Either one of those would make more sense, if you want to have a Perso-Turkic culture. Though I would personally just use the Mughals.
I guess if you are going for indigenous civs I'd go with someone from the southern part like the Guarini or the Mapuche again, since you have the northern part covered with the Muisca.
I'd like a civ from modern-day Nigeria too, but I can agree that giving them 4 out of 9 possible slots, almost half, for Sub-Saharan Africa might be too much.
No quota, simply a dedication to making sure that certain geographical regions aren't underrepresented. Sure, these regions are arbitrary, but so are most of the things we take for granted.
The Manchu were not that significant or noteworthy of a civ before becoming the ruling Qing Dynasty of China (and then basically melded into the Mandate of Heaven like foreign dynasties were often wont to do - though in their way and style - they still ruled China above and beyond being a separate state or nation), and they were certainly pretty pitiful after (Japanese Puppet State of Manchukuo, anyone). I don't see any value filling a finite slot with the Manchus as their own civ.
Odd choices would be a better term than off bases, in some cases, I guess. And I feel there's a better way to allow proper, "representation," (which, in and of itself, is a subjective and arbitrary concept, given limited civ slots) than hard equal numbers by historio-continental regions, with, "straddling," civ's hammered, like proud nails, into one arbitrary slot or another.
The Mughals can't represent the Golden Age that flourished in Samarkand and Bukhara. Otherwise, Northern India is represented by my Hindustani civ.
You are correct, looks like I dropped 2 names in the rearranging.
If you went with Tiridates III then the capital would be far enough into the western part of the Armenian highlands that it would be inside modern day Turkey.
What is this, "Hindustani," civ (which, to my knowledge, is the name of a transitional lingua franca from Sanskrit evolving into Hindi and Urdu, and not a singular nation or civilization of any cohesion) meant to represent. Wouldn't actual cultural-political-civilization entities of real definition like the Maurya, Gupta, or Maratha Empires, make more sense. This, "Hindustani," civ seems like Gandhi's, "India," but only receding from the Modern and Raj periods, and the Dravidian south, but still being a, "blob," civ. Unless you can clarify in a way that dispels that unflattering image.
A catch-all representation of the Islamic sultanates of northern India, including Delhi and Jaunpur, whose administrative and social structures formed the basis for the Mughal Empire, in my opinion an extremely important part of Indian history that should not be overlooked if India is to be deblobbed. Not sure how you think that is similar to an India blob, which is practically representing an entire continent as a single civilization.
And what about the Maurya, Gupta, and Maratha Empires, who are more representative of the breadth of history, and the majority of modern population, of Northern and Central India?
What about 'em
I see the Maratha are on your list. But the Gupta and Maurya (unless they, too, are under some funky, "catch-all," grouping) I don't see off-hand.
As I see it, the ideal division of India would be a Hindu or Buddhist Northern Empire (like Maurya or Gupta), a Muslim Northern Empire (like the Delhi Sultanate or Mughal Empire), the Maratha in the Central/Deccan Region, and a Tamil Dynasty, with Amristar and Kandy as important city-states.
I meant specifically as a Turko-Persian culture, not necessarily one located in Central Asia. Though you could argue that could still be achieved with Babur as leader, which could encompass cities from Central Asia to Northern India.
I care specifically about Central Asia. The Mughals simply can't represent the Golden Age of Bukhara and Samarkand.
I still feel arbitrary regionalization is unworkable - and undesirable - in the broad scope, anyways. Then, not only are the artificial numbers per region invoked, "straddler," civ's, like the Mughals, or Romans, or Byzantines, or Arab Caliphates, or Moroccans, or some Tamil Dynasties, or arguably the 'Rus, must be, "hammered," arbitrarily like, "proud nails," and the whole set-up just feels so, "plastic," rather than, "organic." I still stand against, "caring specifically about regions," to this unproductive extent.
I can understand your sentiment, to an extent. I do think that some quotas are at least good to fill, or at least desirable, such as representing a Polynesian culture, Native American, West African, mainland Southeast Asian civ etc. every game.
The other one I was missing from my reorganization was Burma. So 10 from Africa with the Berbers and 8 from South/Southeast Asia.
I found the politics! We can now all start ripping into each other
Now that you mention it, that is rather a lot, more than twice the modern world's ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim. I was afraid of that, which is partly why I dropped off Sokoto and the Swahili when I was revising my list.I notice there's a lot of Muslims in BonyCamp's list. Civ 6 has 4 Muslims out of 67 leaders (6.0%) vs 19 Muslims out of his 78 leaders (24.3%).
For context, civ 6 has roughly 26/67 Christian leaders (38.8%) and my own list has 5 out of 51 (9.8%). for context, my list has roughly 14/51 Christians (27.5%)
Islam is probably underrepresented in civ 6; a side-effect of including so many (Christian) European colonial states. 1 in 4 seems like a lot though.
I found the politics! We can now all start ripping into each other
Your original list had the Sokoto caliphate and Hausa as their own things, rather than just having Usman Dan Fodio as an alt leader for the Hausa? You wanted both a coastal Swahili civ and one of the Islamized interior kingdoms they were dependent on? Yeah I’d say you were double-dipping
designing bonuses would be hard with groups packed together and oversplit like that, probably.
