this period and showed resistance.
That’s just my personal take, I realize that the devs just opted for different approach that perhaps made more sense to them and for what they had in mind to create. Whether this is for good or worse it’s up to each one of us and what we would prefer better.
It is simpler than that. There is a mongol campaign. Mongols interacted with the Delhi Sultanate. Just that.
It would be strange, since everyone would expect them to appear in a campaign about the Reconquista, it is impossible to make that campaign withouth a civ representing christian kingdoms. But they could appear in an early french campaign (Hispanic March).
Well the Aztec example is my point, it would be a whole campaign of mirror matches. Having some of those real world rivalries recreated in game is part of the AOE charm just as much as having Korea fight Mali in Ireland is.
Having just 8 civs is always going to lead to tough choices, I dont envy the people who have to make the call and everyone has their own criteria for what should get priority. Personally in a game called Age of Empires theres going to be a natural focus toward invaders and conquerers. I can understand some of the frustration after having the Mughals in AOE3 labelled ‘Indians’ and whatever the AOE2 ‘Indians’ were meant to represent but the silver lining of this is they are not calling the Delhi Sultanate Indian at all which leaves the door wide open to more civs from the Indian subcontinent in the future.
Because the devs had the clever idea to treat China as one entity, and include the Dynasty system within it. This was quite ingenious in my opinion, every other civ is an entity of some sort. China has a history of breaking apart and coming back together again, and to capture that mix of united culture but also turmoil, they simple say, heck lets not choose a single dynasty, instead: China Civ, and we’ll represent the Dynasties ingame as a form of age-up mechanic, good for historical representation, and good for gameplay.
It’ll be good if developers adds one Native Indian civ in DlC but what about the Tower Elephants in Delhi Sultanate I know Delhi sultanate used Elephants in war but in latter period most in early mughal’s era but most of them was Mahaut like. These tower Elephants were core of the Cholas and Cholukya’s army in that age. I don’t remember early Gazanavid & Khiljis used elephants except for their kings.
Well for this point I agree with you. If they mismatched an unit, it’s nice to adress it, it will probably need a constructive thread and more importantly : sources.
It always happens when games studios work on historical context games, they have hard time with the details like units. (I don’t blame anyone, I can imagine having one historian behind each 3D artists, or just sometimes they want to make fun units).
But it’s obviously an issue which happens with the other civilizations too. Recently chatting on the naming of the french unique cavalry, and I think I find evidences than it was a mix of two different things which make it a bit anachronistic at the point it is unlocked. (in term of equipment)
What about the scholars. That unit would fit batter with Abbasids cuz they were more spiritual and civilised. These Afghan nomads were not that civilised, they used to play Buzkashi on horses with dead animals it has nothing to do with philosophy or spiritual stuff.
The Delhi Sultanate was a historical faction that represents itself and not present day countries .
There are outside the Middle ages chronologically
Is it so hard to understand the addition of Delhi(along with the Rus) is due to its interaction with the Mongols.
I agree with you on this one
This has to do with the issue that Indian history is largely unknown to non historians compared to European and even Middle Eastern History . A lot people think of and portray India as a Monolithic Piece of ∫it , a view that was partially emphasized in AoE2 .
At least this should not be as much of an issue since the developers did not make an Indian Civilisation but instead made a Delhi Sultanate CIv with more Indian possibly being added down the line . I don’t expect the same level of representation for India as Europe has but at least it’d be better than what we got in AoE2 & 3
That is a legitimate point . Can’t you see that the core game civilisations (except the English , French and HRE) are based around the Mongol Empire ?
The Mongol invasions are undeniably one of the most significant events of the Middle Ages and I don’t see a problem in having the core game be based around it .
Perhaps the future expansions could have civilisations related to other events such as the Crusades , Chola invasion and colonisation of SE Asia , etc . If thats the design choice the developers are going for .
That’s a broad statement. Obviously nobody wants to get serious and cause upset, but it is a game based on history and history without religion and politics is like peanut butter without jelly.
Agree with OP. At the end of the day AOE4 is being launched with a civilization representing the Indian subcontinent under whom Indians were oppressed, murdered and looted. We had to pay taxes just to follow our religion. Imagine representing the Incas with the Spanish.
No matter how much the devs want to call it just another civ, matter of fact is it is called Delhi Sultanate. Delhi being the capital of India any new person to the game would make that association automatically.
I am pretty sure you are saying this because of what your politicians teaches you.(lemme guess you are an Indian)
Fun fact Delhi Sultanate’s most of its client king/governor were Hindus. Delhi Sultanate made fortresses around modern day Pakistan/Punjab region to repel against Mongols invader under Hindu client kings. Yes I do agree some of them were actually bad and some were actually good. Either agree with that or cope harder. Also why rename a Medieval faction that itself was called Delhi Sultanate worldwide at medieval times.
Delhi Sultanate were one of the superpowers in Medieval history either agree it or cry about it.
Sorry if I came out rude but I am tired of these stupid threads which is 100% around their political/religious bias which their politicians teaches.
Only one thing I like about about Delhi sultanate that it got it place in ashes. What is remaining is republic of India with my people who survived oppression and fought against tyranny and legacy of my people should not be forgotten.
By this logic: AOE4 is also being launched with a civilisation representing the British Isles under whom Britons (Welsh, Scots) were oppressed, murdered and looted. English were just Anglo Saxon invaders to the isles so I guess they are an unethical choice for a British civ?
I’m sure we could go through all the civs in the game and make similar comparisons. A game called Age of Empires is going to focus on conquerers and invaders.