Why is India given zero attention

[NoseFaceButt]

It's a region that comprises 10% of the development of the game, yet it has no attention given to it.

The major problems I see, just off the top of my head:

• The Mughals never form
• The Delhi Sultanate never dominates North India
• Vijaynagar never disintegrates
• Bahmanis don't beat the living shit out of Vijaynagar
• 70% of the time Europeans don't break into India
• Literally zero events for most countries in the region, significant or insignificant.

Some of these issues are really easy to fix, to fix the first issue, just make Delhi collapse and turn into the Mughals, because that's literally what happened in history (kinda).

For the second, give Delhi lucky nation status for a while, or boost its development, also Multan should be a tributary to Delhi, which would also help boost its power.

Some important but not as significant things are:

• Sikhism always dies out
• The Punjabi empire never forms

These are just the really obvious problems, I'm sure there are a 100 more I could point out if I spent some time, but it's really annoying when Arabia, a region with 300 development, is more historically accurate than the region with 6 time that much dev. I would seriously pay for the DLC that fixes this region.

TL;DR: 3 minute clip on what South Asian after 1444

 

[Zak Preston]

Honestly, India is in terrible shape ATM:

• Vijayanagar is the only dominant nation in the region with really good NIs, good development and quick access to forming Bharat.
• Every other nation has one of 2 problems: it has trash-tier NI's (Bahmanis, Bengal, Jaunpur) or too low development\disadvantageous position (Dehli, Mewar, Nepal).

In MP it creates a dilemma: you place Vija, a local Indian Ottoman who can steamroll 1v2 or 1v3 after 10-15 years of MP-campaign start. If Vija is not playable, then most likely India ends up assembled by Bahmanis with useless NIs and trash-tier army.

 

[Xetfield]

Ok, counter-arguments to my position are strong, I can only agree with them.

 

[NoseFaceButt]

It's the kind of hyperbole that tends to make people think you're a blind idiot, though - because we do get blind idiots asking why (region that has received significant attention) is not getting any attention.

"India needs more attention", while still not the best way to express your sentiment, would have been much a better thread title than "Why is India given zero attention"

Yeah, I think agree with you and it was a mistake to do that, I think I want to rephrase this post with a more thought out approach to solving the problems in the region and the many historical inaccuracies.

As we have said before (and have for years, like I used to whenever the Timurids were brought up) we also recognize India is in need of attention in the future. It is not the only region to be in need of that however, so all in due time

Like with all regions concrete suggestions are welcome and will be revisited when we do get to that region at some point. That’s also more or less what this forum is for so by all means make more of them for all topics you have something you would like to suggest something for (not just India).



There has never been strong reactions against adding non-European content for eu during my 3.5 years on the project. Quite the contrary. That is as far as I know mostly a thing in the ck community (and that community is off topic to discuss here).

Given that this is a suggestions forum for what could be done in various ways with the game I would not worry about discussing stuff like popularity, we have better ways to judge that.
We come here for the suggestions themselves.

Didn't expect a team member to reply, thank you so much

 

[SantoshKashyap]

BTW, one of my present Oda > Japan Game: Mughals right there.....

 

[Willem IV]

I wish that Vijayanagar survived more often. Normally it’s Bengal and Bahmanis that dominate the subcontinent.
The Mughals are indeed a rare sight, which I regret.

My current game I got a strong Multan Sikh empire, which I promtly allied to make them even greater.

 

[liveandletdie14]

Forming India needs to be as difficult as forming the Roman Empire for the Europeans in my opinion. It needs 3 formable nations like CK2 and 1 India Empire level tier nation

A more nuanced India company mechanic is also needed, I'm thinking something on the lines of maybe an idea set where you can build a limited number of forts, factories, trade markets in an Indian province owned by an Indian nation which allows the European nation to make claims in the province and invade. Making sort of a halfway between colonization and annexation.

 

[JKiller96]

India really needs more events and especially deeper national ideas. I have suggested some like Sind, but it looks like Paradox is saving all these changes for an India expansion, and I trust Paradox will solve many problems with India, especially various state changes like the Mughals and Deccani sultanates.

 

[grommile]

Forming India needs to be as difficult as forming the Roman Empire for the Europeans in my opinion.

I'm honestly confused how someone could arrive at such an opinion; you don't have to do that much better than the Mughals to rule the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

 

[JKiller96]

I'm honestly confused how someone could arrive at such an opinion; you don't have to do that much better than the Mughals to rule the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

I agree. Uniting India should be difficult but forming Roman Empire just never happens. Even most players can't do that.

 

[liveandletdie14]

I'm honestly confused how someone could arrive at such an opinion; you don't have to do that much better than the Mughals to rule the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

And you should be able to take over all of Egypt as the Ottomans in 1 year,

It's a game, it took the Mughals 200 years to take over nearly all of India yet you can do it largely by around 1550s in the current game. Forming India should be a late game ending 1650s-1700.

Maybe I'm exaggerating the Roman Empire I wouldn't want it THAT difficult, but it should defo be more a late game achievement than a mid game.

Essentially you don't have a late game feud, once you wipe out Bahamanis for instance you are pretty much unchallenged for the rest of the game. Whereas in Europe you have enough large enemies to put a dampner on your expansionism

 

[SantoshKashyap]

And you should be able to take over all of Egypt as the Ottomans in 1 year,

It's a game, it took the Mughals 200 years to take over nearly all of India ....

And could barely keep it under control for just a decade.

There are infact some interesting parallels between Mohammad Bin Tughlaq's Delhi Empire and Aurangzeb's Hindustan.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

I'm honestly confused how someone could arrive at such an opinion; you don't have to do that much better than the Mughals to rule the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

well historically in the game's timeframe, it really could've only happened with the Maratha Empire. Prior to that (1690-1707 etc) it was all Mughal land. The Delhi Sultanate got close in the 1300's, but failed.

I mean realistically, it is bloody hard to assert control, and then maintain that control, over some three to four billion people. (typo, see below)
So I have no problem with the requirements for Bharat/Hindustan being more difficult. Obviously not Roman Empire level, but it should be a very significant challenge imo

 

[SantoshKashyap]

well historically in the game's timeframe, it really could've only happened with the Maratha Empire. Prior to that (1690-1707 etc) it was all Mughal land. The Delhi Sultanate got close in the 1300's, but failed.

I mean realistically, it is bloody hard to assert control, and then maintain that control, over some three to four billion people. So I have no problem with the requirements for Bharat/Hindustan being more difficult. Obviously not Roman Empire level, but it should be a very significant challenge imo

If you say that Delhi Sultanate got close but failed, the very same applies to the Mughals as well. Last 27 years of his life Aurangzeb only kept suppressing revolts in the South India, almost living away from Delhi, in Aurangabad and died doing that. Taxes were not reaching Delhi and if sometimes they could get some, it would get looted in the way. Mughals were almost bankrupt from the Southern expedition.

I wish forming Bharat or Hindustan should be made slightly more tougher. To start with one must own 20 provinces from their primary culture group plus at least 10 provinces each from 2 other culture group. That is a total of at least 40 provinces.

I also don't like the nomenclature "Mughal", well it should be called Hindustan. PDX has created more confusion with its own historical versions.
It should be like:
Timurid lines - Hindustan
Indian Sultanates - Sultanate -e-Hind (or just restore glory of Delhi Sultanate, available to all sultanates), This idea can developed to form Sur Empire as well.
All remaining - Bharat.

 

[JKiller96]

well historically in the game's timeframe, it really could've only happened with the Maratha Empire. Prior to that (1690-1707 etc) it was all Mughal land. The Delhi Sultanate got close in the 1300's, but failed.

I mean realistically, it is bloody hard to assert control, and then maintain that control, over some three to four billion people. So I have no problem with the requirements for Bharat/Hindustan being more difficult. Obviously not Roman Empire level, but it should be a very significant challenge imo

The population of India only surpassed a billion in the 90's

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

If you say that Delhi Sultanate got close but failed, the very same applies to the Mughals as well. Last 27 years of his life Aurangzeb only kept suppressing revolts in the South India, almost living away from Delhi, in Aurangabad and died doing that. Taxes were not reaching Delhi and if sometimes they could get some, it would get looted in the way. Mughals were almost bankrupt from the Southern expedition.

Yeah I think I went on the assumption that because they couldn't be unified and stable they "failed". But they both would certainly qualify for the EU4 conditions of forming Hindustan

The population of India only surpassed a billion in the 90's

wow this was a huge typo lol. I mean 3-4 million km worth of people. Don't know how I made that mistake haha. thanks for pointing it out

 

[Trin Tragula]

If you say that Delhi Sultanate got close but failed, the very same applies to the Mughals as well. Last 27 years of his life Aurangzeb only kept suppressing revolts in the South India, almost living away from Delhi, in Aurangabad and died doing that. Taxes were not reaching Delhi and if sometimes they could get some, it would get looted in the way. Mughals were almost bankrupt from the Southern expedition.

I wish forming Bharat or Hindustan should be made slightly more tougher. To start with one must own 20 provinces from their primary culture group plus at least 10 provinces each from 2 other culture group. That is a total of at least 40 provinces.

I also don't like the nomenclature "Mughal", well it should be called Hindustan. PDX has created more confusion with its own historical versions.
It should be like:
Timurid lines - Hindustan
Indian Sultanates - Sultanate -e-Hind (or just restore glory of Delhi Sultanate, available to all sultanates), This idea can developed to form Sur Empire as well.
All remaining - Bharat.

I’m no fan of our naming conventions either in this case as I do think Hindustan is a much better name than Mughals for the empire of Babur and his successors but I don’t really see how sultan of hind is different from Hindustan, the Mughals did not introduce that term, they just liked to use it (and both terms are of course Persian).
Sultan e Hind is also more of a title than the name of a state. Having both a Hind and a Hindustan would be both superfluous and confusing in my opinion (they are after all the exact same thing and both terms were in use at the same time).

It’s all pretty academic for this game though. Our naming conventions mean it has to be Mughals and there’s nothing I can do about that
To be fair, for most people playing the Mughals would be a much more familiar term as well.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Sultan e Hind is also more of a title than the name of a state. Having both a Hind and a Hindustan would be both superfluous and confusing in my opinion (they are after all the exact same thing and both terms were in use at the same time)..

That is true and serves it better this way.

How about developing the Afghani nuances (Bahlul & company) to a next level. With growing afghan influence on sultanates (most notably on Delhi & Jaunpur, Gujarat) and declining of Turkish nobility a new tension was getting created within the sultanates undermining the very power of the monarch. It is said that Bahlul Lodi didn't even used to sit on the throne in front of his fellow Afghan men. (Democratic Afghan tribal sentiments vs absolutism of monarchy.)

With the coming of Mughals (Babur didn't have much liking for afghans as he didn't consider them true muslims.) a new tension got created between old Afghan nobility (who had even measured their swords in Panipat) and the new mongol-turkmeni nobility. Since Babur needed Afghan support at least in the initial days, Afghani nobility were not done away entirely, who would rise in revolt in 1531 soon after the death of Bubur and Humayun would subdue them only to see a massive revolt within a decade leading to routing of Mughals from India entirely. All afghan had actually unified under Sher Shah and Sur empire was thus founded taking each and every province of the Mughal India.

In Indian history Sur empire is very crucial for the very foundation of later Mughals. No administrative changes were brought about during Babur and Humayun and they continued the more or less the same rotten system of Delhi Sultanate in their administration. Sur empire although very short-lived (unfortunate accidental death of Sher Shah) actually brought about a lot of administrative and economic changes which for the first time created a stable political situation in the North India after centuries.

If Akbar's solid policy laid the foundation of the Mughal empire then a lot of credit goes to Sher Shah Suri who actually first introduced them and which were copied by Akbar and further improved upon.

Afghan nobility actually never forgave Mughals and would be seen resurrecting till the British days, e.g.: Rohelkhand.

I think this theme should be introduced in the game along with the Sur tag.

 

[JKiller96]

I’m no fan of our naming conventions either in this case as I do think Hindustan is a much better name than Mughals for the empire of Babur and his successors but I don’t really see how sultan of hind is different from Hindustan, the Mughals did not introduce that term, they just liked to use it (and both terms are of course Persian).
Sultan e Hind is also more of a title than the name of a state. Having both a Hind and a Hindustan would be both superfluous and confusing in my opinion (they are after all the exact same thing and both terms were in use at the same time).

It’s all pretty academic for this game though. Our naming conventions mean it has to be Mughals and there’s nothing I can do about that
To be fair, for most people playing the Mughals would be a much more familiar term as well.

Many nations come out weirdly in their naming. Bahmanis without a Bahmani ruler comes to mind.

 

[cristofolmc]

India does not need a DLC. Because we all need what a Paradox DLC is like. No better or more challenging gameplay, but a shitload of bonuses just because. And India needs quite the contrary. Needs flavour and many events to break it up to allow Europeans to colonize it, which NEVER happens. So the game rather needs a much more eurocentric DLC that actually allows for Asia colonization and asian trade indian companies which NEVER happen except the colonizable provinces of Java and indonesia that Poland or Spain colonize. But they never conquer or anything so the impact of the european presence on Asia is nonexisten as opposed to what it should actually be, with european holdings already by 1650.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

And India needs quite the contrary. Needs flavour and many events to break it up to allow Europeans to colonize it, which NEVER happens. ...

What.......And making a Euro-centric only DLC is a right approach to a closer desirable outcome.

India needs a DLC that focuses on its strong regional identities that may lead to political disintegration. (It should not be surprising that British India had over 700 princely states.)

Colonising of India should not be seen in the same light as colonising Americas or Africa, thats why only the British could succeed. They recognised the role of local traders and money lenders, zamindars and dissatisfied local officers. And lastly, the BEIC was technically working as on behalf of the emperor of India, the Mughals.