7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[AffineConstant]

Babur never conquered the entire region, only Delhi.

No leader has controlled the entire region corresponding to modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Unless you count the British Raj of course, in which case leader Lord Mountbatten.

I mean sure, Babur didn't conquer everything by himself, but he founded Mughal Empire, which eventually did, so I'm not sure I can see the difference in practical terms.

I'd also took "Break up India" to imply "Break up current India" not "Break up British Raj India in different Civs." And even if no one conquered exactly all of modern India, the point I'm making is, of those who didn't (or who's Empire in any case wouldn't in the case of Babur) what "Civ" would this even be, who would be the leader? I can't think of anyone and was wondering if there's some major figure and notional nation I'd missed in the area.

As for Pakistan as a separate Civ, as far as I'm aware the region, beyond the Indus Valley Civilization I already mentioned was, was conquered by multiple other larger empires centered elsewhere, and otherwise without a notable political identity of its own, until the end of British Colonial rule. And since then I can't think of a single notable leader you'd actually want in Civ VII.

 

[Patine]

I mean sure, Babur didn't conquer everything by himself, but he founded Mughal Empire, which eventually did, so I'm not sure I can see the difference in practical terms.

I'd also took "Break up India" to imply "Break up current India" not "Break up British Raj India in different Civs." And even if no one conquered exactly all of modern India, the point I'm making is, of those who didn't (or who's Empire in any case wouldn't in the case of Babur) what "Civ" would this even be, who would be the leader? I can't think of anyone and was wondering if there's some major figure and notional nation I'd missed in the area.

As for Pakistan as a separate Civ, as far as I'm aware the region beyond the Indus Valley Civilization I already mentioned was, I'm under the impression, conquered by multiple other larger empires centered elsewhere, and otherwise without a notable political identity of its own, until the end of British Colonial rule. And since then I can't think of a single notable leader you'd actually want in Civ VII.

The British Raj was the first empire to conquer all of India. And, in any case, your arguement, even if it was accurate, does not invalidate the arguement to breaking up India into multiple civ's.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I mean sure, Babur didn't conquer everything by himself, but he founded Mughal Empire, which eventually did, so I'm not sure I can see the difference in practical terms.

I was only clarifying where it seemed as if you were implying that the four rulers you mentioned ruled all of India

I'd also took "Break up India" to imply "Break up current India" not "Break up British Raj India in different Civs." And even if no one conquered exactly all of modern India, the point I'm making is, of those who didn't (or who's Empire in any case wouldn't in the case of Babur) what "Civ" would this even be, who would be the leader? I can't think of anyone and was wondering if there's some major figure and notional nation I'd missed in the area.

I'm having difficult understanding what you're saying here

As for Pakistan as a separate Civ, as far as I'm aware the region, beyond the Indus Valley Civilization I already mentioned was, was conquered by multiple other larger empires centered elsewhere, and otherwise without a notable political identity of its own, until the end of British Colonial rule. And since then I can't think of a single notable leader you'd actually want in Civ VII.

The closest thing to a Pakistan civ would be Hindustan/Mughals, but they of course wouldn't be exclusive to that region

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd also took "Break up India" to imply "Break up current India" not "Break up British Raj India in different Civs." And even if no one conquered exactly all of modern India, the point I'm making is, of those who didn't (or who's Empire in any case wouldn't in the case of Babur) what "Civ" would this even be, who would be the leader? I can't think of anyone and was wondering if there's some major figure and notional nation I'd missed in the area.

India as a civ exists because of Gandhi. You can't have Gandhi lead anything other than a civ called India.
You could however have Ashoka lead the Mauryan, Babur lead the Mughals etc. all different empires and kingdoms within the borders of modern day India.

 

[pokiehl]

India as a civ exists because of Gandhi. You can't have Gandhi lead anything other than a civ called India.
You could however have Ashoka lead the Mauryan, Babur lead the Mughals etc. all different empires and kingdoms within the borders of modern day India.

I don’t think Firaxis would have any qualms about having, say, Ashoka leading India in Civ 7. (We already have Chandragupta leading India in Civ 6)

We don’t really need Gandhi for an “India” faction.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t think Firaxis would have any qualms about having, say, Ashoka leading India in Civ 7. (We already have Chandragupta leading India in Civ 6)

We don’t really need Gandhi for an “India” faction.

Maybe. But every iteration we've at least had Gandhi as well, which was my point.

 

[GeneralZift]

I like Gandhi in Civ. He's different. Iconic

 

[Evie]

Gandhichu is the resident mascot of the series. Annoyingly, at times.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Isn't he always the same in every series?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I don’t think Firaxis would have any qualms about having, say, Ashoka leading India in Civ 7. (We already have Chandragupta leading India in Civ 6)

We don’t really need Gandhi for an “India” faction.

The Mauryans ruled over so extensive an area that you could justify an Ashoka or Chandragupta-led civ being called 'India',

but I still wouldn't have it that way because there is more to India than the Mauryans

 

[pokiehl]

The Mauryans ruled over so extensive an area that you could justify an Ashoka or Chandragupta-led civ being called 'India',

but I still wouldn't have it that way because there is more to India than the Mauryans

That applies to nearly everything so it's not a good argument against it. There's more to nearly every civ than any given leader or group. There's more to France than Catherine de Medici and so on.

 

[Evie]

(And if you don’ t have them lead India you could name the civ Magadha because naming the civ Maurya is like naming a civ Valois or Plantagenet)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

That applies to nearly everything so it's not a good argument against it. There's more to nearly every civ than any given leader or group. There's more to France than Catherine de Medici and so on.

And?

My point is that if you make an exclusively Mauryan/Magadhan civ called 'India' including any other Indian civ (Chola, Mughals, etc.) would imply that those civs are somehow 'not Indian' but on the other hand if you try representing all of them in a single civ you end up with a clumsy blob lump

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

(And if you don’ t have them lead India you could name the civ Magadha because naming the civ Maurya is like naming a civ Valois or Plantagenet)

I used to think like that too but consider that the Mauryans were a discrete entity, the term can refer to the state/empire/civilization as well; the Tudors and Plantagenets ruled effectively over the same entity.

Though I agree with a Magadhan civ in lieu of a Mauryan because that opens up the possibility of Gupta representation as well

 

[Patine]

(And if you don’ t have them lead India you could name the civ Magadha because naming the civ Maurya is like naming a civ Valois or Plantagenet)

But the term didn't the name India didn't exisy in Ashoka's day, either, nor did any concept of an, "India."

 

[Evie]

Hence Magadha.

Then again the Byzantine would like to point out they should be named the Romans if we’re naming civs by the names they knew in their own times. Byzantine is a later terminological invention retroactively applied to them.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Oceania is a geographical region that Australia, the continent, just happens to be in.

Actually Ocenia is the continent that Australia happens to be in...

 

[Patine]

Hence Magadha.

Then again the Byzantine would like to point out they should be named the Romans if we’re naming civs by the names they knew in their own times. Byzantine is a later terminological invention retroactively applied to them.

But, "Byzantine," is not a dynasty.

 

[Evie]

I was comparing it to India, not Maurya.

 

[FishFishFish]

How about calling it "Aryavarta"?