The India Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Calling the civ Gurkhani might be the best compromise, at least if they continue to use one India. I also think the Timurids overlap with Mongolia, as the medieval nomadic conquerors.

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

As I've said before the civ is called England, which is different than Scotland. If the civ was called Britian/British I would feel differently.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

As I've said before the civ is called England, which is different than Scotland. If the civ was called Britian/British I would feel differently.

What I suppose he means is that the tiny British island has two civs but the entirety of the Indian subcontinent with its huge population and ethic diversity is supposed to be represented by one

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Would be weird to have India, but have Mughals as another civ.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I also think the Timurids overlap with Mongolia, as the medieval nomadic conquerors.

While there is some overlap, I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing a Timurid civ next to a Mongol one - there are certain distinctions, after all. For example, in terms of warfare, the Timurids were gunpowder users. We could also distinguish them through leaders by giving one a conqueror leader the another a less war-oriented leader (I suppose Genghis could be the conqueror and the scholarly Shah Rukh the more peaceful one).

Besides, Timurid architecture has gorgeous blue domes. That is automatically a reason for inclusion by me .

 

[Evie]

I had some thoughts about the idea of civilizations today, some weird ideas floating around my head...

I think in all our debates on importance, geographic representation, equality and deblobbing, I think a factor we have tended to phenomenally underlook is longevity. The game is about civilizations withstanding the test of time, and, by that very nature, people tend to look for civilizations that have a lengthy history - not necessarily as independent nations, but as extent politico-cultural concept and notions. Sure, not all civs do, but those that have shorter histories tend to be the one whose presence in the game are most often questioned (see Macedon and the colonials).

And in that light, I think that pinpoint my discomfort with the talk of Maurya as a distinct civilization: they lasted from 322 BCE to 184 BCE, a mere 138 years. In the entire annals of Civ, I think only two civs can be argued to be shorter-lived - the Inca (if you don't count their history prior to expanding into the Tawantisuyu Empire, and you should count that history), and Gran Colombia (if you don't count Colombia as a continuation). Vijayanagar, Delhi, the Mughal and others face similar issues - they're closer in longevity to the colonials than to most anyone else.

Now, that's not to say there is no splitting of India possible - in fact, many suggestions made in this thread that group together various Indian kingdoms as part of a greater whole that absolutely have stood the test of time. But it's, I think, one reason why I keep coming back to the idea of a "core" Indian civ of some sort - not necessarily India by name, but some kind of civ capturing the various states centered on the Indo-Aryan-speaking, Indian/Dharmic faith populations of the Gangetic plain, harkening back into the Sanskrit era. Hindi rather than Indian, perhaps, if we use languages and language groups. It's a bit of a flexible term with a few different definition, but it could do.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

the idea of a "core" Indian civ of some sort - not necessarily India by name, but some kind of civ capturing the various states centered on the Indo-Aryan-speaking, Indian/Dharmic faith populations of the Gangetic plain, harkening back into the Sanskrit era.

@BuchiTaton suggested a 'Magadhi' civ in this thread

 

[BuchiTaton]

What I suppose he means is that the tiny British island has two civs but the entirety of the Indian subcontinent with its huge population and ethic diversity is supposed to be represented by one

This.
But also add that both England and Scotland have significative GB/UK-era elements in their design for CIV6.

While there is some overlap, I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing a Timurid civ next to a Mongol one - there are certain distinctions, after all. For example, in terms of warfare, the Timurids were gunpowder users. We could also distinguish them through leaders by giving one a conqueror leader the another a less war-oriented leader (I suppose Genghis could be the conqueror and the scholarly Shah Rukh the more peaceful one).

Besides, Timurid architecture has gorgeous blue domes. That is automatically a reason for inclusion by me .

Agree. Mongols and Gurkani (Timurid/Mughals) are quite different despite their links, only Timur himself would resemble Genghis but the rest of the dynasty have more in common with your average Turkic-Iranian Muslim empire.

Also by the way the lapislazuli Timurid vs the terracota Mughal architecture are the only think I would like to get from the different versions of Gurkani, still these can come from the alternative leaders anyway.

 

[BuchiTaton]

@BuchiTaton suggested a 'Magadhi' civ in this thread

Yep, the Magadhi cover the dynasties from classical (to medieval) Gangetic region with core in Pataliputra, linked also to the rise of Budhism (and Jainism).

Then the Tamil (and Dravidians as a bigger group) have also a long history keeping their independence from any empire from the Indus or Ganges until the arrive of European colonial intervention. Hindu Tamils always had their own ambitions over Sry Lanka and South East Asia, being medieval time their "golden age" and even now are one of the most proud ethnic group from the region.

I am for Gurkani to justify a Timurid+Mughal civ, BUT it is also possible to use @Bonyduck Campersang suggestion for a Hindustani civ with emphasis in all the Muslim+Persianized states from the Indus region. The Indus itself have a very long history of invaders from the west/north, like the Aryans themselves over the Indus civilization latter came the Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Hunna, Arabs, Turks and Mongols so the region is used to have foreign warlords as leaders.

By the way a Hisdustani civ (Turkic-Persian Muslim modern focus) make it easier to put the Hephtalites civ in the other side of the Hindu Kush as Buddist(+others religions) Hunna-Bactrian classical civ. So I would be happy with this option also.

 

[Evie]

Yes, Magadhi is definitely a much better case than Maurya. Perhaps lacking in recognizability, but that's a much lesser problem that can either be set aside (it's okay to have some obscure names), or easily tweaked (the civ can essentially be Magadha - or the Mahajanapadas for a slightly broader definition - but use a more generic and recognizable name that still fits)

I don't dislike the idea of a Tamil/Magadhi/Hindustani split as our base.

 

[dagriggstar]

I’d like a north/south split at minimum.

Then in addition I don’t mind any dynasty that originated further west (for example the Mughals) or from the north west but that slot would “compete” with say the Durrani/Timurids/basically anything east of Persia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

While there is some overlap, I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing a Timurid civ next to a Mongol one - there are certain distinctions, after all. For example, in terms of warfare, the Timurids were gunpowder users. We could also distinguish them through leaders by giving one a conqueror leader the another a less war-oriented leader (I suppose Genghis could be the conqueror and the scholarly Shah Rukh the more peaceful one).

Well Mongolia wasn't the only overlap I meant, as it was in addition to also the recurring Persian and Ottoman/Turkish civ.

I had some thoughts about the idea of civilizations today, some weird ideas floating around my head...

I think in all our debates on importance, geographic representation, equality and deblobbing, I think a factor we have tended to phenomenally underlook is longevity. The game is about civilizations withstanding the test of time, and, by that very nature, people tend to look for civilizations that have a lengthy history - not necessarily as independent nations, but as extent politico-cultural concept and notions. Sure, not all civs do, but those that have shorter histories tend to be the one whose presence in the game are most often questioned (see Macedon and the colonials).

And in that light, I think that pinpoint my discomfort with the talk of Maurya as a distinct civilization: they lasted from 322 BCE to 184 BCE, a mere 138 years. In the entire annals of Civ, I think only two civs can be argued to be shorter-lived - the Inca (if you don't count their history prior to expanding into the Tawantisuyu Empire, and you should count that history), and Gran Colombia (if you don't count Colombia as a continuation). Vijayanagar, Delhi, the Mughal and others face similar issues - they're closer in longevity to the colonials than to most anyone else.

Now, that's not to say there is no splitting of India possible - in fact, many suggestions made in this thread that group together various Indian kingdoms as part of a greater whole that absolutely have stood the test of time. But it's, I think, one reason why I keep coming back to the idea of a "core" Indian civ of some sort - not necessarily India by name, but some kind of civ capturing the various states centered on the Indo-Aryan-speaking, Indian/Dharmic faith populations of the Gangetic plain, harkening back into the Sanskrit era. Hindi rather than Indian, perhaps, if we use languages and language groups. It's a bit of a flexible term with a few different definition, but it could do.

Longevity aside, the Maurya accomplished a lot in it's short history which makes them as worthy as other Indian empires, first one to control most of the subcontinent, started the spread Buddhism, defeated Alexander the Great etc.
If we were to split India, I'd think they should be one of the top ones to be considered.

Regarding the name Hindustan, that name is still used today to refer to the Republic of India, so I don't see the use for that name. I'd rather the name Gurkani, like @BuchiTaton mentions.

 

[Evie]

The problem with that is that the chief thing you credit them for is being the first to unite India...their civ should be India!

But that aside, I think the bigger strike against Maurya is that, further reading into Magadha, it places Maurya in its proper historical context: one of the (many) successive (and interrelated) ruling dynasties of Magadha during the second half of the first millenium BCE. Magadhi imperial expansion predated the Maurya and they remained a major imperial power well after the Maurya. The continuity between those dynasties as being the same state is plain obvious: every dynastic succession involve a relative, minister or general of the reigning king deposing him, not foreign conquest.

Magadha is an actual geographic (and, to a degree, cultural) entity in eastern india with a relatively long history that shows significant longevity (even beyond its own dynasties). Maurya is just one ruling family of Magadha. Using Maurya as the name of a civilization is simply bad history, like using Bourbon instead of French as a civ name.

(There's a surprising case to be made that modern India, despite having completely flipped around on religion, is most closely a successor to persianized Hindustan, via the British Raj, so the name confusion between them is not necessarily a wholly bad thing)

 

[Patine]

Magadha is an actual geographic (and, to a degree, cultural) entity in eastern india with a relatively long history that shows significant longevity (even beyond its own dynasties). Maurya is just one ruling family of Magadha. Using Maurya as the name of a civilization is simply bad history, like using Bourbon instead of French as a civ name.

But if you had a Bourbon civ, it could also include Spain, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Hungary, and even the U.S. under Grover Cleveland...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The problem with that is that the chief thing you credit them for is being the first to unite India...their civ should be India!

Which I still wouldn't mind, if that was the case.

But that aside, I think the bigger strike against Maurya is that, further reading into Magadha, it places Maurya in its proper historical context: one of the (many) successive (and interrelated) ruling dynasties of Magadha during the second half of the first millenium BCE. Magadhi imperial expansion predated the Maurya and they remained a major imperial power well after the Maurya. The continuity between those dynasties as being the same state is plain obvious: every dynastic succession involve a relative, minister or general of the reigning king deposing him, not foreign conquest.

Magadha is an actual geographic (and, to a degree, cultural) entity in eastern india with a relatively long history that shows significant longevity (even beyond its own dynasties). Maurya is just one ruling family of Magadha. Using Maurya as the name of a civilization is simply bad history, like using Bourbon instead of French as a civ name.

I didn't realize that the Maurya would be under a Magadha civ. If that's the case, then I could live with that. Then again, I wouldn't mind using specific names such as Maurya or Gupta either. I mean they do use Ottomans instead of Turks/Turkey.

(There's a surprising case to be made that modern India, despite having completely flipped around on religion, is most closely a successor to persianized Hindustan, via the British Raj, so the name confusion between them is not necessarily a wholly bad thing)

I just think there are better names that have been suggesting.

 

[Evie]

Ottoman is a bit of a unique case, largely due to a) the potential confusion associated with the use of the term "Turks" in any form (It wouldn't be Turkey/Turkiye: the game use people names, not country names) covering a very, very, very, very wide swath of people and b)the fact that Ottoman and Ottoman Turks are well established as the name of the ethnic subdivision of Turks that the House of Osman arose in, and who are the predecessor of modern Anatolian Turks. So the Ottoman are a people and a culture, not merely a dynasty. That's what makes them a valid civ.

Outside that unique case, I am strongly opposed to dynasties as civs - it is simply a level of Balkanization that is entirely out of line with previous practice in CIV, and wholly unnecessary, forcing civs into small box that are relevant only to a small time period of the entire game rather than having potential for wide representation.

As for better names, Gurkani is a better name if you want to have a general Timurid civilization stretching into Central Asia (which is a valid goal) ; but Hindustan is a better name if you want to capture the general Persianized culture of northwestern India (including Delhi and other Islamic states of the region predating the Mughals). They are not identical or equivalent ; they are different names corresponding to different groupings, both of which could include the Mughals, and both are very good ideas in their own right.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ottoman is a bit of a unique case, largely due to a) the potential confusion associated with the use of the term "Turks" in any form (It wouldn't be Turkey/Turkiye: the game use people names, not country names) covering a very, very, very, very wide swath of people and b)the fact that Ottoman and Ottoman Turks are well established as the name of the ethnic subdivision of Turks that the House of Osman arose in, and who are the predecessor of modern Anatolian Turks. So the Ottoman are a people and a culture, not merely a dynasty. That's what makes them a valid civ.

Outside that unique case, I am strongly opposed to dynasties as civs - it is simply a level of Balkanization that is entirely out of line with previous practice in CIV, and wholly unnecessary, forcing civs into small box that are relevant only to a small time period of the entire game rather than having potential for wide representation.

I agree with you that using Turks/Turkish would be to broad of a category of different people, so focusing on the Ottomans is the best way to go about it.

As for better names, Gurkani is a better name if you want to have a general Timurid civilization stretching into Central Asia (which is a valid goal) ; but Hindustan is a better name if you want to capture the general Persianized culture of northwestern India (including Delhi and other Islamic states of the region predating the Mughals). They are not identical or equivalent ; they are different names corresponding to different groupings, both of which could include the Mughals, and both are very good ideas in their own right.

I mean in order I would go with Mughals>Gurkani>Hindustan, as my preference.
If we want to reference the other Islamic states of India I wouldn't mind if they could be in rotation, instead of making it a broader civ.

 

[Patine]

it is simply a level of Balkanization

I think I've brought this up before to you, or someone here, but people should avoid using the term, "Balkanization," to discuss preferences for nation/civ/faction choices strategy and 4x games. The two eras of history literally referred to - the independence wars of the Balkan Nations from the Ottomans and the cavalier meddling of the Great Powers of Europe from 1820 till 1912, and the civil wars tearing apart Yugoslavia in the '90's, were horrible and monstrous affairs, filled with atrocities and war crimes, and A LOT of people who lived through the second instance are still alive. Other historical instances the term is applied to comparativity tend to be no better. I honestly think we can come up with a more neutral and pragmatic term without such bloody baggage.

 

[Evie]

You know, that's a good point. I don't think I was the person you previously brought it up with, but I'm glad you did now.

"Granularity", perhaps, may better serve us. And granularism for the tendency toward wanting increased granularity in civs.

 

[pineappledan]

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.

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).

These two posts match my thoughts pretty much exactly. A Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim, Northeast/Northwest/South, Classical/Medieval/Early Modern, Indo-Vedic/Dravidian/Persian-Mongol split can be achieved with selecting either the Mauryas or Guptas, the Chola, and the Gurkhani/Mughals. I would be perfectly content with that split. That also has some great mechanical diversity, because the Chola would principally be a naval civ, Mughals would probably be domination-oriented, and Mauryas/Guptas would be religion/culture focused.

If they wanted to split South Asia a 4th way:
- The Rashtrakutas were principally Jains and spoke Kannada, two points of differentiation from their Chola contemporaries
- A Post-colonial Indian state led by Nehru
- A Nepali civ could be interesting

People are also tired of Gandhi's mascot status, but that's like Pokémon fans being tired of Pikachu

There have been quite a few mainline pokemon games with no Pikachu.

I think in all our debates on importance, geographic representation, equality and deblobbing, I think a factor we have tended to phenomenally underlook is longevity.

Another point for a Tamil civ, since they are the longest-lasting kingdoms in world history.

 

[Evie]

Black and White and their sequels were the only (mostly) Pikachu-less mainline games - one generation and two games out of eight generations and nineteen games (counting the pairs as a single game). So, not exactly a frequent thing.

Agreed on the Tamil, though - then again that'S hardly a surprise, I've been in favor of a Tamil (or a more generic Dravidian or more specific Chola, if we need to avoid the Tamil tiger baggage) civ for a long time. They are the single most obvious case for an additional Indian civ.