Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

[Zaarin]

You see, we're really beginning to stretch the whole concept of what exactly constitutes a Civilisation...to split the Mughals from India (and now I am regarding India as the geographical region, not the Nehruvian republic - which I think is the least accurate representation of "Indianness") on the basis of genetic origin is possibly inconsistent and exceptionalist.

Genetic origin was quite beside my point. I never once referenced genetics. My reference to the Mughals being Muslim Perso-Turks was emphasizing their cultural foreignness to India, not their genetic foreignness.

Let us consider the English civilisation as a case in point. It is substantially composed of the DNA and legacy of invaders. The "Angles" (who gave us the word "England") are pretty much Danes/Germans and the "Saxons" a bit more Germanic. They attacked and brutalised the pre-existing Romanised Britons (ostensibly natives, but equally subjugated by the Romans under Claudius etc). After the Anglo-Saxons came Normans and all sorts. England isn't so much an island fortress as it is an island free-for-all! The point being made here is that none of these groups can somehow be balkanised out of English civilisational history simply because they were non-native genetically.

1) You're actually incorrect; the succeeding Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, and Norman invasions all had fairly negligible influence on the British genetic landscape. Numerous studies have shown that the genetic makeup of the British Isles has not changed significantly in the past several thousand years. 2) Um, what? A British or Anglo-Saxon civ would be very viable alongside an English civ; indeed, I'd be delighted to see an Anglo-Saxon civ--and puzzled to see an Anglo-Saxon leader tacked onto the English civ as it stands (much less trying someone like Boudicca or Cunobeline). I think a British civ would be considerably less desirable than a Gaulish civ given how little we know of pre-Roman Britons and how vigorously they assimilated to Roman culture afterwards, but they could be done. Even a Norman civ would be very doable, if not terribly desirable (I'd rather have Brittany myself if we're balkanizing France for some reason). 3) Genetics really has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of culture, which, as the British Isles show, cares very little about genes.

On this basis, I have to conclude that if the Mughals can be summarily dismissed from Indian history because they aren't "Indian" enough, then the same would apply to most inhabitants of north and central India today, which includes EVERY single Civ leader ever put forward to represent the Indian civilisation.

Yes, this is precisely what I'm proposing. Ditch India, and let's have a Chola civ, a Maurya or some other Indo-Aryan civ, and Mughals, too, as long as they don't squeeze out my Afghan/Durrani and Sogdia/Kushan/Hephthalite civs.

I personally regard the dissociation of Mughals from Indian civs to be inconsistent with the way other civs are treated and inconsistent with India's own history and genealogy.

See, I see it as the other way around: "India" is the last great blob in the game, a relic of the surface level pop culture research of Civ1. India, as you point out, has a rich and varied history; the India civ makes as much sense as lumping Western Europe into a single civ. I am, by preference, a splitter, and I've consistently argued against the India blob (and against proposed Persian blobs, as well). The idea of a single national identity in India is a strictly modern idea that was essentially created by people outside of India (chiefly Europeans but also, to a lesser extent, the Mughals).

If we are truly truly to go down the route of genetics though, even "Indians" in the modern sense and throughout much of history are not native to the subcontinent anyway! The Indus valley civilisation has recently been confirmed to contribute a genomic majority to most modern Indians, certainly in the northern and central belts. This is confirmed through genetic studies in IVC remains. The IVC - in turn - was inhabited by people of Iranian ancestry. If we delve further, a study last year showed that 3/4 of a sample of "Brahmins" are most probably originally genetically traceable to central Asia or the Fertile Crescent of the middle east.

On this basis, I have to conclude that if the Mughals can be summarily dismissed from Indian history because they aren't "Indian" enough, then the same would apply to most inhabitants of north and central India today, which includes EVERY single Civ leader ever put forward to represent the Indian civilisation.

If we're going to obsess over genetics to that level, I recommend having no civilizations, because none will qualify. Everyone is originally from somewhere else; there are no autochthonous people if you go back far enough. Again, at no point was anything in my post referring to genetics.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The valuable part of the "Viking civ" is to use a naval raiding mechanic, plus represent the very last of the "pagan germanic barbarians".
Meanwhile the religious+river trade civ could be done with an early Russian civ anyway.

But why?

To add to what was already explained there are reasons like politics, game design and marketing.

Countries like China and India could add a bunch of civs to the game, but add them could be seen as a challenge to their current vision of "National Unity" and generate controversy or even ban the game (in China). Of course Gurkani are a huge part of indian history but they are also for Pakistan, plus a deeper cultural likeness to their legacy for the later country. So Gurkani should be comprensible as part of pakistani history included muslim figures that were born and ruled from cities outside current India, while others great empires from India do not have that option. Finally, most civs only have a single leader in game because the limited resources and gameplay designs, sell Gurkani as a separeted civ open place for alternative indian leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

The valuable part of the "Viking civ" is to use a naval raiding mechanic, plus represent the very last of the "pagan germanic barbarians".

Maybe they'll actually be led by a pagan next time.

 

[Chekko]

Would be something if that 'Barbarian Clan' mode went with something like having Vikings as one of their clans, then once they got enough money, influence or whatever they grew into a strong City State or Civ. Which would work well with my wish to have some Civs come into the game later than others.

 

[General_Sahib]

Genetic origin was quite beside my point. I never once referenced genetics. My reference to the Mughals being Muslim Perso-Turks was emphasizing their cultural foreignness to India, not their genetic foreignness.


1) You're actually incorrect; the succeeding Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, and Norman invasions all had fairly negligible influence on the British genetic landscape. Numerous studies have shown that the genetic makeup of the British Isles has not changed significantly in the past several thousand years. 2) Um, what? A British or Anglo-Saxon civ would be very viable alongside an English civ; indeed, I'd be delighted to see an Anglo-Saxon civ--and puzzled to see an Anglo-Saxon leader tacked onto the English civ as it stands (much less trying someone like Boudicca or Cunobeline). I think a British civ would be considerably less desirable than a Gaulish civ given how little we know of pre-Roman Britons and how vigorously they assimilated to Roman culture afterwards, but they could be done. Even a Norman civ would be very doable, if not terribly desirable (I'd rather have Brittany myself if we're balkanizing France for some reason). 3) Genetics really has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of culture, which, as the British Isles show, cares very little about genes.


Yes, this is precisely what I'm proposing. Ditch India, and let's have a Chola civ, a Maurya or some other Indo-Aryan civ, and Mughals, too, as long as they don't squeeze out my Afghan/Durrani and Sogdia/Kushan/Hephthalite civs.


See, I see it as the other way around: "India" is the last great blob in the game, a relic of the surface level pop culture research of Civ1. India, as you point out, has a rich and varied history; the India civ makes as much sense as lumping Western Europe into a single civ. I am, by preference, a splitter, and I've consistently argued against the India blob (and against proposed Persian blobs, as well). The idea of a single national identity in India is a strictly modern idea that was essentially created by people outside of India (chiefly Europeans but also, to a lesser extent, the Mughals).


If we're going to obsess over genetics to that level, I recommend having no civilizations, because none will qualify. Everyone is originally from somewhere else; there are no autochthonous people if you go back far enough. Again, at no point was anything in my post referring to genetics.

Agree completely with your proposals for splitting the "Indian" civ down into several empires as an alternative to having multiple disparate representative leaderheads for a single unified India Civ. Perhaps your solution is better in fact.

Regarding the genetics, fair enough, but I could argue the same point about England from a cultural and linguistic stand point. In any case, excellent discussion and thanks for your insights.

 

[General_Sahib]

The valuable part of the "Viking civ" is to use a naval raiding mechanic, plus represent the very last of the "pagan germanic barbarians".
Meanwhile the religious+river trade civ could be done with an early Russian civ anyway.


To add to what was already explained there are reasons like politics, game design and marketing.

Countries like China and India could add a bunch of civs to the game, but add them could be seen as a challenge to their current vision of "National Unity" and generate controversy or even ban the game (in China). Of course Gurkani are a huge part of indian history but they are also for Pakistan, plus a deeper cultural likeness to their legacy for the later country. So Gurkani should be comprensible as part of pakistani history included muslim figures that were born and ruled from cities outside current India, while others great empires from India do not have that option. Finally, most civs only have a single leader in game because the limited resources and gameplay designs, sell Gurkani as a separeted civ open place for alternative indian leaders.

If we're bringing up a "Pakistani civ", why couldn't it be the Harappan or IVC civilisation in isolation, which is mostly based in modern coterminous Pakistan? This would make geographic and genetic sense for starters. While the physical entity of the IVC vanished, its legacy persists in Pakistan and much of northern central India. This could be distinct from Hindu empires and even from the Mughals mentioned in other posts.

Substantial splitting is possible in the subcontinent. @Zaarin thoughts on stand alone IVC, as in Humankind?

 

[Zaarin]

If we're bringing up a "Pakistani civ", why couldn't it be the Harappan or IVC civilisation in isolation, which is mostly based in modern coterminous Pakistan? This would make geographic and genetic sense for starters. While the physical entity of the IVC vanished, its legacy persists in Pakistan and much of northern central India. This could be distinct from Hindu empires and even from the Mughals mentioned in other posts.

Substantial splitting is possible in the subcontinent. @Zaarin thoughts on stand alone IVC, as in Humankind?

The problem is we have no leader names, no indigenous city names, and we don't know what language they spoke (Proto-Dravidian is a good bet, but that's supposition based on location). Some Harappan artifacts have glyphs on them that may or may not be writing, but that it is writing hasn't been proven and if it is writing it hasn't been deciphered. So the Harappans are in the same category as the Minoans*, the Olmecs, and other proto-historical civilizations: very worthy of inclusion but impossible under our current knowledge of them. Humankind is in a different position due to its lack of leaders and lack of need for indigenous language support. In Civ, any Harappan civ would be a construct of fantasy: it would have to either have archaeological sites or invented names for its cities, its leader wouldn't even be a mythical figure but a pure invention--even its abilities would be pretty speculative (we could probably find a reasonable unique infrastructure like a ritual bath, but we know very little about Harappan warfare except that it wouldn't be using horses or chariots since those were introduced by the Vedic Indo-Aryans). The Harappans are probably best kept as a city-state--or expanded into a minor civ if those become a thing in the future as many hope.


*I'm still hopeful that one day Linear A will be deciphered, and then a Minoan civ would become viable. However, every few years a linguist claims to have cracked Linear A, and it inevitably turns out that their methods are flawed and usually ideologically motivated. Kinda like the Voynich Manuscript. Best case scenario would be to find a bilingual text in Minoan and Phoenician or Minoan and Egyptian, both well-known trade partners of the Minoans.

 

[Yudhisthira]

If we consider Macedon with Alexander as a separate civ from Greece, I also think the Mughals could be seen as a separate civ from the rest of India. That being said Alexander's empire very much contributed to the spread of Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean world, just as the Mughals did contribute to the history of the Indian Subcontinent.

Don't agree with this argument for two reasons.
First this isn't a very right comparison, Macedon was a separate kingdom along with & outside the area of dominant Greek city states like Athens,Sparta etc.
It's a different context vis-a-vis Mughal empire in India, whose core territory,capital was situated in the cultural,political center of North India. I mean it was known as the empire of Hindustan for that reason.
Secondly,there is a better comparison of Macedon-Greek case in India, which is of Magadha in ancient India. A earlier relatively isolated kingdom, becomes powerful after 3rd,4th century B.C, defeat & conquer previous dominant powers, & ultimately form 1st mega-empire of it's region.
Infact once my history professor remarked, that one can see lot of parallels in ancient Greece & India, just like one can notice between Rome & Chinese civilization.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Of course Gurkani are a huge part of indian history but they are also for Pakistan, plus a deeper cultural likeness to their legacy for the later country. So Gurkani should be comprensible as part of pakistani history included muslim figures that were born and ruled from cities outside current India, while others great empires from India do not have that option.

I am all for deblobing India & China, but we should be careful while associating history with modern nation states.
The modern nation state of Pakistan & Pakistani people have as much(if not less) cultural connect with Mughal empire as North India. Muslims in Pakistan may share religion with the mughal dynasty but that they also do with 25% of current population of world. There is big difference in being of same culture & of same religion.

 

[Zaarin]

First this isn't a very right comparison, Macedon was a separate kingdom along with & outside the area of dominant Greek city states like Athens,Sparta etc.
It's a different context vis-a-vis Mughal empire in India, whose core territory,capital was situated in the cultural,political center of North India. I mean it was known as the empire of Hindustan for that reason.

I'd make the counter argument that it's much easier to distance the Mughals from India than it is to distance Macedon from Greece. Modern scholarship hasn't even settled the dispute as to whether or not the Macedonians were Hellenes, para-Hellenes, or just an unrelated Indo-European people--although there is general agreement that the opinion of the Athenians doesn't count for much. Plus, whether they were Hellenes or not, the Macedonians rigorously emulated the Greeks. By contrast, the Mughals held the Hindi in disdain, regarding the Persian culture they had long emulated as superior and only slowly syncretizing with Hindi culture. Also, you say the core territory of the Mughals was in Northern India, but that wasn't always true. Babur's original homeland was in Uzbekistan, and after he lost Uzbekistan he moved his core territory to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Mughals were descendants of the Timurids, and their initial core territory was in Central Asia. If we're going to argue for the later phase of the Mughal Empire when their empire was centered on Delhi, we may as well say that the Macedonian Empire was centered on Antioch or Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Syria. tl;dr: I think more or less the same arguments apply for balkanizing Macedon and the Mughals, and IMO there's actually a stronger argument for the Mughals since the Mughal Empire didn't fall to pieces ten minutes after Babur died. (Though I do appreciate that Macedon allowed us to treat Greece as something other than Alexander the Great: The Civ. If only we could do the same to Gilgamesh: The Civ. )

 

[BuchiTaton]

The modern nation state of Pakistan & Pakistani people have as much(if not less) cultural connect with Mughal empire as North India. Muslims in Pakistan may share religion with the mughal dynasty but that they also do with 25% of current population of world. There is big difference in being of same culture & of same religion.

The idea is to have a civ named Gurkani and not Pakistan, what Pakistan (also Afghanistan+Central Asia) add is a justification to introduce Gurkani as a civ that is not just Indian.

I am all for deblobing India & China, but we should be careful while associating history with modern nation states.

Say that to the indian and pakistani politicians not me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we're bringing up a "Pakistani civ", why couldn't it be the Harappan or IVC civilisation in isolation, which is mostly based in modern coterminous Pakistan? This would make geographic and genetic sense for starters. While the physical entity of the IVC vanished, its legacy persists in Pakistan and much of northern central India. This could be distinct from Hindu empires and even from the Mughals mentioned in other posts.

Substantial splitting is possible in the subcontinent. @Zaarin thoughts on stand alone IVC, as in Humankind?

As what was said above, unless Civ gets rid of leaders and spoken languages, it would be impossible to depict the Harappans as a full civ.

Don't agree with this argument for two reasons.
First this isn't a very right comparison, Macedon was a separate kingdom along with & outside the area of dominant Greek city states like Athens,Sparta etc.
It's a different context vis-a-vis Mughal empire in India, whose core territory,capital was situated in the cultural,political center of North India. I mean it was known as the empire of Hindustan for that reason.
Secondly,there is a better comparison of Macedon-Greek case in India, which is of Magadha in ancient India. A earlier relatively isolated kingdom, becomes powerful after 3rd,4th century B.C, defeat & conquer previous dominant powers, & ultimately form 1st mega-empire of it's region.
Infact once my history professor remarked, that one can see lot of parallels in ancient Greece & India, just like one can notice between Rome & Chinese civilization.

Kabul and Lahore were also considered capitals of the Mughal Empire at times as well, so no the political center wasn't always in India.
In fact the very founding of the empire was Babur coming down to conquer northern India from Kabul, which is why I see it similar to Alexander and Greece.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Modern scholarship hasn't even settled the dispute as to whether or not the Macedonians were Hellenes, para-Hellenes, or just an unrelated Indo-European people--although there is general agreement that the opinion of the Athenians doesn't count for much. Plus, whether they were Hellenes or not, the Macedonians rigorously emulated the Greeks.

Yes, it is actually quite similar with magadha case in ancient India, which was seen as some sort of semi-barbarian area not fit for vedic sacrifices earlier. Gradually outer regions like Magadha, Avanti became more dominating vs the previous Kuru-Panchal states.

By contrast, the Mughals held the Hindi in disdain, regarding the Persian culture they had long emulated as superior and only slowly syncretizing with Hindi culture. Also, you say the core territory of the Mughals was in Northern India, but that wasn't always true. Babur's original homeland was in Uzbekistan, and after he lost Uzbekistan he moved his core territory to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Mughals were descendants of the Timurids, and their initial core territory was in Central Asia.

I believe with 'held hindu in disdain', you are referring to Babur words on Hindustan in baburnama where he dislike the country,climate & people. Well isnt that case with almost every conquerors, I mean the invading Manchus doesn't like Hans in China. & Tbh nobody likes to leave home & migrate to any alien place generally.
Infact when Jahangir & Shahjahan later send army on Afghanistan & balkh campaign, the mughal army was uncomfortable with climate,environment & wanted to return home asap which resulted in loss of strategic fort of kandhar to safavids.

& I m not arguing that Babur & his predecessor empire was Indian. I m arguing for the empire of Hindustan which began truly under Akbar. It was Akbar who turn the small north Indian power into an empire. His policy of integrating & having marital ties with Rajputs made the empire stable. Many of his top generals were Rajputs. Also culture & administration wise the mughal empire also owe a lot to earlier Sur empire of Sher Shah Suri.
His decision of making Persian as court language also doesn't show dislike of Hindus rather it was continuation of earlier practice,Persian at that time was lingua-franca of elites due to earlier persianate state of delhi Sultanates.
Infact it was under mughal kings particularly after Akbar that central power had best relations with local ruling nobility after a long time. Many scholars consider it crucial on why the mughals were able to establish a stable empire which previous persianate state like delhi Sultanate couldn't.

The idea is to have a civ named Gurkani and not Pakistan, what Pakistan (also Afghanistan+Central Asia) add is a justification to introduce Gurkani as a civ that is not just Indian.

The idea is most welcome, It just that let's not make a meme out it by connecting it to modern nation state. There were actually attempts by Pakistan government minister to label Harrapan civilization as ancient Pakistan recently.
There r ofcourse more historically,geographically sound terms for these regions like Indus valley, Punjab,Balkh,Gandhar,Khorasan,Kandhar etc.

Say that to the indian and pakistani politicians not me.

Well why limit only to India/Pakistan. It's quite a world problem. But I don't think they will listen, because they are the 'POLITICIANS' after all.

 

[Zaarin]

Kabul and Lahore were also considered capitals of the Mughal Empire at times as well, so no the political center wasn't always in India.
In fact the very founding of the empire was Babur coming down to conquer northern India from Kabul, which is why I see it similar to Alexander and Greece.

Can't have Kabul. That goes to the Durrani. (Ahmad Shah's capital would be Kandahar, of course, but Kabul would probably be city #2 on the list. )

I believe with 'held hindu in disdain', you are referring to Babur words on Hindustan in baburnama where he dislike the country,climate & people. Well isnt that case with almost every conquerors, I mean the invading Manchus doesn't like Hans in China. & Tbh nobody likes to leave home & migrate to any alien place generally.

I'm not trying to single out the Mughals here (and yes, I was referring to Babur and Baburnama). I was just including it, among other arguments, why I think a Mughal civ could stand on its own, and as a contrast to the intense Hellenophilia of the Macedonian leaders.

& I m not arguing that Babur & his predecessor empire was Indian. I m arguing for the empire of Hindustan which began truly under Akbar. It was Akbar who turn the small north Indian power into an empire. His policy of integrating & having marital ties with Rajputs made the empire stable. Many of his top generals were Rajputs. Also culture & administration wise the mughal empire also owe a lot to earlier Sur empire of Sher Shah Suri.
Also his decision of making Persian as court language also doesn't show dislike of Hindus rather it was continuation of earlier practice,Persian at that time was lingua-franca of elites due to earlier persianate state of delhi Sultanates.
Infact it was under mughal kings particularly after Akbar that central power had best relations with local ruling nobility after a long time. Many scholars consider it crucial on why the mughals were able to establish a stable empire which previous persianate state like delhi Sultanate couldn't.

I agree with this, and I mentioned briefly above that I'd credit the Mughals in part with creating an Indian identity. If India is kept as a civ, I think the Mughals could be balkanized from it or included as leaders of India. There are arguments both ways. What I'm arguing for is not having a civ called India and having Mughals, Chola, and Maurya (as examples) instead.

Well why limit only to India/Pakistan. It's quite a world problem. But I don't think they will listen, because they are the 'POLITICIANS' after all.

Indeed.

 

[General_Sahib]

There were actually attempts by Pakistan government minister to label Harrapan civilization as ancient Pakistan recently.

What is in a name though? Nomenclature in the subcontinent is a fascinating mental exercise. Let us speculate, without the inherent biases of associating contemporaneous religions to ancient geography.

Had the modern nation state of Pakistan been given the name "India" because of its connection to the Indus, by virtue of being the bulk of the "India" known to Alexander and Herodotus outside of the gangetic plains and the Nanda empire beyond the Indus, by being the genetic primordial "India" of the Harappan civilisation (a genomic contribution which now dominates the modern genome across most of the nation states of Pakistan and north/central India), then it wouldn't seem odd at all that the IVC/M-D should be regarded as the ancient precursor of this alternate reality "India". The only thing which confuses this paradigm in our minds is the names that we or the British empire or Nehru and Jinnah bequeathed unto these nation states. I believe it makes complete sense to regard coterminous Pakistan as a successor of the ancient IVC.

Similarly, had the nation state of India taken a different name at inception (which as per some sources wasn't far off), the link to ancient Indus valley settlements would be inherently weakened. A Gangadesh or Bharat would have the genetic link but little else, whereas an "India" actually centred around the IVC would have genetic and geographical justification to regard itself a descendant of this ancient land.

The point being made is that the words "Pakistan" and "India" (in its modern iteration) can easily mislead.

I don't wish to stray too much but this interesting conversation does ultimately bring us back to the point that a distinct Harappan civilisation - unrelated to Gandhi's "India" that we have already had in every Civ to date - is justified historically and geographically. Other posters are absolutely right though that it is technically impossible in Civ because of language constraints etc.

Proto-Dravidian is a good bet, but that's supposition based on location

Possibly a bit too speculative. The archaeogenetic and linguistic timelines don't fit with the inference that the IVC gave rise to a Dravidian language tree. On the contrary, we know the Harrapans and the Indus periphery cline were largely of Iranian derivation genetically, mixing with a smaller portion of very ancient "south Indian" (?Andamanese but I am not entirely sure on that) ancestry, plausibly exchanging words (I believe there is some current speculation over the word for elephant spreading from a Dravidian root towards the west even into Mesopotamia), but it remains a stretch to infer anything beyond that, and applying the label "proto-Dravidian" does seem to stretch things thusly. All we know with some degree of certainty is that the IVC didn't speak an Indo-European language because those guys came a lot later to the subcontinent.

 

[Zaarin]

Had the modern nation state of Pakistan been given the name "India" because of its connection to the Indus, by virtue of being the bulk of the "India" known to Alexander and Herodotus outside of the gangetic plains and the Nanda empire beyond the Indus, by being the genetic primordial "India" of the Harappan civilisation (a genomic contribution which now dominates the modern genome across most of the nation states of Pakistan and north/central India), then it wouldn't seem odd at all that the IVC/M-D should be regarded as the ancient precursor of this alternate reality "India". The only thing which confuses this paradigm in our minds is the names that we or the British empire or Nehru and Jinnah bequeathed unto these nation states. I believe it makes complete sense to regard coterminous Pakistan as a successor of the ancient IVC.

I'd prefer to say Harappa has no successor. I mean, genetically, yes, absolutely probably everyone in the region is their descendent, but culturally they left very minimal traces in the society of their Indo-Aryan conquerors. Civilizations come to an end, and the next people to inhabit the region aren't necessarily successors in the sense of inheritors of the culture that came before them. E.g., the Achaemenids may be said to have succeeded Babylon and Assyria in a sense, but the Seleucids and Parthians pretty well broke that succession that the same can't really be said for the Sassanians. There is no modern successor of Babylon. Likewise, the United States is not a successor of the Iroquois or Powhatan or Mississippians; we just happen to occupy the same territory.

Possibly a bit too speculative. The archaeogenetic and linguistic timelines don't fit with the inference that the IVC gave rise to a Dravidian language tree. On the contrary, we know the Harrapans and the Indus periphery cline were largely of Iranian derivation genetically, mixing with a smaller portion of very ancient "south Indian"

Assuming by Iranian you mean the other half of the Indo-Iranian tree, I'm very, very doubtful. Good archaeological evidence shows that the Iranians stayed in Central Asia well after the Indo-Aryans moved into India (and one stray group ended up in Anatolia as the Mitanni elite), before moving north and west--not south and east. If we're speaking genetically of people from Iran, then this may be a point in favor of the somewhat dubious Dravido-Elamite hypothesis. Or it simply means that the Elamites and Harappans were in contact, which I think goes without saying since Harappa and Babylon traded--and the Elamites would be obvious middlemen along the way.

(I believe there is some current speculation over the word for elephant spreading from a Dravidian root towards the west even into Mesopotamia)

No, the Semitic and Indo-European words for elephant are securely traced to Egyptian etymologies.

applying the label "proto-Dravidian" does seem to stretch things thusly. All we know with some degree of certainty is that the IVC didn't speak an Indo-European language because those guys came a lot later to the subcontinent.

Yes. Again, the supposition about Proto-Dravidian is based purely on geography. In all likelihood, we will never know what the Harappans spoke (which may be more than one language; a similar culture can thrive among people who speak multiple languages--e.g., some Sumerians spoke Akkadian, like Sargon of Akkad; the Mississippians spoke a wide range of Muskogean, Siouan, Algonquian, Iroquoian, and other languages; the Maya spoke dozens of Mayan languages; etc.). Associating Proto-Dravidian and the Harappans is on much, much shakier ground than the association between the Olmecs and Proto-Mixe-Zoquean.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

ok

what if

...there wasn't a set number of civs per game? if a state has a crisis, it can split into two civs

ergo, you may encounter dozens of civs in just one subcontinent (COUGH COUGH EUROPE) and bring them down to just 3 in the course of several turns

Especially if you could form other nations, or keep playing after you lose as long as some state somewhere shares your culture.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Based off of my idea to have Cultural groups to which Civilizations belong:

Color code of Cultures:
African
Amerindian
Colonial
Eastern
Mediterranean
Mesoamerican
Middle-Eastern
Northern
Occidental
Oriental
Subcontinental

Civilization VII: “Novus Ordo Seclorum”
Base Game

1. America - Thomas Jefferson & Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Apache - Geronimo
3. Babylon - Hammurabi
4. China - Chiang Chung-cheng
5. Egypt - Akhenaten
6. England - Edward III or Henry VII
7. France - Louis IX or Charles de Gaulle
8. Germany - Kaiser Wilhelm II
9. Gran Colombia - Simón Bolívar
10. Greece - Leonidas
11. Italy - Cosimo de' Medici
12. Japan - Meiji
13. Judea - Judas Maccabeus
14. Maya - Cauac Sky
15. Persia - Cyrus
16. Polynesia - Liliʻuokalani
17. Spain - Isabella
18. Swedes - Ragnar Lodbrok

DLC I: “Ab Æterno”
Focusing on Ancient Civilizations

1. Assyria - Tiglath-Pileser III
   
2. Brits - Boudica, Brutus, Coel, or Leir
3. Carthage - Hannibal
4. Danes - Hroðgar
5. Rome - Lucius Junius Brutus

Expansion I: “Annuit Cœptis”
Focusing on Religion

1. Anglo Saxons - Alfred the Great
2. Arabia - Harun al-Rashid
3. Byzantium - Julian the Apostate & Alexios I Komnenos
4. Ethiopia - Haile Selassie
5. Holy Romans - Charlemagne
6. Ottomans - Mehmed II
7. Outremer - Godfrey of Bouillon
8. Papal States - Urban II or Innocent III
9. Tibet - a Dali Lama

DLC II: “Ex Oriente Lux”
Introducing Eastern and Subcontinental Cultures

1. Huns - Etzel
2. India - Gandhi
3. Mongols - Kublai Khan
4. Russia - Gorbachev or Khrushchev
5. Siam - Ramkhamhaeng

Expansion Pack II: “Terra Incognita”
Focusing on Colonization

1. Argentina – Eva Peron
2. Aztec - Montezuma
3. Brazil - Pedro II
4. Great Britain - Elizabeth
5. Inca - Pachacuti
6. México - Hernán Cortés
7. Powhatan - Pocahontas
8. Shoshone - Sacagawea
9. Sioux - Sitting Bull & Crazy Horse

Expansion III: “Plus Ultra”
Focusing on exploration and minor factions

1. Austria - Charles V
2. Belgium - Leopold II
3. Dutch - William of Orange
4. Indochina - Lady Triệu
5. Korea - Sejong
6. Mali - Mansa Musa
7. Portugal - Henry the Navigator
8. Switzerland
9. Zulu - Shaka

 

[Ryansinbela]

Please no Pocahontas or Sacagawea

 

[FishFishFish]

I'd be quite disappointed if there was no Islamic leader, Indian civ or Russia in the base game personally.