How would you design Indian civilization... or civilizations?

[Zaarin]

Like, how do exactly Timurids fill the same niche as Mongols? They are culturally extremely different in all aspects. If you say that Timurids "are too similar to Mongols" then you should throw away all sorts of Scythians, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Gokturs, Manchu etc who were all much, much more similar to Mongols (and much harded to differentiate from one another) than Timurid empire. Which had very unique Persian - Turkic cultural blend, was centered in Uzbekistan, was a regular urban - bureaucratic empire and did a ton of science and literature and art. They left far bigger mark on cultural history than for example Cumans who came and disappeared, and their legacy is one Byzantine princess, a bunch of jewelry and a pinch of genes, and their design would be 'average steppe nomads with not much data to infer from'.

I was speaking specifically of the Timurids under Timur, and under Timur the Timurids were just another steppe empire--and Medieval steppe empires are quite adequately covered by Mongolia. I agree that Shah Rukh's Persianate Turkic sultanate is quite worth including.

Saying Timurids are almost the same Mughals is also exotic to me, they ruled different areas, in different centuries, under different dynasties, in a different way, with much more different culture (Timurids weren't Indianized at all, Mughals very much). Saying that about Mongols and Timurids or Timurids and Mughals is for me not much different from the same reasoning about Rome and Byzantium. Yeah one was a descendant of another, even dynastic one, but differences were so big in most aspects that we still usually separate them. Also, you could say something similar about Great Britain and USA etc...

The devs, like most Westerners, seem scarcely aware Central Asia exists; pragmatically one must accept some compromises. If treating both the Timurids and Mughals as Gurkhani is how we get Central Asian representation, by all means I'm for it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Like, how do exactly Timurids fill the same niche as Mongols? They are culturally extremely different in all aspects. If you say that Timurids "are too similar to Mongols" then you should throw away all sorts of Scythians, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Gokturs, Manchu etc who were all much, much more similar to Mongols (and much harded to differentiate from one another) than Timurid empire.

Like @Zaarin said it would be another Medieval steppe civ on top of another possible Classical Era steppe civ. The alternative is they do the Timurids instead of Huns, Scythia etc from the Classical Era.

Saying Timurids are almost the same Mughals is also exotic to me, they ruled different areas, in different centuries, under different dynasties, in a different way, with much more different culture (Timurids weren't Indianized at all, Mughals very much). Saying that about Mongols and Timurids or Timurids and Mughals is for me not much different from the same reasoning about Rome and Byzantium. Yeah one was a descendant of another, even dynastic one, but differences were so big in most aspects that we still usually separate them. Also, you could say something similar about Great Britain and USA etc...

I agree that Timurids and Mughals should be separate if they were to get into civ.
That being said if they went for the name Gurkani, like was mentioned earlier, then I guess there is an argument into combining them and making a different leader for each one?

 

[BuchiTaton]

You could do Timurids as a conqueror empire under Tamerlane and it would compare fine with other world's greatest conquerors, and you could make them as a cultural civ under Shakh Rukh and it wouldn't look much worse than Italy.

The problem with Timur is the redundancy of the "Central Asia Great Conqueror" he was also a genocide that between others targeted Eastern Christians, I know most conquerors massacred time to time but I dont see the NEED to bring another figure that would overlape with regular ones like Genghis or Attila*. Like @Zaarin said Shah Rukh would bring something more unique to the design that works the same with the name Gurkani.

Saying Timurids are almost the same Mughals is also exotic to me, they ruled different areas, in different centuries, under different dynasties, in a different way, with much more different culture (Timurids weren't Indianized at all, Mughals very much). Saying that about Mongols and Timurids or Timurids and Mughals is for me not much different from the same reasoning about Rome and Byzantium. Yeah one was a descendant of another, even dynastic one, but differences were so big in most aspects that we still usually separate them. Also, you could say something similar about Great Britain and USA etc...

The question is "Would we even get both Timurids and Mughals on the same game?" Lets be honest it is very unlikely, and If not there is not reason to have differentiated Timurids and Mughals while the WesternCentric CIV design need Rome/Byzantium, Greece/Macedonia or 4 Anglo civs.

Look to Arabia or Maya on their design could be many more civs with different locations and loose relation (a whole bunch of Caliphates for CIV7?!), Gurkani have the dynastic identity and all of the culture and governance related to them. Like also said it would respect their own identity as Gurkani instead of forced western naming and would be more interesting that have Mughals at side of Mongols in the civs list.

Gurkani a culture civ, plus science with Shah Rukh and Akbar empire administration* (exploit tolerance?). Have two cores (transtition in Afghanistan) also point to their mixed Turko-Mongol + Indo-Persian elements linked by DYNASTY and muslim RELIGION, the civ itself is a call about CIV beyond the modern ethno-territorial definition.

Who are the Gurkani? Mix of Uzbek, Mongols, Persians, Afghans, etc. Even then other more ethnic based nations of those cultures rised agaist Gurkani.
Which was their language? Sometimes Chagatai, Persian, Arab, Urdu, etc. Different for each occasion.
Their changing capitals, Samarkand > Herat > Kabul > Agra > Lahore > Delhi, etc. The dynasty and their administrative needs.

Whatever Timurids or Mughals have their identity on their dynastic legacy, and what linked both is also their dynasty so what is the problem if their 500 year of history are linked closer than say the 2000 years of Rome/Byzantium history?

Shah Rukh and Akbar are 1 century away from each other, while Trajan is 9 centuries from Basil II. The former are direct decendents of Timur but the relation between the later are different history.
Roman CIV a millenium of Rome as the core, same with Constantinople for Byzantium, but neither Timurid or Mughal empires are a city they are the dynasty (the same one).

Even we can pick two english leaders and get a more distant related and separated in time figures than what Gurkani have to offer.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The question is "Would we even get both Timurids and Mughals on the same game?" Lets be honest it is very unlikely, and If not there is not reason to have differentiated Timurids and Mughals while the WesternCentric CIV design need Rome/Byzantium, Greece/Macedonia or 4 Anglo civs.

Look to Arabia or Maya on their design could be many more civs with different locations and loose relation (a whole bunch of Caliphates for CIV7?!), Gurkani have the dynastic identity and all of the culture and governance related to them. Like also said it would respect their own identity as Gurkani instead of forced western naming and would be more interesting that have Mughals at side of Mongols in the civs list.

Gurkani a culture civ, plus science with Shah Rukh and Akbar empire administration* (exploit tolerance?). Have two cores (transtition in Afghanistan) also point to their mixed Turko-Mongol + Indo-Persian elements linked by DYNASTY and muslim RELIGION, the civ itself is a call about CIV beyond the modern ethno-territorial definition.

Who are the Gurkani? Mix of Uzbek, Mongols, Persians, Afghans, etc. Even then other more ethnic based nations of those cultures rised agaist Gurkani.
Which was their language? Sometimes Chagatai, Persian, Arab, Urdu, etc. Different for each occasion.
Their changing capitals, Samarkand > Herat > Kabul > Agra > Lahore > Delhi, etc. The dynasty and their administrative needs.

Whatever Timurids or Mughals have their identity on their dynastic legacy, and what linked both is also their dynasty so what is the problem if their 500 year of history are linked closer than say the 2000 years of Rome/Byzantium history?

Shah Rukh and Akbar are 1 century away from each other, while Trajan is 9 centuries from Basil II. The former are direct decendents of Timur but the relation between the later are different history.
Roman CIV a millenium of Rome as the core, same with Constantinople for Byzantium, but neither Timurid or Mughal empires are a city they are the dynasty (the same one).

Even we can pick two english leaders and get a more distant related and separated in time figures than what Gurkani have to offer.

I think it be acceptable, in my opinion, to use Babur as the leader if you want to link the two different dynasties.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I think it be acceptable, in my opinion, to use Babur as the leader if you want to link the two different dynasties.

Yep, I would like Babur too, he was also both conqueror and interesed on culture (like literature on their native language) but at the same time is kind of overshadow on both areas by their relatives. Since Kabul was his capital (sometime) could be an interesing option to have Babur's Gurkani with capital on Kabul as transition of all that link "Timurids" to "Mughals".

EDITION: Actually I would love to have on CIV7 both Hephthalites and Gurkani to cover Cetral Asia in their pre and post muslim-turkic eras, the fun part of Babur is that can put the capital in Kabul at the south side of the Hindu Kush while the Haphthalite capitals (Balkh or Kunduz) would be on the other side but still on Afghanistan, so we can have two kind of "Afghan civs".

Babur would speak in Chagatai (turkic language) and Khushnavaz in Bactrian (iranian language).