India

[Patine]

If we have white rulers in Africa, as Cleoptra leading Egypt, why not have black leading an Indian sultanate?

I've never been a fan of Cleopatra, the Greco-Hellenistic descendant of one of Alexander's Diadochi, as the main ruler of Egypt. I would prefer an actual EGYPTIAN Pharaoh, someone like Rameses II, Ankenaten, Hatshepsut, Senusret III, or Djoser - but none of them were described as, "black," nor as, "white," racially.

 

[GeneralZift]

Are people super intent on splitting the Indians into several sub-indian (so to say) empires?
I'm kind of content with just "India" as I am with just "Arabia" and "China" despite the centuries of different empires that made them up...

The generalisation is something that is made for several reasons, chief among them, is to avoid overrepresentation, and also so that new players don't get confused by names for Empires that haven't been heard in like 500 years.

 

[Patine]

Are people super intent on splitting the Indians into several sub-indian (so to say) empires?
I'm kind of content with just "India" as I am with just "Arabia" and "China" despite the centuries of different empires that made them up...

The generalisation is something that is made for several reasons, chief among them, is to avoid overrepresentation, and also so that new players don't get confused by names for Empires that haven't been heard in like 500 years.

The difference is that Arabs and Chinese have long, long viewed THEMSELVES as historically one people, nation, and culture, whereas India was only GIVEN that identity by British colonialism starting in the 18th Century.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I need to disagree when you said Ahmednagar don't add diversity. It's add diversity of the sultanates of Deccan plateau and also add diversity of Blacks outside Africa.
If we have white rulers in Africa, as Cleoptra leading Egypt, why not have black leading an Indian sultanate?

It can happens in Civ 9 or civ 300. But I want to see that's happening. It will happens when Fireaxis understand Black diversity is also important outside Africa. I want to see this happening in the game when Haiti and Seminole (with leaders as Negro Abraham) was also add. And I hope this diversity come soon as possible in Civ7.

I mean Malik Ambar adding diversity to the game is subjective, in my opinion. I mean he came from Ethiopia which we will pretty much be guaranteed to get Ethiopia anyway with a leader from Ethiopia.

In that case why not have a Mughal leader who would be of Turkic/Central Asian origin, Chola of Tamil, and Maurya/Gupta which takes care of Northern India?

Are people super intent on splitting the Indians into several sub-indian (so to say) empires?
I'm kind of content with just "India" as I am with just "Arabia" and "China" despite the centuries of different empires that made them up...

The generalisation is something that is made for several reasons, chief among them, is to avoid overrepresentation, and also so that new players don't get confused by names for Empires that haven't been heard in like 500 years.

I don't necessarily mind the name given to them either way.
What I do want from in Civ 7 at least is Ashoka as a leader and a separate Mughal civ, which could kind of also represent Central Asia just as much, if you include Afghanistan. Whether it's Ashoka leading India, or Ashoka leading the Maurya Empire, I don't care.

 

[FishFishFish]

is to avoid overrepresentation

The second most populous region in the entire world getting 3-4 civs is not overrepresentation. An ethnic group spanning from Morocco to Oman getting more civs is also not overrepresentation. Overrepresentation is 2 Greek leaders, Macedon, a Ptolemaic Egyptian pharaoh and Byzantium.

I am fine with China staying as one civ because barring internal disunity, China pretty much was a massive blob for most of its history (I think they should have more alt leaders tho). Historically India hasn’t been as unified and civ should reflect that.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I've never been a fan of Cleopatra, the Greco-Hellenistic descendant of one of Alexander's Diadochi, as the main ruler of Egypt. I would prefer an actual EGYPTIAN Pharaoh, someone like Rameses II, Ankenaten, Hatshepsut, Senusret III, or Djoser - but none of them were described as, "black," nor as, "white," racially.

Here is not the right place to discuss the ethinicity of Egyptians. I know that is a very polemic issue. If you want to discuss it we can go to the Africa Thread.
But, despite theses leaders you said are not "black" and not "white". I would argue Rameses II is more black than it was represented in Civ 5.
And by nowadays standart what ethinicity is, they was black. Maybe don't so black as Nubians, but also have a darker skin than the people of Levante (middle east).

I mean Malik Ambar adding diversity to the game is subjective, in my opinion. I mean he came from Ethiopia which we will pretty much be guaranteed to get Ethiopia anyway with a leader from Ethiopia.

Malik Ambar come from Ethiopia, but he isn't from Ethiopian main group who make the kingship, he is from Oromo klan who suffered the enslavement by Christians and Muslims in Ethiopia. That being said, I don't see Oromo become a civ, since they still today part of Ethiopia (even if they are fighting for independence still this day). So, Malik Ambar not will just add diversitiy of enslaved people who become strong rulers, but also add Oromo diversity.

 

[Patine]

And by nowadays standart what ethinicity is, they was black. Maybe don't so black as Nubians, but also have a darker skin than the people of Levante (middle east).

"Nowadays?" No, I think you mean by the standards of that obsolete, debunked, racist German scientist with the, "three race theory," you were pushing hard when you first logged in here. Not, "nowadays standard."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Malik Ambar come from Ethiopia, but he isn't from Ethiopian main group who make the kingship, he is from Oromo klan who suffered the enslavement by Christians and Muslims in Ethiopia. That being said, I don't see Oromo become a civ, since they still today part of Ethiopia (even if they are fighting for independence still this day). So, Malik Ambar not will just add diversitiy of enslaved people who become strong rulers, but also add Oromo diversity.

Which we have also had in the form of Ethiopia's UU, the Oromo Cavalry.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I mean Malik Ambar adding diversity to the game is subjective, in my opinion. I mean he came from Ethiopia which we will pretty much be guaranteed to get Ethiopia anyway with a leader from Ethiopia.

Malik Ambar come from Ethiopia, but he isn't from Ethiopian main group who make the kingship, he is from Oromo klan who suffered the enslavement by Christians and Muslims in Ethiopia. That being said, I don't see Oromo become a civ, since they still today part of Ethiopia (even if they are fighting for independence still this day). So, Malik Ambar not will just add diversitiy of enslaved people who become strong rulers, but also add Oromo diversity.

Which we have also had in the form of Ethiopia's UU, the Oromo Cavalry.

Were Malik Ambar simply Ethiopian (with continuity through the present), I would still think his navigation of the political landscape of Deccan sultanates an impressive feat. From what I can tell, the question of his Oromo origins is not represented by the Oromo Cavalry. Rather, his belonging to a marginalized group that was often enslaved, forcibly converted to Christianity and Islam, and then sold abroad is hardly encapsulated by the following Civilopedia entry:

The word “Oromo” refers to the dominant ethnic group in Ethiopia, making up about a third of the total population. The Oromo at times had their own kingdom, language and religion (although in present-day Ethiopia they are evenly split between Muslims and Christians).

Civilization may not be the right platform for exploring this past. And as mentioned, I do not think Malik Ambar leading the Ahmadnagar Sultanate would be representative of India in the near future. That said, he sure led an interesting life leading this Deccan sultanate. For this, I would again suggest a wildcard pick that would come outside discussion of Indian representation, with no specific pressure on Civ VII. Some due diligence would also necessitate addressing concerns from the people of Ethiopia and India, as well as specifically the Siddi, I would gather.

 

[GeneralZift]

The second most populous region in the entire world getting 3-4 civs is not overrepresentation. An ethnic group spanning from Morocco to Oman getting more civs is also not overrepresentation. Overrepresentation is 2 Greek leaders, Macedon, a Ptolemaic Egyptian pharaoh and Byzantium.

I am fine with China staying as one civ because barring internal disunity, China pretty much was a massive blob for most of its history (I think they should have more alt leaders tho). Historically India hasn’t been as unified and civ should reflect that.

I'm not against more leaders, more representative leaders of different cultures of India.
But, what do you expect, next Civ game has no India or Gandhi but it has 4 other empires in its place?
I'm not against your line of thought, but you must also think from the perspective of the game Devs.
I hate to say it because I'll get flak for it but India / Gandhi is iconic to the series.
As much as I want others, like Civ 6's Chandragupta.

 

[FishFishFish]

I never said I expect it to happen. This is a place for ideas, not predictions.

I expect India to continue to be led by Gandhi and to have one (hopefully not Mauryan) alt leader in a future DLC.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'm not against more leaders, more representative leaders of different cultures of India.
But, what do you expect, next Civ game has no India or Gandhi but it has 4 other empires in its place?
I'm not against your line of thought, but you must also think from the perspective of the game Devs.
I hate to say it because I'll get flak for it but India / Gandhi is iconic to the series.
As much as I want others, like Civ 6's Chandragupta.

Maybe Gandhi with nukes are iconic to the series, but I guess the time of Gandhi is over and he must be replaced for some civs.
Will still Alexander of Greece and Shaka Zulu as iconic member of the series who never was out.

 

[Evie]

In my opinion given how scarce civs are 4 for India would be grossly over the top. Four indian civs almost certainly means losing outmon civs from other parts of Asia, or even other non-Europe continents altogether.

I could see the case for having one Northern Hindu (Gupta or Maurya) and one Southern Indian (Chola or Vijayanagar) civ, probably rotating between these various spots, given how large and diverse India is, but more would be in excess given the impact on other civs.

 

[Yudhisthira]

I don't think that India is going to get 3,4 or more civs any time soon but regions of India,China & Central Asia do require more representation & only place to cut for it is Europe.
& contrary to prevailing sentiment here, I m of the view that only one Chinese civ is not enough to cover the large geography as well long history of the China.

 

[Evie]

Problem is, European cuts are never going to happen in meaningful amounts because the market value and fanbase of Eurocivs are ludicrously unreasonable (and by and large, most of the most popular suggestion for additional civs are *more European ones*) so any suggestion for adding representation to any part of the world has to take the scarcity of non-European slots into account.

It's not fair, but it's what civ is.

 

[Patine]

I don't think that India is going to get 3,4 or more civs any time soon but regions of India,China & Central Asia do require more representation & only place to cut for it is Europe.
& contrary to prevailing sentiment here, I m of the view that only one Chinese civ is not enough to cover the large geography as well long history of the China.

China is more likely to get alternate leaders than be broken up into more civ's. China had the notion of, "nationhood," built around the Han and their subjects for much longer, and continuously so, than most cultures. Even in periods of division (the Summer and Autumn Period, the Warring States Period, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, and the Jin-Song Wars), it was not viewed as a, "Balkanization," but a race and struggle to regain the Mandate of Heaven and reunify China. Even foreign Dynasties (like the Yuan and Qing) used the Mandate of Heaven to solidify their power. And, even post Empire, Sun Yat-sen, then Chiang Kai-shek, and then Mao Zedong and all PRC leaders after, took the view that China was also inherently indivisible. For this reason, I'd say breaking up China into multiple civ's just because of geographic, population, temporal, or cultural bandwidth is highly unlikely.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Problem is, European cuts are never going to happen in meaningful amounts because the market value and fanbase of Eurocivs are ludicrously unreasonable (and by and large, most of the most popular suggestion for additional civs are *more European ones*) so any suggestion for adding representation to any part of the world has to take the scarcity of non-European slots into account.

It's not fair, but it's what civ is.

Yes, that is the case at least for now & I don't see it changing very rapidly anytime soon. Yet with expanding market & demand in Asia, I do think we might see increase in representation of these regions gradually, may be by civ 8 .

.

Yeah, that has been a very solid & dominating narrative on China also ofcourse being pushed by the Government & to some extent also explain the lack of more civs from the region despite the rise of China economically & hence rise of demands of such games.
I am not going to argue for deblobing of Han-China now,since it's much more complicated but the regions outside the traditional Han territory both in past & in present,like in Yunnan,Xinjiang, can be represented separately.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Yunnan,Xinjiang, can be represented separately.

Despite I'm against debloobing of China, I was curious now, why do you think Yunnan and Xinjiang can be a separete civ?
If I would choice some provinces of China to be a separete civ I would choice Tibet or Uyghurs.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Despite I'm against debloobing of China, I was curious now, why do you think Yunnan and Xinjiang can be a separete civ?
If I would choice some provinces of China to be a separete civ I would choice Tibet or Uyghurs.

I just gave example of 2 regions back of my mind, ofcourse there are others including Tibet.
& I believe Uyghurs live in Xinjiang only.

 

[Patine]

Despite I'm against debloobing of China, I was curious now, why do you think Yunnan and Xinjiang can be a separete civ?
If I would choice some provinces of China to be a separete civ I would choice Tibet or Uyghurs.

Xinjiang is the titular, "autonomous," Province for Uyghurs and Dzungars, although the latter are effectively an Ordos of the Mongols. The Seven Tocharian Oasis City-States that used to be a major point along the Great Silk Road were in the Tarim Basin, and what is now Xinjiang was the central region, roughly, of both the Rouran Khaganate and the Western Turkic Khaganate.