Unsatisfied with the choice of Delhi Sultanate over a native India civilization
technically they just say that they planned it the way you want it to be but i can see there is a lot of valid points here
I am only now joining the conversation. I have been largely dissatisfied with how India has been treated in AOE4. I think the following could represent India perfectly in the Middle Ages (also applies to AOE2):
a) Delhi Sultanate - it was distinctly foreign and is perhaps responsible for outrageous temple destruction; but is a part of our history.
b) Rajputs - to represent the Northern and Western Hindu kingdoms (Chauhans, Chandellas, Chamandas etc.) - who were all legatee of the Gurjara-Pritahara period.
c) Kannada-Telugu - a Hindu Deccani Civilisation to represent Chalukyas, Vijayanagara and Hoysala (since effectively their nobility had common lineage)
d) Chola - Tamil - to represent the Great Chola dynasty and their maritime empire. And in general all kingdoms in Tamilakam.
e) (Possible) - Dakhani Sulnatte - to represent Bahami and the rest of the Shia Deccani sultantes
f) Palas - to represent Buddhist Bengal - prior to Muslim invasions
The developers should do atleast 4 out of 6 in the subsequent expansions and DLCs for an appropriate representation of Medieval India.
I do also think that India should be seen a a continent and not a country.
I always thought that Delhi Sultanate was chosen so more countries form the area can be added later.
Delhi is a good middle way between India and Persia that sill allows more Indian civilisation and also the addition of Persia.
But with 8 civilisations it’s impossible to get everyone happy.
I like that they decided not to make arkward umbrella civilisations but instead 8 kingdoms/empires with defined title and defined borders.
The fact that the Holy Roman Empire exists doesn’t make civilisations like Bohemia or Switzerland impossible.
Also the Delhi Sultanate isn’t the only foreign ruler in the game.
The Normans are foreign rulers of England and the Yuan dynasty are foreign rulers of China.
its really sad the people are so d*mb that they bring politics and religion in game… cant we just be happy knowing that india will not be “india” and will have more identity ?
And if you really want to argue with “religion” then i would suggest make Bengal a different civ as they were not Afghans but they were muslims so any Indian civ suggested by the community will not cover this region
Good to see that devs did acknowledge the problem and want to address it.
In a side note I hope they do fix the Indians in AoE2 as well. It is also delhi sultanate, it is only named ambiguously. It is very inaccurate to represent the entire subcontinent as one civ in medieval age.
For AoE2 I believe the most comprehensive civ choices from India will be (even though it can easily use a lot) :
1 North West Hindu (Rajputs or Gurjaras)
1 North West Muslim (Delhi)
1 East Aryans (Bengalis or Oriyas)
1 South Dravidian (Tamils or Kannadigas)
BTW marathas do not fit for medieval age. They came after Mughals who themselves are a modern age faction. Marathas and Sikhs might be good choices for AoE3 if they want to cover them.
To my previous submission (see above), I would add that Delhi Sultanate is better than ‘Indians’ as in AOE2 - since that basically means nothing. Because it is authentic. There were Rajputs, Chalukyas, Hoysala etc. but there were no ‘Indians’ just as there can be no Europeans as a Civ. If Delhi Sultanate is first of the many Indian civs - then it is almost certainly good news. And given the fact that developers are absolutely keen on historical accuracy - I hope they do justice to the Rajputs (or Cholas) the way they have done to Delhi Sultanate or others.
We won Mr. Stark!!!
How did you reach out directly? If that is the case, we would have gone earlier!
I emailed my PR contact who sent a request for comment along to the studio. Took a few days but I got a response.
Marathas and Sikhs fit into the AOE3 timeline.
I would rather than it be Rajputs, Cholas, and a Kannadiga people for Chalukyas, Hoysala and Vijayanagara!
Exactly. That’s what is the proper history!
Both the Normans and Yuan Dynasty assimilated into the local culture - the exact opposite happened with Delhi Sultanate; who burnt Universities, destroyed temples and converted large amounts of Hindus. Rajputs were foreigners too (of Hunnic origins) but they eventually assimilated as Kshtriya warriors of the Subcontinent.
While some may found this tempting, That’s a very, disputed, minor, and ignored point of view. as colonial writers propagated this foreign-origin theory in order to legitimise the colonial rule.
Anyways aside from that.
I would Prefer a Chola / Vijayanagar for AoE4 personally
(although my side-wish would be to see kakatiya)
Indians are almost entirely missing from the paying player base for AOE2 and AOE3. I don’t see why Microsoft should take these concerns very seriously if they don’t translate to revenue.
lol what, half of this forum are from indian subcontinent
So they need money to promote correct history and if they don’t get money, they will destroy our history!?
This may shock you, but many of us from all over the world want to play a game featuring civs from everywhere that are well crafted, unique, and interesting to play.
When I play AoE2, I love playing the unique Aztecs. I don’t say “oh the Americas! They were so backward at that time!”
Different places have different flavors. Enjoy them all. You won’t enjoy chocolate ice cream everyday.
I am in favor of more Indian factions in the game, but the ultra nationalistic point of view that has been seen in this forum regarding the representation or lack of it of India its been ridiculous. So yes more factions in upcoming DLCs was spected, but I think that other regions of the world like Africa, America and other parts of Asia need more content before revisiting India again.