Well if we really go by population during medieval age we would get mby one European civilisation from 8 starting nations. That would be quite BAD business decision considering potential buyers.
2 Likes
Itās backfiring on me. I want diverse civs. But I agree with you and assume that is precisely what is happening. But doing so at the expense of objectively more important civs creates a terrible feedback loop. At this point all sorts of players defend this style of game development because its always been done, as if that is some kind of excuse. And they bend over backwards to explain how white civs were more important despite the history.
I fear the developers are too afraid of letting good history lead them away from the precious white civs. They should at least minimize it by releasing the white civs alongside with the most important civs.
4 Likes
I understand that its weird that we get 3 neighbouring countries from relative small west corner of Eurasia. I do think they should have let go of either England or France at a start. But it is what it is. Part of an equation is that it saves time and work hours from making different only campaign civilisations to fight against as it would be in a case if we got one civ from every corner of the world.
2 Likes
dlc are not afterthough imo. they are condensed civs fitting a certain theme.
Therefore, although it probably wont happen, I would have no problem with a non europe centric age game if europe civs would be DLC1.
i would however like to see a real reason for other civs being preferred in a game like this.
Because being diverse just to be diverse just doesnt feeel right to me.
rather there be good and thought out DLC civs than ones which are there from the beginning but have no soul 
also i kinda dislike the tone in which you portray the devs here as preferring āwhite civsā as precious
3 Likes
Apologies for the self-promotion, but Iāve been following this discussion for a while and I decided to reach out to Microsoft directly to try and get a comment on the issues. Hereās what they came back with:
If youād rather not give us the click, the tl;dr is that more South Asian civilisations may be looked at after launch.
3 Likes
Holy crap!
"āWhile the Delhi Sultanate is the first Age IV civilisation set in South Asia, we chose to do this so we can revisit this region via future expansions and explore an indigenous Hindi-speaking civilisation being represented in the game as well,ā a Microsoft spokesperson confirms.ā
I have been on these forums for more than 10 years and have seen enough to confidently declare that this would not have happened, particularly would not have happened like this right now, if not for the well researched and well reasoned arguments from all of us in this thread. (And I include myself only because I am here ā I am no scholar of SE studies like many above.) Congratulations, everyone! And thank you to the developers for continuing to recognize their blind spots and having the courage to do better.
9 Likes
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 
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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 itās 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 doesnāt make civilisations like Bohemia or Switzerland impossible.
Also the Delhi Sultanate isnāt the only foreign ruler in the game.
The Normans are foreign rulers of England and the Yuan dynasty are foreign rulers of China.
7 Likes
its really sad the people are so d*mb that they bring politics and religion in gameā¦ cant we just be happy knowing that india will not be āindiaā and will have more identity ?
And if you really want to argue with āreligionā 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
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
To my previous submission (see above), I would add that Delhi Sultanate is better than āIndiansā as in AOE2 - since that basically means nothing. Because it is authentic. There were Rajputs, Chalukyas, Hoysala etc. but there were no āIndiansā 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.
4 Likes
We won Mr. Stark!!!
How did you reach out directly? If that is the case, we would have gone earlier!
1 Like
I emailed my PR contact who sent a request for comment along to the studio. Took a few days but I got a response.
2 Likes
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!
4 Likes
Exactly. Thatās what is the proper history!
1 Like
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.
1 Like