The India Thread

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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

A real defined concept and entity due to modern foreign occupation and accident of geography

Not in a misguided effort a some comparison with a "country" that never was.

A country that could have been had those cultures and states been in the same situation as India; the reason I keep mentioning those two factors is because I do not believe they are determinant in deciding a cultural historical entity, strip away them and what meaningful difference is there between a country that was (due to presence of those factors) and a country that could have been (due to presence of those factors)?

 

[BuchiTaton]

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

That is why I used "indirectly".
Those dynasties still share Turkic-Persic Muslim elements and core around the Indus river.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

That is why I used "indirectly".
Those dynasties still share Turkic-Persic Muslim elements and core around the Indus river.

Which is why I drive myself crazy championing the term 'Hindustan', which is the term the Mughals used for their realm, and is the term used for the Indo-Islamic high culture that arose from those dynasties, and is the same term reviled by Hindu nationalists due to its Islamic connotations

 

[Evie]

It may have, and it may not. This is why we don't do counterfactuals: because they are unprovable, untestable claims with little basis in reality but the belief that a universal rule or standard can be extracted from how history played out in one specific place for one specific set of circumstances.

For every India that has been united for nigh on eighty years, there's a short-lived attempt at bridging together former colonies like Gran Colombia or the United States of Central America that flew apart In short years, a Yugoslavia or a Czechoslovakia that broke down at the first opportunity - or examples where multiple colonies of the same realm failed to unite at all when it was proposed, whether Chile and Argentina, or the US and Canada.

But even if we were to accept the premise, the idea that you could pinpoint who or what the United nation would be based on cultural boundaries is lackdaisical. India does not reflect any particular linguistic or cultural boundaries (which is an actual good argument for adding Indian civ): it simply reflect geographic borders (With a dash of religious borders for Pakistan). A hypothetical Euro-India is as likely to be...well, Czechoslovakia - a hybrid across cultural boundaries - as Germania. Thus you can point to pretty much ANY contiguous group of civs, and say "outside pressures could have forced them to unite". Which, again, point to the failure of counterfactual comparisons.

Thus, Germania is a useless fantasy, not a good point of comparison.

 

[Patine]

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.

If I may ask, who is bringing up a comparison to, "Germania?" You've spoken in counter to it twice, but I can't find the posts it's mentioned in.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Which is why I drive myself crazy championing the term 'Hindustan', which is the term the Mughals used for their realm, and is the term used for the Indo-Islamic high culture that arose from those dynasties, and is the same term reviled by Hindu nationalists due to its Islamic connotations

Well since there is a current effort to push the name Bharat to be used by foreigns this can be change to rethink "India" in civ.

Also I like the chance to have Gurkani for a Timurid leader, so the other turkic-persic entities indirectly represented are just a plus.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Well since there is a current effort to push the name Bharat to be used by foreigns this can be change to rethink "India" in civ.

I'm not sure I understand

Also I like the chance to have Gurkani for a Timurid leader, so the other turkic-persic entities indirectly represented are just a plus.

The Timurids deserve their own civ. Or at least be part of a broader Turco-Persian civ (which could maybe include the Seljuqs and the Ilkhanate too?) but they are not at all the same thing as the Mughals

 

[Evie]

If I may ask, who is bringing up a comparison to, "Germania?" You've spoken in counter to it twice, but I can't find the posts it's mentioned in.

Bonyduck is the one who posted a "Germania" comparison at post #15:

Keeping India as one civilization is like having Germania (including Germany, Bohemia, Netherlands, England, Sweden) as one civilization

Which I've been objecting to because, well, India is actually an extent, existing united entity, and Germania never once was, so the comparison is fundamentally flawed to me.

(I agree that adding additional Indian civilization is good, mind you, I just find that "having India in the game is like having a completely fictional nation in the game" is...well, it is what it is. I'm also of the opinion that even breaking away parts of India doesn't necessarily mean India shouldn't be in the game itself)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I am referring to a historical pre-modern India; post-1947 India as a single entity does exist, pre-1947 only in the imagination of Indian nationalists. But never mind all that, we agree on the thing that matters at any rate

 

[Evie]

Fair enough.

As to actually having a civ named "India" in the game, or another broad-spectrum name that can serve as an equivalent generic civ, the main reason for it is what I have previously stated: even if we assume six or eight Indian civilizations in total after the expansions are said and done (and I feel half that is a more realistic goal), we won't have them early in the game's lifespan - we're looking at at most one or two - leaving India with very poor representation early on. That's the main advantage of a generic Indian civilization (whatever the actual name is) : that it can provide broad coverage to begin from which we can then add the more specific sub-civs.

With limited tags, not only in the final game but throughout the game's life cycle (eg, it's not only the final number of tags that matter, but how many we start with is relevant too) perfect representation is never going to exist, and compromises must be made. Some degree of blobbing is a necessity in that situation, though there is currently too much blobbing in India.

 

[Patine]

Bonyduck is the one who posted a "Germania" comparison at post #15:



Which I've been objecting to because, well, India is actually an extent, existing united entity, and Germania never once was, so the comparison is fundamentally flawed to me.

(I agree that adding additional Indian civilization is good, mind you, I just find that "having India in the game is like having a completely fictional nation in the game" is...well, it is what it is. I'm also of the opinion that even breaking away parts of India doesn't necessarily mean India shouldn't be in the game itself)

Ah, I must have missed it. Though, other than political rulership for much of it's history, and being the seat of several Holy Roman Emperors, I'm not sure why he included the Slavic nation of Bohemia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

(I agree that adding additional Indian civilization is good, mind you, I just find that "having India in the game is like having a completely fictional nation in the game" is...well, it is what it is. I'm also of the opinion that even breaking away parts of India doesn't necessarily mean India shouldn't be in the game itself)

I'm trying to think of how to implement specific sub-civs while still having a broad Indian civ?
I still think Mughals are the best option, and possibly the Chola/Tamil but I'm not sure about the others. The name India could be used to represent the modern country, with Gandhi as leader, but isn't that what people want to avoid?

 

[Evie]

I think what people want to avoid chiefly is 1947 India led by Gandhi as the *only* India.

People are also tired of Gandhi's mascot status, but that's like Pokémon fans being tired of Pikachu: understandable, but not too likely to go anywhere. That's why it's called a mascot.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think what people want to avoid chiefly is 1947 India led by Gandhi as the *only* India.

People are also tired of Gandhi's mascot status, but that's like Pokémon fans being tired of Pikachu: understandable, but not too likely to go anywhere. That's why it's called a mascot.

I can get behind that.
Though at the same time I would argue that creating a whole modern civ called India, just for Gandhi, is way more unnecessary than creating a whole Macedon civ for Alexander. If Gandhi continues to be present, they should just keep India as a broad civ and have multiple leaders, in my opinion.
As far as mascots though he's the one I wouldn't mind sitting out a game, at least. As far as Pokémon goes Pikachu is fine, though I honestly prefer Eevee now. It's the unofficial "mascots" like Charizard showing up every game, especially over Blastoise, that gets me annoyed.

 

[Evie]

I mean, I'm sure you can see where my heart learn for mascot Pokémon

Yes, I think having a broad civ that can include Gandhi (and other things) while highlighting other parts is probably the best way to handle the "broad civ". While lumping *every* part of India together is ill advisable, I'm not so convinced that we cannot find *any* continuity from modern India to any of the preceding states.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Ah, I must have missed it. Though, other than political rulership for much of it's history, and being the seat of several Holy Roman Emperors, I'm not sure why he included the Slavic nation of Bohemia.

Curiously, I can pinpoint the exact thought at the back of my mind. In A Scandal in Bohemia Holmes deduces that writer of a letter (in English) he has received is German because 'only a German would be so discourteous to his verbs'. The writer turns out to be the (fictional) King of Bohemia. Though, now for the first time since I read the story (I think was 8 or 9) I've realised that Bohemia (in the story) must have been ruled by a German king rather than Bohemia being a German country.

 

[Patine]

Curiously, I can pinpoint the exact thought at the back of my mind. In A Scandal in Bohemia Holmes deduces that writer of a letter (in English) he has received is German because 'only a German would be so discourteous to his verbs'. The writer turns out to be the (fictional) King of Bohemia. Though, now for the first time since I read the story (I think was 8 or 9) I've realised that Bohemia (in the story) must have been ruled by a German king rather than Bohemia being a German country.

Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes, has a Victorian-era British author, and they were infamous for taking liberties, and making inaccuraies, galore, in stride, about other nations and there people, and quoting stereotypes with impunity, and thinking nothing of it. Plus, at that time, the rivalry between Germany and the UK politically, economically, and socially that would boil over with the, "Scrap of Paper," of August 4, 1914, was steadily mounting.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Curiously, I can pinpoint the exact thought at the back of my mind. In A Scandal in Bohemia Holmes deduces that writer of a letter (in English) he has received is German because 'only a German would be so discourteous to his verbs'. The writer turns out to be the (fictional) King of Bohemia. Though, now for the first time since I read the story (I think was 8 or 9) I've realised that Bohemia (in the story) must have been ruled by a German king rather than Bohemia being a German country.

It's easy to be confused because Bohemia has been controlled by the Holy Roman Empire, Hapsburg Monarchy, and the Austrian Empire for much of their history. But before that they were their own independent kingdom comprised of mainly people of Slavic origin.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm not sure I understand

The Timurids deserve their own civ. Or at least be part of a broader Turco-Persian civ (which could maybe include the Seljuqs and the Ilkhanate too?) but they are not at all the same thing as the Mughals

Well of course Timurids and Mughals can be their own civs, but it can also be the same as Gurkani, it is matter of perspective for example Babur as a leader can NOT be questioned as Mughal Emperor but still had strong link to his Chagatai roots.

Now lets think about the whole picture. The Ottomans are a "must" civ that already is a Modern Muslim Turkic dynasty, so are we expected to also have both Timurids and Mughals that are quite similar? Add to the roster a possible Modern Persian dynasty and this becomes an overkill.
We should not expect to have both Timurids and Mughals in the very same CIV iteration, meanwhile alternative leaders for Gurkani representing both empires is more feasible since require less invest in content creation, design and use of civ slots. SoShah Rukh with Astronomy (Science) from Herat and Babur with Poetry (Culture) from Kabul (that was most of Babur's rule his real capital) can be the two sides of the same Gurkani coin, a civ that can be presented as something more that a Persian or Indian dynasty.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm trying to think of how to implement specific sub-civs while still having a broad Indian civ?
I still think Mughals are the best option, and possibly the Chola/Tamil but I'm not sure about the others. The name India could be used to represent the modern country, with Gandhi as leader, but isn't that what people want to avoid?

For the "One India" option:
- Implement cultural identity (Heritage as I wanted) as a core CIV7 design element and link these culture to a new kind of bonus/uniques the Tradition, for every culture(civs main and minor).
- Make India the ONLY civ that unlike any other can produce multiple own heritages, so each X number of cities you found the next one has a different culture, thus new bonus/uniques.
- Also each different Indian leader have uniques/bonus.

So if Firaxis want to keep the "One India" just for the sake of Gandhi meme and Indian politics, at least put some effort and represent Indian diversity with so many unique flavor for each leader that you can fell them as complety different civs despite share the same name.
After all Indian subcontinent have so many unique units and building potential and they are wasted while Scotland part of the UK have his own civ