Which factions do you think should be added to South Asia... post DoI

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1
  • Hephtalites/Alchons [Huns] (Hephtalite, Alchon and Nezak Huns…)
  • Kashmiris (Karkota Empire)
  • Bhutanese/Bumthangs (Kingdom of Bumthang)
  • Baloch [Persians] (First and Second Baloch Confederacies)
  • [Biharis]
  • Bhojpuris [Biharis] (Chero Kingdom)
  • Guptas/Magadhis [Biharis] (Gupta Empire, Phithipati dynasty)
  • Nepalis/Maithils [Biharis] (Malla, Karnat and Oiniwar dynasties…)
  • Afghans/Pashtuns [Hindustanis/Persians/Tatars] (Ghurid dynasty, Sur Empire)
  • Deccanis [Hindustanis/Dravidians] (Bahmani, Golconda and Berar Sultanates…)
  • Dilliwalas/Delhiites [Hindustanis] (Delhi Sultanate)
  • Mughals [Hindustanis] (Mughal Empire)
  • Gujaratis [Gurjara/Hindustanis] (Gujarat Sultanate, Maitraka and Chaulukya dynasties…)
  • Malvis/Malavis [Gurjara/Hindustanis] (Malwa Sultanate, Paramara Kingdom…)
  • Marathis [Gurjara/Dravidians] (Yadava dynasty ?)
  • Pratiharas [Gurjara] (Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty)
  • Punjabis [Gurjara/Hindustanis] (Sultanate of Multan)
  • Rajasthanis/Mewaris [Gurjara] (Kingdoms of Ajmer and Mewar)
  • Sindhis [Gurjara/Saracens] (Habbari, ###### ### Samma dynasties…)
  • Assamese/Kamarupi [Bengalis] (Kamarupa and Ahom Kingdoms)
  • Oriya/Kalinga [Bengalis] (Gajapati Empire, Eastern Ganga dynasty…)
  • Sinhalese [Bengalis/Dravidians] (Kingdoms of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Kandy…)
  • [Bengalis] split between Hindu (Palas (Pala Empire, Sena and Deva dynasties…)) and Muslim dynasties (Bengali (Bengal Sultanate, Khalji dynasty…))
  • Gondi [Dravidians] (Kingdoms of Chanda, Garha and Deoghar)
  • Kannadas/Kannadigaru [Dravidians] (Vijayanagara Empire, Rashtrakuta and Chalukya dynasties…)
  • Malayalis [Dravidians] (Zamorin of Calicut, Kingdoms of Kolattunādu and Venad…)
  • Tamils [Dravidians] (Chera, Chola and Pandya dynasties…)
  • Telugus [Dravidians] (Eastern Chalukyas, Kakatiya dynasty, Kingdom of Reddi…)
  • Arakanese/Rakhine [Burmese] (Kingdom of Mrauk U)
  • Manipuri/Meitei [Burmese] (Kingdom of Kangleipak)
  • All of them!
  • None
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
  • Other(s)
0 voters

Mandatory second question, how many of those civs do you think should be added to the game?

  • 1-2
  • 3-4
  • 5-6
  • 7+
  • None
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
0 voters

We ended up circling back to this poll. After all, many people agree that South Asia isn’t complete yet, even though the devs did a fantastic job covering as much of it as they did, and there’s a real possibility that we may see more of it in a distant future. Also, I’ve been unhappy with my first South Asian poll for a long time, as I felt some options were missing.
A few points I wanted to clarify:
Yes, I know the current Dravidian civ is largely inspired from the Tamils, and would probably receive little to no change in case of a split (though the urumi may be replaced by another UU for instance). That being said, I still included it in the poll because in case some people may want a deeper rework or just clarify that they want a civ with this name in the game.
The Hindustanis are a bit different, as they currently represent both the Mughals and Delhi Sultanate (among other possible new civs, as evidenced by how many of those in my polls are presented as part of a possible Hindustani split) and I guess some people may want to see the two of them split apart.
The Bengalis currently represent all Eastern Indo-Aryan people, but they are mostly modeled after the Pala Empire. That being said, in case of a split between the early Hindu Bengalis and the later Muslim ones, I think the later would probably keep the Bengali name while the former would ba named after their main dynasty, since it’s the most recognisable one.
The Gurjara are probably the broadest umbrella, covering many possible new civs a lot of whom may not have such a big appeal. I don’t know enough about their military traditions to say which one in particular could retain most of the current civ’s build, but the Pratihara tribe (known in modern day historiography as the Gurjara Pratihara dynasty) may be the most obvious one, while the Rajasthanis would be the one keeping the Prithviraj campaign (the poor guy keeps being thrown around…)
It’s not very clear wether the Yadava dynasty was initially of Maratha or Kannada origin. That being said, it was the only instance of a state I could find for the Marathi in Medieval history, as the famous Maratha Empire appeared far later, so I decided to go with it.
That being said, I have to remind you that just because I offered an option doesn’t mean I personnally support it.
Among the options I considered but ultimately decided not to put in the poll, we the Brahui, a Dravidian people from Pakistan which formed the Khanate of Kalat, but this state only appeared in the 17th century, way outside of AoE2’s timeframe, and I couldn’t find anything in earlier period. The other one was the Tibetans, which I thought would have streteched the definition of South Asia a little bit too much.

Finally, I’d like to remind everyone that I’m not a historian and especially not a specialist of this region and time period, so feel free to point it out if I miss something important, but please stay civil with me and each other.

1 Like
3

Siamese are missing.

4

Aside from Arakan which has strong ties with Bengal, I usually put Southeast Asia closer to East than South Asia in my polls. And if I did the opposite or put SEA in both polls, I would have to also include the other Tai peoples, all possible Austronesian splits and the Mon.

5

With this many, might as well just make a AOE spinoff based on Indian warfare.

6

I voted for the Sinhalese and a split of the Dravidians into Tamils (Cholas) and Kannadigas (Chalukyas).

1 Like
7

Well, I don’t expect nor wish for all of the proposed civs to be implemented in the game. I don’t want any form of Gurjara split for instance, and I don’t really want to see Delhi and Mughals as two different civs, nor Hindu and Muslim Bengali.

So mostly a South South India focus :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
8

Three for north three for south seems fair to me and it brings the building count to six.

9

Nice to see Brahui (North Dravidian linguistically) in the list. I never heard of the Khanate of Kalat, I had to google it. Thanks to you!

Also good to see Gondi civ in the poll. The languages spoken by Gondis and Telugus (Vengi in Rajendra Campaign) come under South-Central Dravidian.

So mostly a South South India focus

Kannadigas and Tamils - South Dravidian.
Sinhalese - South Indo-Aryan of the larger Indo-European.

the devs did a fantastic job covering as much of it

An improvement from ‘Indians’ civ to 4 umbrella civs. Sub-region specific DLCs (like ‘Spice DLC’ to represent 3 civs - Tamils/Malayalis, Sinhalese and Kannadigas) could have made the representation more accurate.

The 4 umbrella civs nevertheless are ‘umbrella’.

Sinhalese and Hindustanis
I can confirm that Dravidians civ shouldn’t have included Sinhalese in it. In fact, Sinhalese kingdoms have a much longer history than what Hindustanis civ represent.

Hindustanis civ represents Mughal and non-Mughal empires, of which the Mughal empire existed from 1526 to early 19th century.

The last rulers of the Sinhalese kingdom and the Mughal empire died at the same time (around mid 19th century).

The the origin of the Sinhalese kingdoms (based on chronicles) dates back to AOE timeline, and the Mughal empire was founded in the early 16th century. So, if the Hindustanis civ can be in the game, why not the Sinhalese civ?

Kannadigas
And the timeline of Kannada kingdoms is comparable to the Sinhalese counterpart. So, the Rajendra campaign which is available in DoI DLC could have been a separate DLC of its own to have 3 civs - Tamils, Kannadigas and Sinhalese. And I would name that DLC after spice trade.

If another DLC based on South Asia had come up before this, we can have a campaign playable as Deccanis (represented by Hindustani civ or a separate civ of its own) or Kannadigas.

3 Likes
10

While a lot of these are “fine” some are actually Empires, and not ethnic groups, which is what AoE2 civs normally are based on. Like Mughals for example, an empire, not an actual ethnic group.

More on-topic though. My no1 is Nepalese, as there isn’t really representation for them in-game as they are so far from any civ currently in-game.

I would also love the Hephalites to be added, as they would be a fun mix of Central Asian and South Asian in-game styles of combat and economy.

I would love another visit to South Asia, though any DLC there I see more like the LotW or DotD, simple additions rather than huge overhauls.

11

Yeah, I didn’t include them in the list because I couldn’t find a state for them that wasn’t outside of the game’s timeframe (1666 is way too far off), but I really wanted to find a place for them. A Dravidian civ not only in the Northern part of South Asia, but in Pakistan no less is quite intriguing.

Thanks, I’m always surprised that I never see their name come up in this forum’s discussions.

I think if a dlc was focused on Sri Lanka and South India, Sinhalese and Kannadigas would be a given (their results in this poll so far show how popular of an idea it is), but the Tamil would mostly be a rework of the Dravidians just like Hindustanis were for Indians, not mentioning they would also keep the Rajendra campaign. As such, I can picture a DoI style dlc with 3 entirely new civs and one rework, and I think either the Deccanis or Telugus would be excellent candidates. Other possible picks would be Oriyas and Marathis, but I think the former wouldn’t necessarily be associated with the southern part of the subcontinent and the later wouldn’t be a huge priority in this time period.

I do agree, but just because I don’t personally want a civ in the game doesn’t mean I won’t include it as an option in my polls if some people may be interested in it. That’s a rule I impose on myself because I don’t want my personal opinions to come in the way of transparent results.

Both strong picks in my opinion! Nepalis in particular, as they currently can’t be properly represented by anyone.

2 Likes
12

That’s fair. Seems people think that the Hindustanis are enough though, not many votes for the Mughals.

Yeah I am struggling to think how you could even have them if you required them for a campaign. Hindustanis and muck around with their tech tree a lot? Even then, that wouldn’t cover it.

I think I made a Hephalite civ concept a while back. They were fun to research.

13

This is the problem and it isn’t unique to Nepalese/Nepalis. A campaign would usually deal with 3-4 different civs, right? So, new civs are added according to how they would be played in campaigns I guess.

Oriyas/Kalingans were rivals of Vengi which is an ally of the player in the 1st and 3rd scenarios/stages of Rajendra’s campaign. In history, Cholas were bound to protect Vengi from the Kalinga kingdom of Oriyas.

There is a famous Tamil war poem on Chola’s victory over the Kalinga kingdom. A Chola princess was married off to a Kalinga king in the past and their heir lost to the Chola king who was his nephew, and the poem talks about their war. The poem is super long though.

And the Tamil-speaking medieval era Jaffna kingdom traces its origin to a ruler from the Kalinga kingdom.

15

I’d only ask for a Tamil - Kannada split. Telugu would be left out, sadly

1 Like
16

I am satisfied with the Indian civs that are already:

  1. Hindustanis (cover Northern and Central India)

  2. Gurjaras (cover Western and Central India)

  3. Dravidians (cover Southern and Central India)

  4. Bengalis (cover Eastern and Central India)

And then you have the Indian campaigns that cover all of medieval India:

  1. Devapala (9th century) (810-850) (Rise of the Pala Empire)

  2. Rajendra (11th century) (1007-1025) (Golden Age of the Chola Empire)

  3. Prithviraj (12th century) (1178-1192) (First Muslim invasions of India) (as a prelude to what would be the Sultanate of Delhi)…

  4. Babur (16th century) (1497-1527) (Fall of the Timurid Empire and Rise of the Mughal Empire)

4 Likes
17

We can be happy that the devs created the wonderful DoI DLC, which was better than I could have hoped for: I didn’t expect the transformation of Elephant Archer into a regional unit and the addition of Armoured Elephant as another regional unit. Plus, they added three civs instead of two, so that Gurjaras could replace Indians in Prithviraj enabling the new great Hindustani campaign of Babur.
Based on the complex history and multi-ethnic nature of the Mughals, Delhi Sultanate and “Rajput” principalities, It was difficult enough to create the Hindustani and Gujara civs. So they are in a good spot now. (Ghurids or Gaznavids are multi-ethnic and too short-lived for a civ on their own, the latter also a problem for Hephtalites)
Bengalis are also fine, there is even a modern nation associated with them. (I know they also cover Ahom / Assamese peoples, but it’s okay, I think)

The only existing civ which is too broad for me are Dravidians. And the only civ really adding big value would be Kannadigas. Kannadigas have a long and influential history on their own with enough material. This gent could be the campaign character.

Nepalis have my sympathies because they represent so far unrepresented peoples. BUT, I would prefer Tibetans instead and Nepal is heavily multi-ethnic, so it would be an umbrella again.
Besides Kannadigas, the next important ones for me are:
Sinhalese: for good reason, there is a debate, why they are represented as Dravidians, although they don’t belong to that language family. Thus, I suggested representing them with placeholder civs like Bengalis or Burmese. There is no civ representing them now. Plus, they already appear in campaigns.
Telugus: another split from the Dravidian umbrella, they also have an own language (+script) and history (albeit less important than Kannadigas). Would be great to see this lady as campaign heroine.

Finally, all new civs we might hope for would have to make sense gameplay-wise. And this is not evident, because it has proven quite difficult to make a civ viable without knights. There is still the option to give one South-Asian civ at least knights without Cavalier (e.g. Kannadigas could fit), but besides that, good solutions or alternatives to knights are needed.

7 Likes
18

Oh I like that choice! Thank you for the link, an interesting read.

1 Like
19

Maybe the UU can fill the knights role?then again finding historical uu cavalry for kannadiga telengu and sinhaleese might not be that easy.

20

The Sinhalese UU would be the Kotte Chariot. It would be a chariot unit with one range and a bonus against gunpowder units.

21

Yes, I agree, it can be…

And the campaign would be that of Mayadunne (1501-1581)

Mayadunne (Sinhala: මායාදුන්නේ) was the founder and ruler of Sitawaka from 1521 to 1581. A fierce opponent of the Portuguese, he devoted his life to oust his father and brother Bhuvanekabahu VII, the king of Kotte in order to preserve the independence of the island, being undermined by Portuguese intrigue. He constantly invaded the territory of Bhuvanekabahu of Kotte.[1]

Ultimately it would be a campaign between the kingdoms of Ceylon and the Portuguese as enemies who want to control the island…

It is also necessary to include campaigns between the 12th and 16th centuries to fill the gap…we don’t know what happens in India between 1200 and 1500 (I know that the Sultanate of Delhi, but I mean how it affects over the centuries the existence of Delhi to the other Indian kingdoms until its conquest by Babur in 1526) (although they will surely keep it as a campaign for AoE 4)…we want campaign for Delhi Sultanate in AoE 4 xd…

1 Like
22

If you dont mind me asking where did you find this uu name?