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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Overall, though, I don't want the Mughals because I feel like they infringe on the possibility of getting another Central Asian civ, and ideally I'd like two settled Central Asian civs: one of Sogdia/Kushan/Bactria/Hephthalites representing pre-Islamic Central Asia and Afghanistan/Pashtunkhwa under Ahmad Shah Durrani representing post-Islamic Central Asia (Ahmad Shah Durrani is a historical figure whom I've become quite interested in recently). I feel like Mughals in particular would make Afghanistan much less likely. Instead of Mughals then, I'd split off Chola from India. I certainly agree that the Mughals merit the split--I'm just skeptical of how much Central Asia we can actually persuade the devs to give us.

Is Afghanistan even likely, especially now?

I think the Mughals would be the best chance we get for another civ from South Asia/Central Asia besides a possible steppe nomadic civ again.

I'd be all for changing "Aztec" to "Mexica," but Byzantium is a much more complicated situation. Calling them Rome would be confusing; calling them Romania would be confusing; calling them Rhomai could work but wouldn't be what most players expect if their knowledge of history is only casual. I don't think there's an elegant solution in English beyond the anachronistic "Byzantine Empire."

Obviously you would have to call the other Rome "Western Roman Empire" for clarity.

 

[Zaarin]

Is Afghanistan even likely, especially now?

Call it the Durrani Empire or Pashtunkhwa. Political minefield avoided.

I think the Mughals would be the best chance we get for another civ from South Asia/Central Asia besides a possible steppe nomadic civ again.

The Mughals are just going to be another Dom civ, though.

Obviously you would have to call the other Rome "Western Roman Empire" for clarity.

I look forward to the fallout when Honorius is announced to lead the Western Roman Empire in Civ7.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Mughals are just going to be another Dom civ, though.

I picture them like Civ 6 Persia.
They can get the Mughal Garden UI which would turn them into a cultural powerhouse late game.

 

[Zaarin]

I picture them like Civ 6 Persia.
They can get the Mughal Garden UI which would turn them into a cultural powerhouse late game.

That's still a problem for me because I want the Assyrians to inherit Civ6 Persia's design as the Domination/Culture/Builder civ.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Is Afghanistan even likely, especially now?

Despite be now under a highly regressive regime Afghanistan as state still is a complety valid entity and some of the historical figures from centuries before would be seen as national heroes by the afghan refugies. In any case the ones ashamed by the last decades of Afghan history should be America and Russia with their failed interventionism that fed the rise of islamic extremism.

 

[Zaarin]

Despite be now under a highly regressive regime Afghanistan as state still is a complety valid entity and some of the historical figures from centuries before would be seen as national heroes by the afghan refugies. In any case the ones ashamed by the last decades of Afghan history should be America and Russia with their failed interventionism that fed the rise of islamic extremism.

I agree with you, but I think @Alexander's Hetaroi was referring to specifically the likelihood of including Afghanistan given the current political climate in America, where a great many people are angry about how the War in Afghanistan (and especially the badly botched withdrawal) has been mismanaged. I agree that it's a politically sensitive topic, but I think that's a lousy reason to exclude Golden Age Afghanistan--especially since I think it's a prime time to remember that Afghanistan was a rich, vibrant empire once upon a time.

 

[Yudhisthira]

I agree with overall idea of a separate mughal civ & certainly just like any such case, we can find elements which can be considered exclusively "mughal" in nature. Thou I won't compare it with Al-Andalus as there r some very obvious differences & might lead to more problems than solutions.

with resisting and defeating it being celebrated (reconquista in Spain, Maratha and Sikh in India),

For example, this is a very problematic claim & probably stems from modern chauvinism & nationalist movements in India.
No serious scholar has compared Maratha confederacy or Sikh kingdom with something like Reconquista except some Sikh supremacists/Marathi groups/ & sometimes certain stream of Nationalists.
Infact forget something like Reconquista we have examples proving otherwise. Like despite the fact that Mughal power had waned by the 1750s, they continued to hold symbolic importance & prestige till 1857 rebellion against British & Mughal emperor was the leader of the rebellion though only in the name.

...You haven't spent much time on Reddit, have you? Indian nationalists have been throwing temper tantrums about the Delhi Sultanate since the day it was announced and in every thread that even peripherally mentions them.

As @Zaarin has pointed out it had been quite a mess. Came across some angry posts after Delhi Sultanate announcement on SM, but it is largely over now especially after more Indian content announcement.
I pretty sure it won't affect the sale of AOE 4 in India in anyway. At best some angry tantrums by some people.
This actually proves my point that we sometimes consider these nuances too much here at civfanatics. Not only with India but also with China. I m not an expert on China but I don't think that Chinese government will really mind some new civs from Xinjiang,Yunnan in some game.

 

[Zaarin]

This actually proves my point that we sometimes consider these nuances too much here at civfanatics. Not only with India but also with China. I m not an expert on China but I don't think that Chinese government will really mind some new civs from Xinjiang,Yunnan in some game.

I agree. I don't think even Tibet would upset China that much as long as it's Medieval Tibet. (Speaking of Xinjiang, I really, really wish there were a way to make a proper Tocharian civ...)

 

[Yudhisthira]

I agree. I don't think even Tibet would upset China that much as long as it's Medieval Tibet. (Speaking of Xinjiang, I really, really wish there were a way to make a proper Tocharian civ...)

Yes I agree, there r no grounds for the Chinese to object to a medieval Tibet.

Tocharians r fascinating though very mysterious. They will be very difficult to get right since we know very less about them. Infact if u r aware of the recent genetic results, according to which Tarim mummies were the descendents of local ANE related people. At this point, we don't even know how & when IE languages reached Tarim Basin. I feel there might be better chance for eastern Iranian civs like Bactria-Sogdiana.

 

[Zaarin]

Tocharians r fascinating though very mysterious. They will be very difficult to get right since we know very less about them. Infact if u r aware of the recent genetic results, according to which Tarim mummies were the descendents of local ANE related people. At this point, we don't even know how & when IE languages reached Tarim Basin. I feel there might be better chance for eastern Iranian civs like Bactria-Sogdiana.

My understanding is most linguists and archaeologists link the Tocharians to the Afanasievo culture, which puts them conveniently out of the way of the Indo-Iranians, with whom they seem to have had little or no contact before the historical period. I think general consensus is that the Tarim Mummies are too early to be Tocharian, though, and are generally associated with the Yuezhi. At any rate, a Kuchean or Agnean civ would be almost impossible because we know so little about them. I don't think any personal names are attested, never mind leaders; we'd have to settle for Arshi or Kucha as a city-state...which still leaves us missing the Tocharian languages, which are cool and the chief reason to desire a Tocharian civ. It's just wishful thinking.

 

[Yudhisthira]

My understanding is most linguists and archaeologists link the Tocharians to the Afanasievo culture, which puts them conveniently out of the way of the Indo-Iranians, with whom they seem to have had little or no contact before the historical period. I think general consensus is that the Tarim Mummies are too early to be Tocharian, though, and are generally associated with the Yuezhi.

Honestly I m not very aware of the current consensus. But It was David Anthony who argued the Tarim mummies as the bridge between Afanasievo & Tocharian speakers of historical time.

& my understanding is that with Tarim mummies out of the equation, it becomes more tricky.
& Tocharian is attested very late & only in historical Tarim Basin,not in Afanasievo which makes it difficult to associate Afanasievo culture with Proto-Tocharian.

 

[Krajzen]

...You haven't spent much time on Reddit, have you? Indian nationalists have been throwing temper tantrums about the Delhi Sultanate since the day it was announced and in every thread that even peripherally mentions them. Tantrums about including "the Muslim barbarians," tantrums about not including a native Indian civilization (even though the developers have already stated their intention to do so), tantrums about misrepresenting India--it's been quite a mess. (Delhi Sultanate is my favorite civ in the game, by the way. )

I do know this subreddit and I have double checked it after reading that, and Indian angry voices seem to barely exist here - although I can see Microsoft's statements about "sure sure we will add Hindu civ later guys don't worry", so I guess there had to be some more significant frustration somewhere else. Btw I have seen more reddit annoyance from Muslims that Abbasids speak Persian instead of Arabic

Still, trailer for Delhi on YT had like 98% positive ratings (like other trailers) and angry Indian nationalists seem to be a tiny minority, I don't think producers of games like this should surrender to unreasonable, agressive demands of some minor radical groups (because let's be honest, how is the mere existence of Delhi Sultanate in game offensive in any way). I remember how civ6 Nubia YT trailer had like 20% negative votes just because, get it, the leader was a plump black woman, or how Arabia trailer had like 1 - 2% more negative votes share than usual because, get it, Islam doing science doesn't fit certain prejudices.
Also Civ games would probably start with Dharmic India anyway, with Mughals being (hopefully) later addition, which should annoy sensitive people less than the perception of "ugh the only India in game is Muslim invader". But anyway, developers should just do historical stuff and not cater do prejudices.

 

[Zaarin]

my understanding is that with Tarim mummies out of the equation, it becomes more tricky.
& Tocharian is attested very late & only in historical Tarim Basin,not in Afanasievo which makes it difficult to associate Afanasievo culture with Proto-Tocharian.

Yes, getting the Tocharians from Afanasievo to Xinjiang is indeed a problem, though there is plenty of time in between and they're hardly the only people to be first attested far from their Urheimat. As for the mummies, since genes and languages aren't strictly related and the mummies left no written texts, it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure. To my knowledge, a lot of archaeologists and linguists jumped on linking the Tarim Basin mummies and Tocharian when the two were discovered, and since then most scholars have more cautiously backed off to a position of "they probably spoke an Indo-European language, either Iranian like Saka or Yuezhi/Bactrian or a Tocharian language."

I do know this subreddit and I have double checked it after reading that, and Indian angry voices seem to barely exist here - although I can see Microsoft's statements about "sure sure we will add Hindu civ later guys don't worry", so I guess there had to be some more significant frustration somewhere else. Btw I have seen more reddit annoyance from Muslims that Abbasids speak Persian instead of Arabic

Still, trailer for Delhi on YT had like 98% positive ratings (like other trailers) and angry Indian nationalists seem to be a tiny minority, I don't think producers of games like this should surrender to unreasonable, agressive demands of some minor radical groups (because let's be honest, how is the mere existence of Delhi Sultanate in game offensive in any way). I remember how civ6 Nubia YT trailer had like 20% negative votes just because, get it, the leader was a plump black woman, or how Arabia trailer had like 1 - 2% more negative votes share than usual because, get it, Islam doing science doesn't fit certain prejudices.
Also Civ games would probably start with Dharmic India anyway, with Mughals being (hopefully) later addition, which should annoy sensitive people less than the perception of "ugh the only India in game is Muslim invader". But anyway, developers should just do historical stuff and not cater do prejudices.

I personally think the nationalists should just be ignored altogether. I was simply pointing out that there was an outcry of angry nationalists about Delhi Sultanate (and yes, Abbasids, too).

 

[BuchiTaton]

I feel there might be better chance for eastern Iranian civs like Bactria-Sogdiana.

Hephthalites for a Bactria+Sogdiana+Tarim civ, that cover "Central Asia nomad" role of CIV5 Huns and CIV6 Scythians but this time with actual reason to hold cities, focus in "Cross Road" trade and pluri-religious communities. Interesting interaction with Sassanids and others eurasian powers, could use bactrian language and the leader still would keep some of the iconic Kushan/Huna-like king atire.

 

[mitsho]

As you may know by now from my posts in these threads, I‘m a big advocate for assymetric civ designs. Meaning that not all civs need to be balanced via each other, and India could be one of those giganteous civs with Unique stuff in all eras. The other option - as blob civs are out of fashion generally - would be to split it up. You can still have a India among that squad. There‘s really no wrong answer here besides „We do it just like we have since Civ1“ in my mind.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Hephthalites for a Bactria+Sogdiana+Tarim civ, that cover "Central Asia nomad" role of CIV5 Huns and CIV6 Scythians but this time with actual reason to hold cities, focus in "Cross Road" trade and pluri-religious communities. Interesting interaction with Sassanids and others eurasian powers, could use bactrian language and the leader still would keep some of the iconic Kushan/Huna-like king atire.

Hephthalites looks more promising & tbh more exciting rightnow if we get Sassanid Persia.
Moreover they will fit nicely between India & Iran on TSL earth map. Especially for India on TSL map, which had history of nomadic invasion from north-west, Hephthalites r very cool option with their capital at Bactria.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with you, but I think @Alexander's Hetaroi was referring to specifically the likelihood of including Afghanistan given the current political climate in America, where a great many people are angry about how the War in Afghanistan (and especially the badly botched withdrawal) has been mismanaged. I agree that it's a politically sensitive topic, but I think that's a lousy reason to exclude Golden Age Afghanistan--especially since I think it's a prime time to remember that Afghanistan was a rich, vibrant empire once upon a time.

Yeah I don't know how much that plays into civ design really. I feel the same way about Burma, but I still believe they have a better shot to get in the game considering they had the biggest empire ever in South East Asia.

That being said Afghanistan isn't really on my wishlist anyway. I'd rather split up India into three civs first.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I personally think the nationalists should just be ignored altogether.

Maybe, but that way, one loses a quality source of entertainment - few things made me laugh as much as claims and graphics of how Taj Mahal stands on a site of an ancient Hindu temple

Anyway, I'm for division of India into two or three Civs. Unlike China, which managed to keep itself united for most of the time under the various imperial dynasties like Han, Tang, Ming or Qing, empires encompassing absolute majority of the subcontinent are more of a rarity in the Indian history. I suppose one could make such Civs out of the occassional hegemons that appeared throughout the Indian history - Mughals, Delhi, Maurya, Gupta, Chola, Vijayanagar, Maratha offer themselves as some options. Personally, I wish Mughals .

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anyway, I'm for division of India into two or three Civs. Unlike China, which managed to keep itself united for most of the time under the various imperial dynasties like Han, Tang, Ming or Qing, empires encompassing absolute majority of the subcontinent are more of a rarity in the Indian history. I suppose one could make such Civs out of the occassional hegemons that appeared throughout the Indian history - Mughals, Delhi, Maurya, Gupta, Chola, Vijayanagar, Maratha offer themselves as some options. Personally, I wish Mughals .

I agree that I think it's time for a partial split, at least.
I'm thinking more along the lines of Macedon and Greece though. They can still have India proper with two leaders and have the Mughals as a separate civ.
I think this is most likely because we all know Gandhi will return, which I never personally mind, though as long as we get another leader. I'd also like Ashoka to return.

The other way, which seems less likely but probably more popular with the fanbase, is give them the "Celts" split treatment and give us two entirely different civs such as Maurya and Mughals like we got with Scotland and Ancient Gaul.

 

[Zaarin]

I think this is most likely because we all know Gandhi will return, which I never personally mind, though as long as we get another leader.

I wonder, though, if we might finally ditch Gandhi now that it's known that the "nuclear Gandhi" meme was a hoax.