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

 

[Zohtun]

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.

The BEIC's way of doing things was utterly different to colonising or conquest. What they did was closer to vassalisation, with each of the Indian rulers basically controlling their "section" of India and the BEIC serving as an overlord. With the amount of manpower that the BEIC could call to arms at any time there was no possible way for it to actually control India. But they didn't need to. They just supported their direct "vassals" and ensured these men were happy, only getting involved in scuffles if the local rulers called for it.

Of course, just vassalisation wouldn't resemble the scenario either, since the BEIC had various territories it controlled directly (mainly ports) and EU4 vassals are really poor representations of India in this state. Really the BEIC (and any alternate history nation which tries to take their place) needs its own mechanics.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

yeah the BEIC really would have to be part of a full DLC, probably focused on India.

 

[talilu]

Moreover EU4 battles in the north India completely ignores the role of geography and rainy season, a 5km to 10km wide Ganges (July-August) and floods in most of the places where Jaunpuri though expert in river warfare will unfortunately get drowned and Jaunpur will loose substantial men and Afghani armies of Delhi will try to avoid water because of lesser river warfare experience and be lucky.

Would making the Ganges and other extremely big rivers of India actual water provinces help this situation? There would be "straits" like in Bosphorus so the provinces on opposite banks wouldn't be alienated and the crossing penalty for the attacker could represent the hardship of passing the rivers.

 

[grommile]

Moreover EU4 battles in the north India completely ignores the role of geography and rainy season,

Sadly, EU4 battles everywhere completely ignore the role of weather, and the logistical mechanics marginalize the role of weather because the AI has enough trouble coping with the mechanics that do exist.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Would making the Ganges and other extremely big rivers of India actual water provinces help this situation? There would be "straits" like in Bosphorus so the provinces on opposite banks wouldn't be alienated and the crossing penalty for the attacker could represent the hardship of passing the rivers.

I think I had made this point for Delhi-Jaunpur battles as to where OP says Delhi doesn't t always dominates the North (in reality Jaunpur was run over by Delhi by 1500s appx.) There is no need to mix it with colonisation.

It should be like winter mechanics, battle in July-August in the North India should cause increased attrition. Also its not alone about crossing the river, there has to be flood everywhere. Entire Bihar and Bengal to the north of Ganges and most of Doab. (Doab means land between two rivers - here - Ganga & Yamuna.)

 

[SantoshKashyap]

The BEIC's way of doing things was utterly different to colonising or conquest. What they did was closer to vassalisation, with each of the Indian rulers basically controlling their "section" of India and the BEIC serving as an overlord. With the amount of manpower that the BEIC could call to arms at any time there was no possible way for it to actually control India. But they didn't need to. They just supported their direct "vassals" and ensured these men were happy, only getting involved in scuffles if the local rulers called for it.

Of course, just vassalisation wouldn't resemble the scenario either, since the BEIC had various territories it controlled directly (mainly ports) and EU4 vassals are really poor representations of India in this state. Really the BEIC (and any alternate history nation which tries to take their place) needs its own mechanics.

I agree with most of your elucidation. I whole point I liked to make is making changes only in Europe will only result in a half-baked cake like its already currently, making adequate changes in India as well is an abject necessity for desirable results.

A simple question apart from entire colonisation and Eurocentric logic: Sultanates who should have died 200 years ago, (replaced by Feudal Nawabiats) still makes upto the end of the game; out of last 100 games, how many times, Mughals has been seen, out of these how many times Maratha could be seen? if some of most obvious events and tags could not be happening, the region needs attention, thats all.

 

[Louis XI]

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).

Well guess there must be a first time... (given the discussions in the later dev diary...). That being said, I don't know if it is too late, but please make it so that India doesn't end up being taken by one big country, but is rather actually colonised (or something equivalent...)

 

[grommile]

Well guess there must be a first time... (given the discussions in the later dev diary...). That being said, I don't know if it is too late, but please make it so that India doesn't end up being taken by one big country, but is rather actually colonised (or something equivalent...)

India should end up being (mostly) taken by one big country.

That country should be local, and ideally might suffer an untimely end due to its overambition.

 

[Louis XI]

India should end up being (mostly) taken by one big country.

That country should be local, and ideally might suffer an untimely end due to its overambition.

Yes, but though I don't know much about the history of India, there should be at least incentive for european to take India (and I thought there were actually war between France and England mainly for the control of India), and that is something I rarely see (instead there is a big Vijyanagar taking a lot of India, but absolutely no colonisator.).

So even if before the european colonial arrival there is a big country, this country should (unless well played by the player), ends up destroyed by them (something happening very well in america, where even if the colonial nations haven't historical border (hence I don't want the game to represent exactly what happened in history), the continent ends up mainly taken by them. (once again unless a good american player stops them).

Now this might be related to the problem of colonisators nations usually having a LOT of gold, and therefore not feeling the need to go to India to take even more (plus the transport of troops, the far away warfare, etc.).

 

[Aagney]

Though I may not sound very accurate but the European presence in India more or less was less of a colonialism (unlike Americas) and more of imperialism.
The major strike of Britain in India is said to have begun with the battle of Plassey. But it didn't removed Bengal Nawabdom, only that the control has more or less moved into British Hands. Similarly it is estimated that over 50% of areas under Direct British control in India were actually not won but ceded to them as a payment of some heavy loans or as a reward in lieu of military help against native vs native wars. The pretexts and results of a series Anglo-Mysore wars and Anglo-Maratha wars are classic examples. Thousands of princely states in India and various nawabdoms kept ruling under the British suzerainty.

The colonisation of India didn't result in the mass movement of population from west to India unlike in case of America or Australia. Even the cultures within India remained mostly Indian. So the colonisation of India should be seen unlike that of America with more of an imperialist design to it.

It is also surprising to note that till the BEIC didn't have any territory to manage in India (pre 1750) it remained highly profitable. The moment it had further administrative responsibility due the gain of territories in India, BEIC started getting into financial troubles. One can see how many times and in what colossal amount it had pleaded for loan grants from the British Parliament post 1750s.

A trading company's rapid (and forced due to circumstances) transformation into a governing company was hitting on its own profits; company decision to keep things as it is with most of administration being run through princely states so far they accepted their suzerainty kept working mostly satisfactorily and later when Lord Dalhousie came to India as Governor-general he broke the first Machiavellian Law: Never antagonise your own subordinates. Doctrine of Lapse added more territories to BEIC presidencies but at a cost of discontented Indian erstwhile royalties. A major revolt though started through something else pulled many of those antagonistic royalties in 1857 further resulting into the more dents into profits of the company followed by an anti-BEIC lobbying into British Parliament quite contrary to what had been happening in the earlier years. By 1858, the BEIC was no longer an entity in India.