The India Thread

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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.

As I said, Ahmadnagar could be represented under an umbrella Deccani civ, just as Athens and Sparta are represented under a Greek civ, or the various Mayan city-states under a Mayan civ, while both Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate could be represented under a single Hindustani civ, so no need to play musical chairs especially when there is little chance of a deblobbed India having as many civs in the game as Western Europe

 

[Henri Christophe]

Wasn't he not actually the ruler?

I'm not an expert in Ahmednagar sultanate history, but this video:

At time 3'25" says Malik Ambar had power enouth to put a puppet sultan to rule for him and kill him when he tries to act as a sultan.
Said that, I think Malik Ambar was the facto ruler of Ahmednagar and could be it's leader.

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.

I agree Ahmednagar shouldn't be high priority, it should come after Mauryia and Mughals.
But that don't mean they aren't a hot option also.

 

[Patine]

And I rly want to see Ahmednagar sultanate!

No one else does. And THAT would REALLY be a waste of a limited civ slot by any reckoning, and an even far more limited Indian civ slot.

 

[Evie]

The India/Germania comparison does ignore the little teensy part where one has been (and currently is) politically united while no one has ever managed to unit the various parts of the putative Germania.

I still favor the idea of breaking India apart, but we need not rely on dubious comparisons to achieve that, nor aiming for artificial equality between India and the putative Germania. Six tags is a lot ; eight tags is even more, and all the more so when it is obvious that these tags would come at the expanse of representation elsewhere in the world. I think three-four is a more realistic goal, which point to a greater use to still having a "core" Indian civ in addition to a few additional ones highlighting more specific parts of the history of the Indian subcontinent.

Another reason to have that "core" civ is that, even if we have six indian civs, we're getting at most one or two in the base game, and if all the Indian civs are narrow-scope representing very specific eras, that will leave India with very bad representation for several years while the expansions and DLCs trickle in. Having a broad-scope "core" Indian civ (whatever its name is) that catches multiple aspects of Indian history, and more specific ones that are added later may be a better path in that regard.

And Ahmednagar is a pesky distraction that really has no place in anything less than a 600-civs game. MAybe 6000.

 

[Patine]

And Ahmednagar is a pesky distraction that really has no place in anything less than a 600-civs game. MAybe 6000.

I agree. Amhednagar can appear in an iteration of Civ where Luxembourg, Bhutan, Eswatini, Tuvalu, Lucca, North Picene, and the Vermont Republic appear prominently.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Personally, I'd like to wave Gandhi's India goodbye and see a three-way split of of the Indian blob. My prefered split would be into Mughals, Mauryas and Chola. I feel this split could rather well capture the cultural and historical diversity of the subcontinent - we see a timeline split (ancient Mauryas, medieval Cholas, early modern Mughals), a religious one (Buddhist Mauryas, Hindu Cholas, Muslim Mughals) as well as a cultural one (native Indo-European Mauryas, native Dravidian Cholas, Mughals with outside Persian influences) - and the three shouldn't be too hard to design to play in their own unique ways - I imagine Chola, historically a thalassocracy, would likely play as a naval civ, which would be much different from the other two, and I suppose those could be differentiated by giving one a more expansionist/religious focus (I'd prefer Mauryas to fulfil that role under the leadership of Chandragupta or Ashoka) and the other a more cultural one (Mughals would be my choice for their monumental architecture and having just the perfect leader choice for cultural play, that being Shah Jahan. Not that I can't imagine them as militaristic civ under Babur or Aurangzeb though).

I feel some other good choices for Indian empires that could become civs are Maratha Empire, Sikh Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Vijayanagara Empire or Gupta Empire, but as I said, a three-way split would satisfy me fully. If I were to choose one extra though, I'd be picking the Marathas or the Sikh Empire as representatives from the industrial era.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Luxembourg, Bhutan, Eswatini, Tuvalu, Lucca, North Picene, and the Vermont Republic

Luxembourg is just another boring european state.
Buthan, Eswatini and Tuvalu are cool options who should appear.
Lucca, North Picene e Vermont Republic I'm not aware.

And Ahmednagar is a pesky distraction that really has no place in anything less than a 600-civs game. MAybe 6000.

If India become 5 or 6 civs, Ahmadnegar have a fair chance to be a civ, because have an amazing leader.
Also, if it comes with Mughal empire, it can be a scenario since ahmednagar was the Decan kingdom who stopped the Mughals.

 

[Patine]

Luxembourg is just another boring european state.
Buthan, Eswatini and Tuvalu are cool options who should appear.
Lucca, North Picene e Vermont Republic I'm not aware.

My point is missed.

If India become 5 or 6 civs, Ahmadnegar have a fair chance to be a civ, because have an amazing leader.
Also, if it comes with Mughal empire, it can be a scenario since ahmednagar was the Decan kingdom who stopped the Mughals.

You have to understand that, you, individually, declaring their leader the VERY subjective term, "amazing," is not much an argument, at all, for a civ to be strongly leaning toward inclusion. Significantly more is needed.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

No one else does. And THAT would REALLY be a waste of a limited civ slot by any reckoning, and an even far more limited Indian civ slot.

I concur with Patine. Maybe if Civ were to have 120-150 civs. But that will be when there are flying cars and time travel and so on.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Luxembourg is just another boring european state.

According to you, at least 75% of European states are boring. You even hate on the Byzantines

If India become 5 or 6 civs, Ahmadnegar have a fair chance to be a civ, because have an amazing leader.
Also, if it comes with Mughal empire, it can be a scenario since ahmednagar was the Decan kingdom who stopped the Mughals.

I added 6 Indian civs in my original post, none were Ahmadnagar. But to be fair, a Malik Ambar vs Akbar scenario would be cool.

Also if you were to create an Ahmadnagar civ design to show its possible uniqueness beyond leader choice, that would be some good evidence to further back your point.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If India become 5 or 6 civs, Ahmadnegar have a fair chance to be a civ, because have an amazing leader.
Also, if it comes with Mughal empire, it can be a scenario since ahmednagar was the Decan kingdom who stopped the Mughals.

From what I can tell he only stopped the Mughal emperor, Jahangir. Later on, the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan then defeated him.

 

[Patine]

From what I can tell he only stopped the Mughal emperor, Jahangir. Later on, the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan then defeated him.

Indeed. If one wants the civ who actually defeated the Mughals, but good, they've been in every iteration of the game - the English...

 

[Henri Christophe]

From what I can tell he only stopped the Mughal emperor, Jahangir. Later on, the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan then defeated him.

As far I know, the Mughal just conquer Ahmednagar after the Malik Ambar death, I mean, he had resisted his entiry life the Mughauls assaults.

Malik Ambar vs Akbar scenario would be cool.

And that I think is a strong point in favor of Ahmednagar.

"amazing," is not much an argument

Sometimes I use the word "amazing" because I know you don't like hahahahah

 

[Caesar of Bread]

And that I think is a strong point in favor of Ahmednagar.

Not strong enough. As I said, the only way into proving me into thinking that Ahmadnagar would be a good idea is creating a civ design for them and showing it to me.

 

[Patine]

Sometimes I use the word "amazing" because I know you don't like hahahahah

So, you're admitting to deliberate and unnecessary antagonism?

And that I think is a strong point in favor of Ahmednagar.

Maybe in a custom historical scenario, but not have a whole slot in the core game.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Sometimes I use the word "amazing" because I know you don't like hahahahah

You sound like my sister. I have misophonia (an annoyance to sounds) and my sister will intentionally annoy me by doing clicking sounds, which she obviously knows makes me upset. Please don’t do this to Patine.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The India/Germania comparison does ignore the little teensy part where one has been (and currently is) politically united while no one has ever managed to unit the various parts of the putative Germania.

India was only politically united in opposition to rule from a colonial empire based on another continent, if the Germanic states were similarly geographically situated and had been under the control of, say, the Russians or Mongols or even the French I suppose they would have attained a similar degree of political unity, their historical differences notwithstanding. The only reason India is considered a single entity is due to political unity under a non-assimilating foreign occupier (occupying an expanse of territory not even the Maurya ever occupied) and the fact that that occupier controlled India as a single colony ironically inculcating a unity among the occupied, as well as a happenstance of geography.

 

[Evie]

Nice hypotheticals, but history and reality are messured in what happened and what is, not in what might have happened or might have been. India is a real defined concept and entity, Germania is not. Counterfactuals are no basis to determine which civs should be on the list.

Splitting India is not unreasonable, but it should be done because historical cultures of India stand out enough on their own to warrant inclusion. Not in a misguided effort a some comparison with a "country" that never was.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I would be happy with at least these three civ from the region:
- MAGADHI civ, the northeastern classical Indo-Aryan empires based on Pataliputra like Nanda, Maurya and Pala. Covering the apogee of buddhism in what is now not just India but also Bangladesh.
- TAMIL civ, the southern medieval Dravidian empires like Chera, Chola and Pandya. Mostly devoted hinduists with a focus on naval trade expanded beyond India and Sri Lanka to SEA.
- GURKANI civ, the northwestern modern Turkic-Iranian empires with core on the Indus River Valley, representing the Mughal (also indirectly the similar Tughlaq and Lodi dynasties). The period of the expansion of islamic dynasties from Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan over the subcontinent, the reason why most of the river that gives the name to India is currently in a different country, Pakistan.

So we have a "Trimurti" for India. 3 cultures, 3 religions, 3 eras and 3 regions, each one corners of a triangular Indian subcontinent, including 3 others countries that are now NOT India (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka).

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Personally I would be happy with at least these three civ from the region:
- MAGADHI civ, the northeastern classical Indo-Aryan empires based on Pataliputra like Nanda, Maurya and Pala. Covering the apogee of buddhism in what is now not just India but also Bangladesh.
- TAMIL civ, the southern medieval Dravidian empires like Chera, Chola and Pandya. Mostly devoted hinduists with a focus on naval trade expanded beyond India and Sri Lanka to SEA.
- GURKANI civ, the northwestern modern Turkic-Iranian empires with core on the Indus River Valley, representing the Mughal (also indirectly the similar Tughlaq and Lodi dynasties). The period of the expansion of islamic dynasties from Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan over the subcontinent, the reason why most of the river that gives the name to India is currently in a different country, Pakistan.

'Gurkani' refers only to the Timurid-Mughal dynasty, it would not work for the Tughlaq, Lodi, Mamluk dynasties