No Gandhi in Civilization 6?

[TheMeInTeam]

Akbar the Great could be used as a leader for India although he ruled the Mughal empire. Red fort was built by the Mughal empire and so was Taj Mahal.

I would rather see legit leaders of India, and leave leaders of civs that should be in the game to those civs, which should actually be in the game.

Mughals could reasonably appear in a vanilla release based on their impact to history/size/length of existence compared to previous nations making that cut. That they have never shown up even in expansions is an eyebrow raiser.

Giving Mughal fort to India is like giving native American structures to USA or Roman legions to France. I'd rather see less of that kind of thing than more.

 

[Depravo]

I would rather see legit leaders of India, and leave leaders of civs that should be in the game to those civs, which should actually be in the game.

Mughals could reasonably appear in a vanilla release based on their impact to history/size/length of existence compared to previous nations making that cut. That they have never shown up even in expansions is an eyebrow raiser.

Giving Mughal fort to India is like giving native American structures to USA or Roman legions to France. I'd rather see less of that kind of thing than more.

The Mughals were badass but I don't think they make the cut as a civ. Just the latest in a long list of Khyber Pass gatecrashers.

Exactly whether and how to divide India is a knotty problem as 'India' has name-recognition in a way that individual dynasties or ethnicities don't.

South and east Asia have always been massively underserved in Civ. They only just got around to adding Indonesia, a series first unless we count CtP. And we shouldn't.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The Mughals were badass but I don't think they make the cut as a civ.

Why not?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Mughals were badass but I don't think they make the cut as a civ. Just the latest in a long list of Khyber Pass gatecrashers.

Byzantium were badass but they don't make the cut as a civ. Just the latest in a long list of Greece/Anatolian crashers.

We already have the Ottomans, just give them the Byzantine stuff. Scratch Celts and give their stuff to a few civs. Scratch Venice and give their stuff to Rome. Maybe USA can have dog soldiers too by this logic .

Simply put, any criteria aside from your preference that eliminates Mughals will also chop half of the European civs and a good number of new world civs out of the game instantly.

Why not?

The reason is bias :/. That's the only way one things Mughals somehow don't make the cut (along with several other nations from India) while accepting so many of the civs we've seen in civ 5.

 

[Depravo]

Bias? It's not bias. The Mughals were a dynasty - not even a very enduring one across much of India - dynasties aren't civilisations and IMO shouldn't be represented as such. You would have a better case for adding the Manchu, which like the Mughals were a culturally distinct ruling elite, but whose period of greatness lasted far longer (especially if you include the Jin) and which existed as an ethnic group both before and after.

'The Ottomans' set a bad precedent; always thought adding in Byzantium / the HRE was a mistake.

On the other hand we have the Kushans, Harappa, Chola etc. Maybe even the Afghans or Nepal.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Bias? It's not bias. The Mughals were a dynasty - not even a very enduring one across much of India - dynasties aren't civilisations and IMO shouldn't be represented as such. You would have a better case for adding the Manchu, which like the Mughals were a culturally distinct ruling elite, but whose period of greatness lasted far longer (especially if you include the Jin) and which existed as an ethnic group both before and after.

'The Ottomans' set a bad precedent; always thought adding in Byzantium / the HRE was a mistake.

On the other hand we have the Kushans, Harappa, Chola etc. Maybe even the Afghans or Nepal.

Mughal empire was 1500's-1800 period, up and down. That's long enough (and *by far* large enough!) to make any self-consistent cut used to include numerous civ 5 civs.

However Chola/Pandya/several other options are also good. One could always pick an Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist type representative each of India, and vary that depending on which civ title it is (like sometimes using Mughals, others using Delhi sultanate and so forth). None of these would be out of place if one is accepting Celts, native American tribes, or Zulu types. It'd be a matter of coming up with uniques really.

Mughals are a bit more obvious wrt uniques/leader because they have easy leaders, wonder representation, and choice of a few UU (I'd probably pick a cannon UU for them, which is uncommon in civ and a notable emphasis of their military), but you could make cases for Marathi/others in slightly-later times or much earlier nations too.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

If the Mughals are a civ I'd like to see the Seljuks too.

Then again maybe I'm just in love with SoI

 

[Babri]

Bias? It's not bias. The Mughals were a dynasty - not even a very enduring one across much of India - dynasties aren't civilisations and IMO shouldn't be represented as such. You would have a better case for adding the Manchu, which like the Mughals were a culturally distinct ruling elite, but whose period of greatness lasted far longer (especially if you include the Jin) and which existed as an ethnic group both before and after.

'The Ottomans' set a bad precedent; always thought adding in Byzantium / the HRE was a mistake.

On the other hand we have the Kushans, Harappa, Chola etc. Maybe even the Afghans or Nepal.

Badass warriors: check
One of the most awesome monument builders (Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Badshahi masjid etc): check
Great & iconic leaders (such as Babur, Akbar & Aurangzeb): check.

What else do you need from a civilization.

Also India badly needs more attention in civ. It is very under-represented. While India is portrayed as high pop, peaceful civ due to Gandhi & their unique bonuses, Mughals could be represented as more warlike people with great culture & building bonuses.

Another way to say it would be India => Hindu India with Gandhi + mostly ancient India bonuses such as Elephant archers. Mughals => Muslim India with a Mughal leader + gunpowder UUs + buildings/culture.

Personally I would be happy even if we get Transoxiana with Tamerlane as that is another region that needs a bit more representation. And Tamerlane could be the new Atilla you know.

 

[isau]

IMO Ghandi is a good choice because he is funny and when people unfamiliar with the Civ games see him, they have some sense of who he is and what the game is going for. Those are the reasons he is always in the game. The sheer ridiculousness of it.

I never really got why some people insist on "right and true" leaders in this series (Hatshepsut for Egypt instead of Cleopatra is another one). I find those "true" leaders boring. IMO the most interesting characters are characters--there's something there to kind of mock. The joke is the ridiculousness of the situation: the Aztecs building nukes while holding off the invading Romans, and cutting deals with the Koreans to backstab Dido of Carthage, who they have learned is building the Eiffel Tower. I mean, this is a game where the USA starts in 4000 BC. It's always been outlandish.

Anyway we got Ashoka in Civ IV and he was so dry his name should have been Sham-Wow.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

IMO Ghandi is a good choice because he is funny and when people unfamiliar with the Civ games see him, they have some sense of who he is and what the game is going for. Those are the reasons he is always in the game. The sheer ridiculousness of it.

I never really got why some people insist on "right and true" leaders in this series (Hatshepsut for Egypt instead of Cleopatra is another one). I find those "true" leaders boring. IMO the most interesting characters are characters--there's something there to kind of mock. The joke is the ridiculousness of the situation: the Aztecs building nukes while holding off the invading Romans, and cutting deals with the Koreans to backstab Dido of Carthage, who they have learned is building the Eiffel Tower. I mean, this is a game where the USA starts in 4000 BC. It's always been outlandish.

Anyway we got Ashoka in Civ IV and he was so dry his name should have been Sham-Wow.

People mistake the the game for something serious, forgetting that it is a casual-esque game. I would completely understand their reasoning had this been a game as serious as say Europa Universalis or Crusader King but it isn't.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Repeating the same leader over and over again become boring. Atleast in Civ IV you could choose Asoka. I don't see how you can go wrong with Akbar the Great, interesting personality who ruled the Mughal empire then it was the most powerful entity in the world.

Mughal empire peek was around 150 years (comparable length to the british empire peek or the deutch peek). During that time it was probably the most powerful and richest empire in the world. Akbar the Great died both as a great conquer and a great ruler (ruled for 49 years). Even 100 years later Aurangzeb died as a great conquer having made conquest compareable to Napoleon and unlike Napoleon died as a victor. During its peek, Mughal empire built several buildings that could very well be wonders in Civilization and made significant contributions to the arts.

India itself could be split into several civilizations. In its current form it is like having western europe as a civ. India in Civilization V felt like a pretty lazy work. UA: Popultation growth, a pretty uncreative name, why not give India a religious bonus instead (at least with gods and kings) considering how many religions have been founded in India.

UB: Red Fort, as far as I know the name is only used for a single fort built during the Mughal era, why not make it into a wonder like it is in other games such as Rise of Nations?

UU: Well civilizations in India is famous for using elephants but that was because they had access to elephants, in Civilizations IV everyone could create war elephants if they had access to elephants.

Leader: Ghandi, maybe it is time to retire him to make room for somebody else.

 

[Mustakrakish]

This is really annoying. If they indeed went so far with the whole "no same leaders from V" thing that they even canned Catherine and Augustus, went so far as to include never appeared leaders before, such as Hojo... and yet they leave Ghandi?! That is... insane, ridiculous...

 

[Psychotronics]

This is really annoying. If they indeed went so far with the whole "no same leaders from V" thing that they even canned Catherine and Augustus, went so far as to include never appeared leaders before, such as Hojo... and yet they leave Ghandi?! That is... insane, ridiculous...

If our leader portrait guesses are correct, three leaders will be returning: Pedro II (much to my dismay), Ghandi and Isabella.

 

[Zenstrive]

Bring Ashoka back.

 

[plasmacannon]

I agree.
I'm not a fan of Gandhi. He wasn't a President/Emperor/Prime Minister of India.
Just like Hannibal was a Great General.
I liked that Civ4 added Ashoka and would prefer him in Civ6 or any leader, but Gandhi.

 

[Mustakrakish]

The whole "he's an icon of the series" thingy, some people say... I don't know, for me Catherine of Russia was a much bigger icon of the series. Gandhi was always "whatever", until becoming "annoying" in V to "please not his face again" now.

 

[Uberfrog]

I never really got why some people insist on "right and true" leaders in this series (Hatshepsut for Egypt instead of Cleopatra is another one). I find those "true" leaders boring. IMO the most interesting characters are characters--there's something there to kind of mock. The joke is the ridiculousness of the situation: the Aztecs building nukes while holding off the invading Romans, and cutting deals with the Koreans to backstab Dido of Carthage, who they have learned is building the Eiffel Tower. I mean, this is a game where the USA starts in 4000 BC. It's always been outlandish.

I fully agree with this bit: Civ isn't supposed to be a Hall of Fame for the greatest or most significant leaders in history, it's a game. However...

Anyway we got Ashoka in Civ IV and he was so dry his name should have been Sham-Wow.

This is a question of execution rather than personality. Civ IV's leaders are a series of slight behavioural modifiers and an animated leaderhead that is pretty basic in comparison with Civ VI's. There's absolutely no reason they can't make Ashoka (or anyone else) a characterful leader this time around.

 

[Psychotronics]

I'm not so sure about that. Most of us would probably still buy the game but would it have the same appeal to everyone?
People are already threatening not to buy the game because X civ is not in there or the "wrong" leader was chosen in the "all leader portraits" topic...

Well, that's just, like, our opinion, man. I mean, I think Gandhi is a bad choice and, even if some people here in Civfanatics decided not to buy the game just because of him (which I find unlikely, even though they are saying that), we're just a vocal minority. Civilization V has over 7 million copies sold. This forum has 280,000 users (and the number of people who are active and complaining about Gandhi is even smaller). As people point out, Gandhi is a very recognizable figure and probably helps boost sales with the general public.

 

[Morningcalm]

I was *so* hopeful someone other than Gandhi would appear in Civ VI, but alas. For some reason the developers thought Gandhi was a holy cow they could not turn into a Great Person instead of the leader of India.

Ashokkaaa pleassseee.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

Thanks for bumping this. It would be nice if anyone who dislikes Gandhi could share their opinion here, so once India first look video is out, we can focus on its Civ6 implementation. However, I am am pretty sure that I can look forward another 30 pages long OMG Gandhi again discussion