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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

Even though it turned out to be originally a hoax, I think at this point it's still a meme.

Either way I won't complain if Gandhi comes back but with a separate Mughal civ too, even if another leader would be more ideal.

 

[Zaarin]

Even though it turned out to be originally a hoax, I think at this point it's still a meme.

These days it seems like a meme that's 10 minutes old is already yesterday's news so...

 

[Yudhisthira]

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

Or we can just have a Meme Civilization
With Leader- Nuclear Gandhi
Capital- Bermuda Triangle
UU- The Civilized Barbarian
UI- Roads that always lead to Rome.

 

[Zaarin]

Or we can just have a Meme Civilization
With Leader- Nuclear Gandhi
Capital- Bermuda Triangle
UU- The Civilized Barbarian
UI- Roads that always lead to Rome.

Good idea--let them get it all out of their system in one go so the rest of the civs can be better.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Good idea--let them get it all out of their system in one go so the rest of the civs can be better.

Name the civ Australia for good measure

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or we can just have a Meme Civilization
With Leader- Nuclear Gandhi
Capital- Bermuda Triangle
UU- The Civilized Barbarian
UI- Roads that always lead to Rome.

All Roads lead to Rome can be the Civ ability.
UI should be the Golf course.

Name the civ Australia for good measure

Don't you mean Georgia?

 

[Ranger0001]

Gandhi has to go, I know it has been introduced to this series because in nineties it was about the only Indian human being known to the white man, but come on it really wouldn't hurt if white man's minds were enlightened by the existence of another Indian leader.

I agree I would like a more modern Indian civ with Indira Gandhi as its leader and one or two other Indian civs that should be older ones though I'm not complelty sure which ones I would like. Probably one southern one and one northern one(having the Delhi Sultanate could be interesting) . India has been so diverse now and through its history that it does it a massive disservice by only having one civ of it.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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.

This seems like the most likely but worse scenario to me. I mean CIV6's India is contemporary India not just because Gandhi but also by the cities names. "India" is supposed to cover pre democratic+constitutional+nation/state Republic of India but lack cities from regions that were also part of "Bharat" and their great empires just because they are now on a different country (that by the way control most of the Indus valley, have most of the Sindh, and was the first region controled by the Indo-Aryan, but is not the country named India now ).

The definition of "India" by common shared elements of culture and history is ironically mutilated of their real magnitude by the irreconcilable posture of the modern nation state of India as the non-muslim India, despite most of historical "India" had more history as both non-muslim and not-unified. So the millennial indo-aryan indian cities around the Indus river can not be India now because recent western inspired and mediated definition of nations.

CIV7 can put Asoka or Chandragupta but what they would lead still will be Gandhi's Republic of India not the Mauryan Empire. Also Mughals in CIV7 would not be an Indian civ since CIV6 already purged India of any element from Pakistan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This seems like the most likely but worse scenario to me. I mean CIV6's India is contemporary India not just because Gandhi but also by the cities names. "India" is supposed to cover pre democratic+constitutional+nation/state Republic of India but lack cities from regions that were also part of "Bharat" and their great empires just because they are now on a different country (that by the way control most of the Indus valley, have most of the Sindh, and was the first region controled by the Indo-Aryan, but is not the country named India now ).

Well there's no reason why they can't make an Indian city list with both modern names and ancient names, if India was to return?
I have a feeling that's why they made Nalanda a separate city-state though.

Also Mughals in CIV7 would not be an Indian civ since CIV6 already purged India of any element from Pakistan.

That's why I described it like Macedon and Greece. Mughals would be a separate civ from India with different uniques and a city list, even though both are located from the same general area.

 

[Zaarin]

Well there's no reason why they can't make an Indian city list with both modern names and ancient names, if India was to return?

Civilization has always been notorious for its badly made, badly researched city lists. I really, really hope they do some proper research on city lists for Civ7 so we don't end up with oddities like Aleppo twice on the Arab city list, a tiny construction village as the capital of Egypt (spoilers: Ra-Qadet was not the capital of Cleopatra's Egypt--Alexandria was--and the Coptic name of Alexandria is...Aleksandria: you chose a Macedonian to lead Egypt; live with the consequences of your choices--and put the woman in a chiton and himation while you're at it ), etc.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Well there's no reason why they can't make an Indian city list with both modern names and ancient names, if India was to return?

And then is when everybody would ask... Why this India civ have a different leader, with different cities, different agenda, and likely different units/infrastructure/ability?
The most you need to add is obvious that it could better be a complete different civ.

Kind of like if CIV6 had both Victoria and Robert the Bruce as leaders for UK, it is now the same country, shared broad culture, religion, intitutions and history.
But anyway devs think the very local and limited power of Bruce's Scotland is more relevant than the bastly bigger, richier, populous, diverse and long lasting Tamil empire that expanded beyond India.

 

[Phrozen]

Need at least two.

A Chola or Tamil civ for southern India and a Sikh or Maratha for northern India.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If India could not be different civs I would like to at least have India as the most diverse civ in two ways:
> Have three leaders for example, religious Asoka (Maurya), naval Rajendra (Chola) and defensive* Mahadji Shinde (Maratha).
> Some form to represent the diverse cultures of India, for example if CIV7 have again ethnicity (cultures*), each cultures could give you unique traditions for all kind of bonus, units, etc.
The rest of main and minor civs have one default starting national ethnicity, but the ability of India could be that for example your first say 8? cities have each one a different ethnicity (like Bihari, Bengali, Tamil, etc.) all already national so you can get their unique traditions without the need of assimilate foreign ones like others civs.

Gurkani would be their own civ representing both Timurids (scientific Ulugh Beg with capital at Samarkand) and Mughals (cultural Akbar with capital at Lahore).

For sure no Gandhi, thank you very much.

 

[Zaarin]

scientific Ulugh Beg

I see Ulugh Beg proposed quite frequently, but if I'm not mistaken wasn't he a very good scientist but also a rather weak, ineffective ruler? It seems like he should either be a Great Scientist or perhaps a unique Governor (if those return) for his father, Shah Rukh.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civilization has always been notorious for its badly made, badly researched city lists. I really, really hope they do some proper research on city lists for Civ7 so we don't end up with oddities like Aleppo twice on the Arab city list, a tiny construction village as the capital of Egypt (spoilers: Ra-Qadet was not the capital of Cleopatra's Egypt--Alexandria was--and the Coptic name of Alexandria is...Aleksandria: you chose a Macedonian to lead Egypt; live with the consequences of your choices--and put the woman in a chiton and himation while you're at it ), etc.

It's also time for Egypt to sacrifice Thebes and give it to Greece. Greece can make room by sacrificing Knossos, and making it a city-state.

Gurkani would be their own civ representing both Timurids (scientific Ulugh Beg with capital at Samarkand) and Mughals (cultural Akbar with capital at Lahore).

If we want to represent the Timurids why would they not do it with Timur?

 

[Zaarin]

It's also time for Egypt to sacrifice Thebes and give it to Greece. Greece can make room by sacrificing Knossos, and making it a city-state.

There are two ways around that: call the Egyptian city Waset and the Greek city Thebes or call the Egyptian city Thebes of the Hundred Gates and the Greek city Thebes (or Thebes of the Seven Gates).

If we want to represent the Timurids why would they not do it with Timur?

Because he'd just be the other Genghis Khan?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There are two ways around that: call the Egyptian city Waset and the Greek city Thebes or call the Egyptian city Thebes of the Hundred Gates and the Greek city Thebes (or Thebes of the Seven Gates).

Yeah Waset would do.

Because he'd just be the other Genghis Khan?

True but Timurids without Timur is like Gaul without Vercingetorix, oh wait!

I'd expect them to just call them Mughals anyway and would expect Timurids to be a completely different civ. However I can live without them especially with Mongolia already feeling their niche.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd expect them to just call them Mughals anyway and would expect Timurids to be a completely different civ. However I can live without them especially with Mongolia already feeling there niche.

Yeah, that's why I don't see a specifically Timurid civ happening because they basically fill the same niche as the Mongols, by whom they are vastly overshadowed. I think @BuchiTaton 's solution of a Timurid alternate leader for a Gurkhani civ works better, though like I said I'd propose Shah Rukh, who turned the Timurids into a Persianate sultanate and promoted arts, culture, and the sciences, rather than his less effective son.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, that's why I don't see a specifically Timurid civ happening because they basically fill the same niche as the Mongols, by whom they are vastly overshadowed. I think @BuchiTaton 's solution of a Timurid alternate leader for a Gurkhani civ works better, though like I said I'd propose Shah Rukh, who turned the Timurids into a Persianate sultanate and promoted arts, culture, and the sciences, rather than his less effective son.

I still think I'd give them Timur if that were the case. Akbar could be the more cultured oriented leader while Timur would focus on the domination side of the civ.

 

[Krajzen]

Timurids have to be the most unlucky major empire/civilization in this series and games like this, enormous importance for world history and they can never get presence because they are either lumped together with Mongols or Mughals or idk Arabia (I'm serious, Bukhara was on Arabia city list at least in civ5)

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'.
Timurids were territorially smaller than Mongols (which isn't surprising because literally everybody else in history was ) but Mongol culture itself left very minimal influence, while Timurid influences can be traced from modern Turkey to Bangladesh. Their sword was smaller, but their pen was bigger (and they still count as one of the biggest and most powerful military empires in history). 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.

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...