• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

SantoshKashyap

Captain
13 Badges
Sep 11, 2015
399
64
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
The sultanates in India region were outsiders who ousted the local rulers.

Except for the Delhi Sultanate in the EU4, all other Sultanates are relatively new and they must not be represented as primary nation of the culture and should loose permanent cores from all provinces, eventually.

It should also be noted that, throughout medieval times wherever Mughals or Sultanate had loose command, local Hindu chiefs would develop their own principalities of independent nature who would turn into a tributary state when called to measure swords. A majority of them would merge into some sultanate if there arose contention over lordship between two powers. Very common between Bahamani - Malwa, Malwa-Jaunpur, Mewar-Malwa, Mewar-Gujarat, Jaunpur-Bengal.

During the Mughals, Many of these principalities survived because of "Watan-Jagir" policy of Akbar - Mughals would not tolerate any subordinate Muslim principality within its reach and that the privilege of having Watan-Jagir would be confined to only Hindu dynasties of long standing. Thus these numerous small Hindu principalities enjoyed a little independence within Mughal framework of suzerainty. This set up was not disturbed till the time of Aurangzeb who owing to Jagirdari crisis went on to absorbing these petty states & Zagirs increasing much discontent and it later killed the Mughals like a Boa under its own constriction.

Number of such petty principalities in EU4 era would be over 50 which would get created-destroyed and resurface in Medieval times. A detailed work on these can be found and included in the game. (India would look like HRE with multiple single province nations but thats how it was when large power were not in scene). There is no need to put all of them but their essence needs to captured which will play very instrumental in fall and rise of empires.

A few medieval example off my mind:

Chhappan of Bhils
Rewa (Battah)
Bhurshut in Bengal (Howrah-Hoogly region)
Bankura in Bengal
Jessor in Bengal

It needs a thorough study and then incorporation. There were Over 500 principalities in British India - all of the regional characteristics. Many were already absorbed during Dalhousie's Doctrine of Lapse.



India needs a rework. This was one of the most happening place in EU4 era. It saw birth of three empires - Mughals, Marathas & British - after the successive decline of the former. But none of them happen in the game.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Sultanates revolted away on multiple occasions in India:
Bahmanis split into a whole bunch of Sultanates.
Muslim Gujarat and Malwa revolted from Mughals and from Surs.
Bengal broke away as a Muslim state on more than one occasion.
Just to name a few of those we have as primary tags :)
 
Sultanates revolted away on multiple occasions in India:
Bahmanis split into a whole bunch of Sultanates.
Muslim Gujarat and Malwa revolted from Mughals and from Surs.
Bengal broke away as a Muslim state on more than one occasion.
Just to name a few of those we have as primary tags :)
And how about petty small principalities who in turn revolted (and subdued) from time to time from these sultanates - many of those who survived as tributaries. Shouldn't they be a more truer contender of their own culture. Why Shouldn't kingdom of Burshut (15th-18th Century) in the heart of Bengal, though in vassalage capacity, be the primary nation of their culture. Or What makes older states like Idar (1257-1948) in Gujarat less Gujarati.

Even Bahamanis were the promoters of Persian language and culture and not Kannad. And Khandesh who promoted Deccani was not different from Hindavi in the Maratha-Malavi region. Golconda who promoted Urdu & Persian is represented as the primary nation of Telugu culture. In EU4 terms Golconda & Carnatic were Hindavi and not Telugu or Tamil.

Lets look at the Saurashtra region which is being ruled by a dynasty from 9th century to 15 century looses everything once Gujarat wins over them and now "sons of soil" are not primary nation but the neighbours of recent origin - whose rulers can't even speak Gujarati and would promote Persian - are now primary nation of Gujarati culture. Rewakantha (over 70% of which had been ruled by Bhil Chiefs since ancient days) are also no longer primary nation.

For Example after the fall of VijayaNagar, The Nayak principalities were:

  • The Madurai Nayaks were rulers from around 1529 until 1736, of a region comprising most of modern-day Tamil Nadu, with Madurai as their capital.
  • Thanjavur Nayak kingdom or Thanjavur Nayak dynasty were the rulers of Thanjavur principality of Tamil Nadu between the 16th to the 17th century.
  • he Nayaks of Gingee (Senji) were rulers of the GInjee principality of Tamil Nadu between 16th to 18th century CE.
  • The Nayaks of Kalahasti were rulers of Kalahasti and Vandavasi principalities. These Nayaks served as vassals and loyalists to the Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagar Empire then headquartered at Chandragiri Fort and Vellor Fort.
  • Nayakas of Chitradurga (1588–1779 CE) ruled parts of eastern Karnatka during the post-Vijayanagara period. During the rule of Hoysala Empire and Vijayanagar Empire they served as a feudatory chiefdom. Later after the fall of the Vijayanagara empire, they ruled at times as an independent Chiefdom and at other times as a vassal of the Mysore Kingdom, Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire.
  • Nayakas of Keladi, also known as Nayakas of Bednore and Kings of Ikkeri (1499–1763), were based from Kheladi, Karnataka.
  • The Nayaks of Kandy (a.k.a. Kandy Nayak Dynasty) were the rulers of Sri-Lanka with Kandy as their capital from 1739 to 1815. They were also the last dynasty to rule Sri Lanka.
Out of these only Madurai & Kheladi has been favoured in the game. Small principalities were the feature of the age after the the fall of large empires like Sultanate, Vijayanagar, Mughals, Marathas.


Though this may not be acceptable to Dev's but Single Primary Culture Nation are inadequate in Indian scenarios. It should be replaced with multiple nations within a culture with primary rights over particular province/s (Primary Province Nation) or a mix of both.

On a more preposterous proposition let various British Princely states who had been ruled by the dynasties earlier than 1739 (Nadir Shah exposes the Shadow empire of Mughals) form the basis for the Primary Culture Nation. This will involve a lot of work and research and province redistribution. If there be a very small principality, they can be ignored in the favour of the larger neighbours. It can also be worked around keeping the best of the two world.

The Dates in this wiki-link needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, for example - Tippera is shown from 1809 but that is time it came under the British. The line had been surviving for centuries earlier and once commanded entire Comilla (Dhaka east of Meghana river), Hilly Chittagong besides Tripura.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(alphabetical)
 
Last edited:
Even in my current game, Sultanate of Bengal suddenly popped up in 1750s after they were dead for over 200 years. Wasn't it the time for the Nawabs & Zamindar Kings of Bengal who should have come up instead. It feels dumb. (The age of Reformation or Absolutism simply failed to touch Masses.)

Why should Ahmednagar or Bijapur revolt when these are taken from Bahamani. These were formed after revolt from Bahamani themselves. Now it makes feel as if the new conquering nation was dumb enough to religiously employ generals of the Bahamani who in turn revolted from their new ruler. It is poor mechanic of game that Bahamani don't break-up on its own, why should it revolt from others. (I know I am over the brim).

Even Carnatic are made primary nation whether Mughals happen or not. (At the cost of Nayak rulers).

If Punjab is a primary nation and sometimes stupidly available even from the beginning of the game, why Maratha are not at least after 1650s.

The point I want to make is that the region which saw 4 empires in 500 years (The Grand Sultanate (Delhi) during Muhammad Bin Tughlaq a century prior to EU4, Mughals, Marathas, British) need better mechanics. May be multiple primary nation - fitting to its timeline - but must activate depending upon other circumstances. The single primary nation of 1444 is inadequate. Or some other mechanics completely different from it which can capture these essence.

This is one of the concern for India is a-historic. Mechanics should be such that at least 30% (or higher) of the time history should be viable. It is killing variety. You can find Iberian Wedding to happen at least over 85% of time or more, how many times Mughals happen, or Marathas happen, or Bahamani breakup.

It is just poor.
 
Last edited: