India

[Yudhisthira]

That's why I say deblobbing should involve geography and broad cultural groupings, not dynasties or historical eras or political organizations (and why I'm firmly against the Macedon/Greece split). Deblobbing is good to an extent, but fragmenting is not.

That's actually would had been historically,lexically more sound approach but I m afraid that boat has already sailed with the modern nation states as civs.

This would cover the Maurya, Gupta, Delhi and later Mughal empire, and a large chunk of modern India including the capital as well. That civ could retain the name India, or change to Hindi or Gangetic civilization (or some other name I haven't come up with yet).

The term you r looking for is 'Aryavarta' or during Persian age known as Hindustan, known to Europeans as India since ancient period.

It's historical nations and empires are separate cultures and nations with different outlooks and an utter lack of a sense of a unified identity. Because, such a unified identity and nationhood was NOT their own devising - but a colonial creation of the British as a construct of governance. Politically, there was not an, "India," before the FALL of the Mughal Empire to the British East India Company.

This is very sweeping statement without supporting argument or example.


Anyway, no doubt the market is growing in east in India,China & with it demand for more content will also. & Since we already have flexible defn for civ in the game, I believe empires which are separated by a long gap in time should be allowed as civs like in India's case Mauryas & Mughal or in China's Qin & Qing.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Aryavarta

That have some connection with the Aryans? Who brings the vedas to the India, if yes, what mean varta of Ayra-Varta?

China's Qin & Qing

I don't want two civilizations of China who just change a letter in its name, it will be very confusing

 

[Evie]

Yes, if you want to add a specific civ, you can almost certainly point to an example if a civ that's already in and say "If X is already in, then Y should also be in". And the equivalence would in fact be perfectly true.

But I don'T think that's a good way to do things, because throughout its history Civ has made some *dumb* choices about what civs to add. The colonial civs are questionable, the Zulus being in every game is very questionable. Byzantinum is debatable, and Macedonia very questionable. Existing civ choices are nowhere near perfect, and past mistakes should not justify new ones. The fact that we can't remove them because now people expect them is bad enough ; saying that we have to add more civs because they're in is making the situation worse.

If, say, we add only ten new civs next game, and we give, say, three of them to China and three of them to INdia, and probably one to Europe because, well, market research still say Europe is important, and hey, another Latin American civ because, well, market say they're important too - that leaves us with two spots for all of Subsaharan Africa and Precolumbian Americas, because their market are not important and really, aren'T they lucky to get any attention at all?!

The end result: India has four civ, China has four civs...and Subsaharan Africa and Precolumbian America have six each, despite being vastly larger - and yes, vastly more diverse - than India or China.

That's why I feel any deblobbing should be a gradual process. For now, we split India in two, maybe three at the very most (depending on how many civs we add exactly), and probably keep China as is because pretty much anything we can throw in that's actually worth throwing in would set off the "One China" response. We can deblob it later. In a later game maybe we can further break down some of those civs, but that's as more civs are added to the game. Europe still get their extra civ, and the colonies, but that leaves a lot more civs free to expand parts of the world that are far more poorly represented than even India right now.

 

[Patine]

That have some connection with the Aryans? Who brings the vedas to the India, if yes, what mean varta of Ayra-Varta?


I don't want two civilizations of China who just change a letter in its name, it will be very confusing

Maybe confusing to you. The differences between the Qin Dynasty and Qing Dynasties are immense in so many different ways, and this is very common knowledge. It's not JUST a letter...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't want two civilizations of China who just change a letter in its name, it will be very confusing

Is Ming and Qing any better?
If not just go with the Han. It was just a suggestion anyways.

The end result: India has four civ, China has four civs...and Subsaharan Africa and Precolumbian America have six each, despite being vastly larger - and yes, vastly more diverse - than India or China.

That's why I feel any deblobbing should be a gradual process. For now, we split India in two, maybe three at the very most (depending on how many civs we add exactly), and probably keep China as is because pretty much anything we can throw in that's actually worth throwing in would set off the "One China" response. We can deblob it later. In a later game maybe we can further break down some of those civs, but that's as more civs are added to the game. Europe still get their extra civ, and the colonies, but that leaves a lot more civs free to expand parts of the world that are far more poorly represented than even India right now.

I agree with you and I think most people do believe that nobody expects 3 to 4 different civs from the Indian subcontinent every game, especially at the cost of getting more civs from Pre-Columbian America and Africa. I do specifically say Africa because we didn't get any civ in North Africa other than Egypt in Civ 6 either.

At most I expect is 2, with the possibility of 1 just rotating the same spot every game at least for the next couple of iterations.

 

[Henri Christophe]

the Zulus being in every game is very questionable.

I like Shaka Zulu in every game, show respect at least with African leader, untill now just Gandhi, Gengis Khan and Alexander the Great have this title, I hope that continuos as it was for the Zulus, despite for India I want the time of Gandhis end in Civ7. And debloobing in 3 hindus kingdom is the minimun amount to make it fair. If civ 7 will have more civs than it's previous game, I think is feasible to do at least 3 civs after all DLCs.

Maybe confusing to you. The differences between the Qin Dynasty and Qing Dynasties are immense in so many different ways, and this is very common knowledge. It's not JUST a letter...

If you know the difference tell to us.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Is Ming and Qing any better?
If not just go with the Han. It was just a suggestion anyways.

it's way better.

 

[Patine]

If you know the difference tell to us.

Qin dynasty - Wikipedia
Qing dynasty - Wikipedia

As you can see, the differences are immense.

 

[Patine]

it's way better.

Ming and Qing are far closer to each other in the historic scale of things. The Ming was right before the Qing.

 

[Evie]

I mean, if we have one civ rotating or even teo, is there really a worthwhile gampelay difference between Asoka and Chandra Gupta leading the Indian civ in two different games and Asoka leading the Mauryan civ in one game and Chandra Gupta leading the Gupta civ in the next? Or Vijayanagar in one game with a Vijayanagar leader, Chola in the next with a Chola leader, or a Chola and Vijayanagar leader taking turns leading the Dravidian civ.

If THAT's the deblobbing we're talking about, where it's the same number of civ I want and we're only arguing over whether it should be the same civ name or different civ names between games, I mean, yeah, whatever. If we get only one Gangetic Plain empire per game, I'm not going to worry much whether it's called Maurya, Gupta or India.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, if we have one civ rotating or even teo, is there really a worthwhile gampelay difference between Asoka and Chandra Gupta leading the Indian civ in two different games and Asoka leading the Mauryan civ in one game and Chandra Gupta leading the Gupta civ in the next? Or Vijayanagar in one game with a Vijayanagar leader, Chola in the next with a Chola leader, or a Chola and Vijayanagar leader taking turns leading the Dravidian civ.

If THAT's the deblobbing we're talking about, where it's the same number of civ I want and we're only arguing over whether it should be the same civ name or different civ names between games, I mean, yeah, whatever.

I just think that's closer to the reality when it comes to deblobbing if you look at the history of the civ franchise.
We went from one civ called the Vikings to Denmark/Sweden in Civ 5 and then Norway/Sweden in Civ 6.
We went from one civ called the Celts to Scotland (questionably) and Gaul in Civ 6.
We went from one civ called Polynesia in Civ 5 to the Maori in Civ 6.
The Sioux and the Iroquois however existed separately before the Native American blob, but was then rectified back to at least the Iroquois and Shoshone in Civ 5 and then the Cree in Civ 6.
I'm also tempted to say that the Holy Roman Empire civ from Civ 4 then split up into Austria in Civ 5, then Hungary in Civ 6, but that's kind of a stretch. Though if that potentially gets us Italy in Civ 7 I'll take it.

At the end of the day it would be a step in the right direction, even if it's a baby step.

 

[Evie]

I guess I'm also just more blob tolerant than most - I never really had a problem with the Celts or the Vikings (well, other than that they should be called Norse, not Vikings), really. Natives Americans did bother me, but Native American was by very, very, very, very, very, very, very (...) very far worse than any of the other blobs. India is united today if nothing else, the Celtic languages are a real and distinct group, and likewise Polynesian languages, and Vikings/Norse culture as far as I know was a real thing too. Whereas literally the only reason to blob the Natives together was "they live on the same continent". So, basically, the equivalent blob would be "The Europeans" or "The Asians".

I do seem to remember people upthread arguing for a lot of Indian civs at the same time, which is what I am against in the short term.

 

[bene_legionary]

There are 18 civilizations in Civ 6 without any DLC. Between those 18 civilizations: 8 were from Europe, 3 were from the Middle East, 4 were from the rest of Asia, 1 was from Africa, and 2 were from the Americas.

All of the sets of DLCs added 8 civilizations; that's 32 civilisations, where 9 were from Europe, 6 were from the Middle East, 7 were from Asia and the Pacific, 3 were from Africa, and 7 were from the Americas.

That adds up to a total of 17 from Europe, 9 from the Middle East, 11 from Asia and the Pacific, 4 from Africa and 9 from the Americas. If there's going to be 50 civilizations after DLC in the next Civ game, where do you think they will find space for more Indian civs? Or, Chinese, Russian, Italian, etc. But there's three Greek civilizations in Civ 6. Think about that.

Where does good representation have to go to be good on computer resources and people's wallets, too? The practical option is to leave India as a blob. After all, it worked for 6 installments. But I like the idea of the Dravidians, I just don't know anyone that could lead a Dravidian civ.

I'm wondering about how Humankind tried to fix this (it didn't). Humankind might have worked better if you played a specific continent (Europe), and then in the next Era you played the descendants of that (the Etruscans) while AIs next to you choose a different civ from the same continent (the Celts, the Slavs), then the next era you'd keep going down from there (Etruscans -> Romans, Latins; Celts -> Gauls, Brythons, Belgae) and so on (Romans -> Asturians, Franks, Lombards; Brythons -> Scots, Irish, I'm reaching the end of my knowledge about this sort of thing). Then you'd still have a choice, plus you get the bonuses of culture mixing and historical empires. Or maybe they just wanted the game-iness of having the Mongols become the Americans?

 

[Evie]

Are we counting Byzantium (because they spoke Greek, even though their continuity was with the Roman Empire, not with Greece) or Egypt (Greek ruler) as the third Greek civ here?

Anyway, I've been very vocal in wanting Macedon kicked back into Greece where it belongs, and I wouldn't cry if just gave the Romans a Byzantine alternate leader instead of having the two as separate civs.

We're expecting a few more civs next generation - on average each new generation has had about 7 more civs than the previous one - but that still leaves the resources pretty limited, yes.

 

[bene_legionary]

Not many people know about the Macedonians becoming the rulers of Egypt, I don't think it matters really. I'm talking about Byzantium.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Not many people know about the Macedonians becoming the rulers of Egypt

In this kind of a game the players knows too much about history.

We're expecting a few more civs next generation - on average each new generation has had about 7 more civs than the previous one - but that still leaves the resources pretty limited, yes.

I hope they accelerate these tax and in civ7 they can do at least 100 civs, to I have ways to play a entire game with just obscure civs.

 

[Patine]

There are 18 civilizations in Civ 6 without any DLC. Between those 18 civilizations: 8 were from Europe, 3 were from the Middle East, 4 were from the rest of Asia, 1 was from Africa, and 2 were from the Americas.

All of the sets of DLCs added 8 civilizations; that's 32 civilisations, where 9 were from Europe, 6 were from the Middle East, 7 were from Asia and the Pacific, 3 were from Africa, and 7 were from the Americas.

That adds up to a total of 17 from Europe, 9 from the Middle East, 11 from Asia and the Pacific, 4 from Africa and 9 from the Americas. If there's going to be 50 civilizations after DLC in the next Civ game, where do you think they will find space for more Indian civs? Or, Chinese, Russian, Italian, etc. But there's three Greek civilizations in Civ 6. Think about that.

Where does good representation have to go to be good on computer resources and people's wallets, too? The practical option is to leave India as a blob. After all, it worked for 6 installments. But I like the idea of the Dravidians, I just don't know anyone that could lead a Dravidian civ.

I'm wondering about how Humankind tried to fix this (it didn't). Humankind might have worked better if you played a specific continent (Europe), and then in the next Era you played the descendants of that (the Etruscans) while AIs next to you choose a different civ from the same continent (the Celts, the Slavs), then the next era you'd keep going down from there (Etruscans -> Romans, Latins; Celts -> Gauls, Brythons, Belgae) and so on (Romans -> Asturians, Franks, Lombards; Brythons -> Scots, Irish, I'm reaching the end of my knowledge about this sort of thing). Then you'd still have a choice, plus you get the bonuses of culture mixing and historical empires. Or maybe they just wanted the game-iness of having the Mongols become the Americans?

When it comes to, "wallets," "markets," and, "player familiarity," regarding breaking up India, you must have missed this post of mine:

India is rapidly growing into a big gaming and otherwise computer consuming market as we speak, and has been for quite a while. The current CEO of Microsoft is an Indian-American, keep in mind.

 

[bene_legionary]

When it comes to, "wallets," "markets," and, "player familiarity," regarding breaking up India, you must have missed this post of mine:

I didn't mean that. I didn't mean to say there's not a market for more Indian civs. I wanted to say that Firaxis seems to not care about that market when they only have one whole civ representing the Indian subcontinent and keep putting Gandhi in. Why not a Bengali civ? Why not a Punjabi civ? Why not a Dravidian civ? From what I know they have rich histories and easily qualify for Civ status. The problem is, Firaxis would rather put Byzantium and Macedonia (or other European civs) in the game, and take space from India. I should have talked more about that, but that was what I meant to say.

Anyway, I think the majority of people would rather see more European civs than Indian civs when it comes to buying a DLC. That's a shame, but I think it's true.

In this kind of a game the players knows too much about history.

In this kind of forum, where people read Wikipedia articles for fun like us, we know too much about history. Not everyone, and probably not players new to the Civ franchise or are just here to have a relaxing game of Civ, cares about the Macedonian successions, or really about history that much at all. It's a game, not a history lesson, anyway. This forum would be much more active if we had those people around, but I think most of them are on reddit posting about turn 69/year 420, Peter insulting you with the name of a Mayan city, and Mount Roirama instead (it might have changed since last year). Sure, they might care about Byzantium being in the game, because the average Civ player would know about that type of thing, but most of them really don't care whether Cleopatra had Greeks for ancestors or that her ancestors were more imbred than the Habsburgs as long as they get more content.

 

[Yudhisthira]

That have some connection with the Aryans? Who brings the vedas to the India, if yes, what mean varta of Ayra-Varta?

'Arya' term(not strictly used in ethnic sense) is the self designator of Indians. So, Aryavarta literally means 'land of aryas'. This term had been used extensively in literature as well as in inscriptions, but with flexible boundaries.

& Nobody bought Vedas to India, It was composed in India only in the region between Indus & Ganga.

 

[Yudhisthira]

But I like the idea of the Dravidians, I just don't know anyone that could lead a Dravidian civ.

For many reasons a Dravidian blob looks more bad than an Indian blob.
Just like the whole subcontient, south India or dravidian language family speaking regions was rarely politically unified & unlike north India there wasn't any concept of united south India distinct from whole subcontinent, except may be for 'lord of dakshinapath'.
The Tamils,Telgus,Malyali,Kannada all have there own distinct linguistic-cultural traditions, with no common 'dravidian' language connecting these areas. For most of the history it was Sanskrit which connected these regions & in modern period it is English which has replaced Sanskrit in that role. In this regard south India actually is culturally more fragmented then say north, where Hindi connects people from the border of Afghanistan to Bengal.

Only Vijaynagar empire comes close to uniting these regions, although not as some dravidian phenomena, rather as a response of Hindus to muslim invasion of southern kingdoms.