Maurya
Vijayanagara
Punjab. Sikhism is a religion; regional or ethnical identifiers are better than religious ones because religions (including Sikhism) already exist in the game. Would be weird to have a Confucian Sikh Empire and a Sikh Polish Empire
Thanks! I‘ll just call Vijayangara “Vij” for an abbreviation. Also, thank you for suggesting Punjab! I was wanting a Sikh empire without it being a Sikh Empire.
Oh. I was thinking too much then. It’s ok to leave out a couple of the Civs I listed, as long as India has enough.
The thing is I don't think we'd have a separate Maurya, Chola civ etc. as well as a civ called India, based off of the modern country. What uniques would you give a modern India civ lead by Gandhi? All I can think of is a Sepoy unique unit.
I think about something related to multiculturalism and religious diversity. And Gandhi would have pacifist bonuses. Mughals would be builders, economical and perhaps with some agrarian touches. While Maurya would mainly revolve around religion.
I was thinking more along the lines of unique units or unique infrastructure, considering religious diversity and pacifist gameplay is already prevalent in their Civ 6 design.
I don't believe they've had a leader outside of modern India or the Mauryan Empire. The only references to the Mughals were in the unique infrastructure.
Of course it should be divided!
India was never as centralised as China: the closest thing to modern India in terms of expanse and authority of a single state was the Maurya Empire. Keeping India as one civilization is like having Germania (including Germany, Bohemia, Netherlands, England, Sweden) as one civilization
That's like having the Qing Empire and a Chinese civ under Qin Shi Huangdi and Mao Zedong
Wasn't he not actually the ruler? Still the Ahmednager Sultanate shouldn't be considered even before the other Muslim sultanates, such as the Mughals or the Delhi Sultanate, in my opinion.
Would it? I mean I'd personally at least want Ashoka, and I figured Gandhi would eventually get in but I could still live without him.
He was? Malik Ambar ruled over Ahmadnagar after the death of the king's wife Chand Bibi
Never mind, I'm mixing stuff up, but Malik Ambar was vizier of the Sultanate, I have a headache and can't go into this more, can't think straight, but Malik Ambar makes more sense as a Great General to me, but if you must have him as a leader better as the leader of a Deccan blob than just the small state of Ahmadnagar
It would. Besides, having Ashoka and Gandhi be part of one civilization and the Mughals part of another inadvertently plays into the narrative of right-wing Indian nationalists who say that Mughals were non-Indian invaders (which is true to some degree, but it is also true that the Mughals weren't simply plunderers like the Ghaznavids and Ghurids, they did semi-assimilate into Indian culture, history is never neat) and by extension demonise Indian Muslims for being non-Indian outsiders who need to be forcibly converted back to Hinduism (see the concept of ghar-wapsi) or expelled from India, effectively calling for genocide
![Andrew Johnson [FXS]](/data/avatars/s/326/326908.jpg?1589646534){kind=avatar}
