I think I'm coming around on this civ switching implementation, but it depends

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Same. I only see 3 real possibilities for a 1700-2020 AD India:

You missed the Maratha, Sikhs and Mysore, to name just three

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I was limiting myself to those that covered the majority of India. Otherwise, yes, there are endless possibilities.

The Maratha covered more or less the same territory as the Mughals

 

[Sekou]

Thematically, it simply makes little sense to switch civs. It would make more sense to switch LEADERS when a new era dawns. I like the concept of eras and changing things up with the switching mechanic, but to me switching civs just doesn't make sense. Personally, I'm much more attached to the Civ I select- the leader is borderline immaterial.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Same. I only see 3 real possibilities for a 1700-2020 AD India:

1. Mughal, which starts its strong decline shortly after this period starts, but at its peak covered most of India and has very strong modern name recognition and a distinct identity. It could also be unlocked from the Mongols (if one squints at the history sideways enough), making for interesting connections.

Being at peak is the result not the way. It make more sense to fit the civ to the time period of their rise to power since your uniques would allow to you to build that empire. Just play the result of that empire in decline is a thematic and gameplay fail.

1. British Raj, which covered all of India (and more, depending on how one defines India), and had hegemonic control for about 2/3 of the period in question. But it is, obviously, completely unacceptable to a modern audience to have a core representation of India be one where it is under a foreign Imperial yoke. And while the Mughal are somewhat foreign to India, the British are obviously far more so.

The current political situation make it more convenient for nationalist to hate on the Mughals than on GB.

1. Republic of India, covers all of India (if we don't consider Pakistan and Bangladesh as part of India civilization) but only for the last ~80 years. Hence not only is it rather brief coverage but it also means that any way its presented risks being political. The game has traditionally had very few post WW2 leaders when they could be avoided.

Like many I was tired of Gandhi+Modern India so is nice to have something different, but by themselves is clear that neither of the two were a problem. On the contrary this representation of India is more justified that never since is clear than an unified Indian Republic is a significative change in their history.

So looking at the list, I can see why they went for 1. It doesn't fit the timeline particularly well, but it does tick all the other boxes perfectly.

Like was said Marathas together with Mughal would fit better the Exploration Age. From AoE2 India representation vs AoE3 and AoE4 we can learn than Indian reception is better when it address the fragmented and struggling nature of their history. People prefer to recreate the competition between different powers than be represented by one perceived as foreign.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Mughals were probably chosen for Act 3 because you need a natural endpoint for the Persia/Abbasids, India and Mongol paths in Act 2, and the Mughals accomodate all three.

 

[King Flevance]

Haha, well investigated - did you also take a 6 year hiatus?

Civilization departs so much from history, not just in what happens, but also in its fundamental mechanics, that talking about realism or historical accuracy makes no sense to me. Being historically flavoured is the closest that Civilization comes to history. This flavour is vitally important to Civilization games, and is definitely changed by civ-swapping. But its impact is almost completely unrelated to questions of accuracy, because there is virtually none to speak of in the game anyway. Whether you like the new flavours or not is completely subjective, so there's nothing worth arguing about here.

I somehow missed this response over the weekend. I did actually take a long hiatus. It was probably closer to 10 years due to life becoming very consuming. I popped back in here and there, mostly to see what the community was up to. Civ 6's release had me get a get a little more involved briefly. Now that life has become less so, I will probably be around through 7's lifespan at least.

I agree with the sentiment I quoted as this is why the civ swapping doesn't bother me personally. The bit that I snipped regarding the catchphrase, I think we both just see it two different ways. While I don't view it the same as you, I understand why you view it that way. It is an interesting point you bring up about the crises. I don't even necessarily dislike the new system. I seem to be in the minority of people who actually enjoyed it in Humankind. I do have concerns but I will wait to see how it plays before making a judgement. Plus, I don't expect any new implementation like this to fly right out of the gate. I suspect we will see patches and changes through expansions after Firaxis hears feedback. They are good about that.