I mean there's always a chance to have a Viking civ centered more around trade and religion/culture assimilation into other civs with Sweden being militant.
That would be lovely. I posted elsewhere (or maybe in this thread?) my idea for a "toned down" Viking Denmark with Margaret I as leader and trade-oriented abilities but with the usual Berserker or Longboat UU. I'm not counting on it, though.
Though at the same time I'd say that's as likely as Babylon and Korea not being scientific.
But "inevitable" indicates, to me at least, a lack of real diversity and flexibility in Civ portrayal. Any group that has lasted for any length of time exhibits, historically, a variety of traits that could be the basis for a Civ Model of Uniques and other attributes. Using the same variation game after game is simply intellectual laziness - or being content with easy commercial return that transcends all other considerations. We/They can do better.
You're preaching to the choir; I'd love to see more civs receive a shake up. I was pleased to see this happen a few times in Civ6 (cultural Greece, for instance, instead of the usual Alexander Conquest for Days), but I'd like to have seen a lot more of it.
3. The Long-Range Rus - the Rus were largely Swedish 'vikings' but the emphasis here was less on raiding than on the trading and long-distance (in this case by Rivers) travel by Scandinavians. Arguably, the most successful of all the 'Viking' groups, because the combined polities they founded at Novgorod-Staraya Russ and Kiyev/Kiev were the earliest of the great 'Slavic' states and they established trade connections that spread all the way from Byzantium and Stockholm to Merv, Astrakhan and China.
TBH I'd rather have a Ruthenian-flavored Russia than a Ruthenian-flavored Sweden.
That's stepping on the toes of my choice for Poland, Sigismund II Augustus.
But why?
The Mughals were the most influential and widely reaching single unified empire in the entire subcontinent. The Mughals very much are what the world understood as "India" throughout the age of discovery, international trade, industry, and colonialist expansion. Aurangzeb, Akbar and others achieved marvellous feats in military, organisational, cultural and artistic spheres.
Indeed, we could further argue that the word "India" is something of a misnomer for the modern nation state that does not even count the river Indus within its borders or even mention the river Indus in its national anthem. The word "India" was itself a foreign term bestowed upon a civilisation by ancient historians, propagated throughout history in reference to a geographical region, and ultimately appropriated to describe only a part of that geographical region (less the actual river that lent itself to the original term!!).
I would argue strongly that any iteration of "India" absolutely MUST have a Mughal ruler as a leader option. To split "India" from the Mughals is bizarre, ahistoric and needlessly panders to the whims of revisionists who continuously attempt to erase all trace of the Mughals from modern India. Frankly, it's become a bit of a running joke that Mughal leaders are avoided for the "Indian" civilisation. The likes of Chandragupta created a Hindu empire, not a unified "India". What did Gandhi ever actually preside over??
Meanwhile, we keep neglecting the one group of individuals who actually presided over "India" when it was at its peak of power.
There is a reason the most powerful colonial nation in history called Mughal India the jewel in its crown.
I expect certain indviduals will be against this but it is wholly illogical to exclude the Mughals from India because some sentiments are offended by historical facts. Just because the Mughals occupied pre-existing cities from earlier empires it does not negate they right to be associated with the legacy of those cities. Certainly, Lahore and many Pakistani cities would be part of a Mughal India, just as Delhi would and also much of the subcontinent in some guise or another.
Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption of modern India as the frame of reference, which unfortunately is valid in light of the fact that they keep foisting Gandhi on us, but it really
shouldn't be the frame of reference. TBH if any civ is going to be balkanized out of India, the Mughals make the most sense: they originated as Persianized Mongol-Turks in Central Asia; they were Muslim (kind of--not exactly the most orthodox variety, but
nominally they were Muslim); and they were a conquest dynasty. Naturally they had a profound impact on the history of India, but I wouldn't say that makes them Indian--for the first few generations at least they held the Hindi in contempt, much like the Ptolemies regarded the Egyptians over whom they ruled. I wouldn't
object to a Mughal ruler for India--but I'd much rather see "India" dismantled and balkanized. It feels like roughly the equivalent of having "the European Union" as a civilization.
Of course,
if India is kept as a civ, one can easily get around a lot of this by choosing the Mughals' predecessors the Timurids, instead, and the only thing that keeps me from really pushing for a Gurkani civ led by Shah Rukh is that I really want an Afghani civ led by Ahmad Shah Durrani--and even getting
one non-nomadic Central Asian civ seems to be asking for the Moon as far as Firaxis is concerned. Plus, in the unlikely even we
did get two settled Central Asian civ, I'd want the other to be pre-Islamic--Sogdia, Kushan, the Hephthalites, etc. (I suggest Shah Rukh because Timur is just going to be "the other Genghis Khan," and by most accounts Ulugh Beg was a talented scientist but a mediocre ruler. Make Shah Rukh the leader and make Ulugh Beg a Great Scientist.)
