Humankind - Mauryans discussion thread

[conorbebe]

The Nabataeans, who built Petra, would be a good choice for a Classical Builder culture in my opinion. But then again East Asia ought to get some representation, so maybe they're better saved for DLC.

Perhaps, but I would say they'd better fit being Merchant. Their whole civilisation sorta centres around trade routes after all.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Perhaps, but I would say they'd better fit being Merchant. Their whole civilisation sorta centres around trade routes after all.

Agreed, it was a Trade-Based and Trade-Dependent polity, but they also had extensive hydraulic/irrigation systems, so like the Harappans already confirmed in the game, they could be Agrarian, as well as Builder for their iconic architecture.

One of the intriguing things about a system which tries to reduce a group to a single element, like both Humankind and Civ, is that there is almost always more than one element that can be singled out at the discretion of the Designer. That means the Nabateans could be Merchant, Builder, or Agrarian depending on which way they want to 'aim' the Faction, just as Rome could be Expansionist, Builder, or Militarist depending on which Rome at what time and which Emperor/Consul you are trying to represent.

 

[bite]

It will be interesting to see if we get more than one Indian culture

 

[Siptah]

It will be interesting to see if we get more than one Indian culture

You don‘t count the Harappans as Indians? They are from the part of the subcontinent that gave it its name, so despite the cultural differences, I think we already have two of them.

 

[mitsho]

I expect the Moghuls in early modern or industrial and a modern India. There are just not that many other options and you have far fewer difficulties in naming than if you f.e. want to do both a revolutionary or civil War United States as well as the modern juggernaut.

So the question is rather why not have those "four" indias?

 

[Siptah]

I expect the Moghuls in early modern or industrial and a modern India. There are just not that many other options and you have far fewer difficulties in naming than if you f.e. want to do both a revolutionary or civil War United States as well as the modern juggernaut.

So the question is rather why not have those "four" indias?

I'm not sure about modern India. You can only have 10 modern countries, and I think in Asia we'll see at the very most 3, counting the Soviet Union as European. Besides India, there's PRC, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Bhutan, Indonesia, Iran, UAE, Israel and Turkey as viable options, so I think, for me personally, there are more interesting choices than a fourth India. Yet, the leaked maps, sadly, seem to indicate modern India (not 100% sure on this interpretation).
Mughals would be nice.
And not really India, but united Nepal or even Medieval Malla would make a nice addition as well - probably not in Vanilla though.

 

[bite]

You don‘t count the Harappans as Indians? They are from the part of the subcontinent that gave it its name, so despite the cultural differences, I think we already have two of them.

Should have added a more in that sentence

 

[Elhoim]

I'm not sure about modern India. You can only have 10 modern countries, and I think in Asia we'll see at the very most 3, counting the Soviet Union as European. Besides India, there's PRC, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Bhutan, Indonesia, Iran, UAE, Israel and Turkey as viable options, so I think, for me personally, there are more interesting choices than a fourth India. Yet, the leaked maps, sadly, seem to indicate modern India (not 100% sure on this interpretation).
Mughals would be nice.
And not really India, but united Nepal or even Medieval Malla would make a nice addition as well - probably not in Vanilla though.

Something to keep in mind, I think, is that in the modern (contemporary in the game) era we'll get countries that appeared in the contemporary era, along with the ones that appeared in the industrial era. For example, USA would be an industrial era Civ, same for any other that appeared between 1750 and 1840 (modern France and Spain, Mexico, Brasil, Colombia, Argentina, Greece), so that frees up some slots for states that appeared in the late 19th or 20th century.

 

[Siptah]

Something to keep in mind, I think, is that in the modern (contemporary in the game) era we'll get countries that appeared in the contemporary era, along with the ones that appeared in the industrial era. For example, USA would be an industrial era Civ, same for any other that appeared between 1750 and 1840 (modern France and Spain, Mexico, Brasil, Colombia, Argentina, Greece), so that frees up some slots for states that appeared in the late 19th or 20th century.

Possibly. A lot of the industrial era nations might also work well for keeping, at least hopefully they do.

But some "modern countries" might still be in both eras: 13 colonies could be expansionist or agrarian in the industrial era and then in the contemporary era, you could have a scienctist or militaristic USA. Or Russia and the Soviet Union, which also would have different focus. France und Spain would indeed be strange pics for the contemporary era, but the EU for example would be a valid end-game tag. Also, it's not just about a nations "founding date", so Brazil and the USA might still be contemporary (and the screenshots show that both were that at least at one point). Argentina had it's peak in the 1920s I think, so wherever that would be in the eras...

Modern India is far from the worst pick with just 10 slots, sure not. But wouldn't a state with a more standout concept, such as Iran, Israel, UAE, or Bhutan be more refreshing? PRC is already confirmed, and I think either South Korea or Japan are more than likely.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I expect the Moghuls in early modern or industrial and a modern India. There are just not that many other options and you have far fewer difficulties in naming than if you f.e. want to do both a revolutionary or civil War United States as well as the modern juggernaut.

So the question is rather why not have those "four" indias?

I realy want Chola for medieval India. Would be great to have them as a trade (naval) culture, even their emblematic unit could be something different from the elephant meme, they have some exotic weapons options like Valari and the Urumi.

Now about the Modern, Industrial and Contemporary cultures, my picks are:

- Early Modern: Spain, Dutch Republic, Poland-Lithuania, Ottoman, Mughal, Toungoo (Burma), Qing (Manchuria), Joseon, Kongo and Inca.
- Industrial: United Kingdom, French Empire, Austria-Hungary, Kingdom of Italy, Russian Empire, Durrani (Afghanistan), Siam, Japan, Ethiopia and Great Colombia.
- Contemporary: Germany, Soviet Union, Israel, Republic of India, Indonesia, PRC, Vietnam, South Africa, Brazil and USA.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

I think industrial era culture will be viable to the end game and the contemporary choices will offer some last minute opportunities to pivot your focus or give you a boost at the expense of bonus fame if you'd stuck with your previous civ.

 

[Elhoim]

New shot for them.

 

[Jcturmer]

New shot for them.

The size of their ears... Is this an AFRICAN elephant?

 

[conorbebe]

The size of their ears... Is this an AFRICAN elephant?

Indeed, the ears are far too large for an Indian elephant, plus it's missing the distinctive bumps/domes that should be on top of the head.

I do hope the models we're seeing here are unfinished, as it pales in comparison to the artwork revealed on Tuesday. Where has all the detailing gone? The patterning, vibrant blues, and painted howdah?

 

[Siptah]

There are some strange towers and canals in that screenshot.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

A remark about this screenshot:
We made a small mistake when creating this screenshot with the dev tools. As we have mentioned before, City Centers and Emblematic Quarters don't change appearance as you advance through the Eras, and Emblematic Quarters can only be built while you play that culture. As such, a city founded in the Classical Age by the Mauryans would not be able to build an Astronomy House. The idea our artist had for this setup was that the Mauryan City Center was attached later than the Astronomy House was built, but they forgot to include the original "nucleus" of this cluster of Quarters (A Babylonian City Center, or certain other quarters that can be placed somewhat freely.)
However, that does not mean this situation is entirely impossible in the game: If (transcended?) Babylonians had conquered a Mauryan city, they would be able to construct the Astronomy House there.
Clearly, the elephants are now standing guard over the retaken city to avoid further embarrassment...


Also, I have passed your reaction to the elephants along to the artists.