Delhi --> Mughals

[Chicken]

So... apparently the transition from Delhi to the Mughals isn't possible without some degree of manipulation. I started a game as Delhi only to realize that by 1499, I couldn't take the decision because my culture is of the wrong group. This makes sense, of course, but is there something I can still do to get the decision?

The first thing that comes to mind would be to try to take all of the Timmurids' remaining territory, hoping that it's enough people to accept a culture shift (coupled with moving my capital)... then form the Mughal Empire. But is that the only way? Am I missing something?

The way I see it is that I do have one major fact could save my hopes. India is made up of about 6 million different cultures in the game, so if I took all of the Timmurids' Uzbek provinces, it might be enough to form (roughly) a majority.

 

[Fishman786]

I think it's kind of silly for Paradox to include a Mughal empire and not an Indian empire, given the fact that in EU (and arguably in real life) it is a lot more likely for a united India to be formed by a native Indian kingdom than by an Altaic empire such as the Timurids.

I would really like to see an Indian nation in the game, as a choice for both Hindu and Muslim countries to form. Sure, it would be ahistorical, but so is Scandinavia.

But then again, I would rather see the Indian countries be given more depth than they currently have.

 

[I am.]

If I recall correctly, all the Uzbekh provinces should do... (Unless you get that assimilation event over and over again ))
Anyway, you are trying it ahistorically
Nice efort

 

[bofski]

Is uzbek big enough? I assumed it collieded with Kyrgyz in the east and Kazakh in the north and persia and some others i the south and west pretty soon.
You have taken a lot of Indian provinces already. Maybe going Tartar will be your only shot, as I think that it's the biggest Altaic culture, but that will be a pretty long walk. Maybe you can sell or create vassals, so you will be able to get the shift to uzbek.
However, why change? The mighty Dehli Sultanate that not even the mighty Mongol Empire could conquer is fit eough to be ruler of the world, cocering my humble opinion.

 

[ADP101]

I think it's kind of silly for Paradox to include a Mughal empire and not an Indian empire, given the fact that in EU (and arguably in real life) it is a lot more likely for a united India to be formed by a native Indian kingdom than by an Altaic empire such as the Timurids.

I would really like to see an Indian nation in the game, as a choice for both Hindu and Muslim countries to form. Sure, it would be ahistorical, but so is Scandinavia.

But then again, I would rather see the Indian countries be given more depth than they currently have.

Not true exactly, all the major northern Indian nations (excluding the Rajputs) were all muslim. All of them were not native. Delhi was a Turkik/Afghan dynasty, Jaunpur (in game Bihar) was not hindu it was muslim and I'm pretty sure was an Afghan dynasty, and Bengal was Turkic/Afghan/Pashtun, and at one time had this Ethiopian dynasty ruling (im not sure how that happened lol). All of the major revolts at this time were not Hindu (except the one lead by Samart Hemu), but were actually from major afghan and persian leaders.

But I do agree that there should be a formable Hindustan or Bharat nation.

 

[DPS]

I think it's kind of silly for Paradox to include a Mughal empire and not an Indian empire, given the fact that in EU (and arguably in real life) it is a lot more likely for a united India to be formed by a native Indian kingdom than by an Altaic empire such as the Timurids.

I would really like to see an Indian nation in the game, as a choice for both Hindu and Muslim countries to form. Sure, it would be ahistorical, but so is Scandinavia.

But then again, I would rather see the Indian countries be given more depth than they currently have.

It used to be possible for the Indian nations to form the Mughal Empire (I did it once with Vijanager(sp)), but people complained that it was too ahistorical, and it got changed (I think with the release of IN, but I'm not sure about that--it could have been earlier). I think Paradox kind of misunderstood the complaints. The complaints weren't that an expanionistic Indian nation shouldn't have been able to form a united empire, the complaints were that they wouldn't have called it the Mughal Empire.

 

[bippukt]

I was also miffed at the lack of India/Hindustan and the inability to form even the Mughal Empire. The Mughals might have come from the outside, but for all practical purposes they became steeped in the Indian culture apart from adding their own to the local culture. Of course, the limitation of the religion system to reflect the situation in India makes things very hard for a Muslim country in the game.

I solved the problem by custom creating the country India, formed only by a decision. I was also dissatisfied with the taxation and manpower of the Indian provinces, so I modified them slightly. I might have overdone it slightly though! I also changed the Hinduism's +5% tax bonus to -10%, instead gave a trading and production bonus, reduced the missionary chance (hindu missionaries most successful? No!) and did some other minor tweaks. That's what is so lovely about this game - even a novice like me can easily mod the game to my own tastes

 

[Tjuk]

I think the problem is that at the time the ruling class of the northern "nations" of India were descendants of the Timurids and therefore of Altaic culture, while the general population was Indian. Perhaps the dynasties should get a culture assigned to them so we can let the decision depend on that instead of the culture of the plebs. This would make it possible to form the Mughal empire even for the Sunni states that have a majority of Hindu Indians living in them. While being historically correct, this would add some depth to the remarkably shallow new dynasty feature.

 

[6354201]

No starting Indian nation should be able to form the Mughals, it wouldn't make any sense. The Mughals were an external dynasty that at first had no intentions of staying in India. Babur's main goal was Samarkand, not Delhi, and only after years of ruling did the Mughals integrate and became Indian in nature themselves.

There also shouldn't be any nation that can be formed called India/Hindustan. India was (and still is today in many ways) just as fragmented as Europe. Forming India in EU3 is like being able to form Europe as a nation. While today there is the EU, and of course India exists today (as a federal country with states that many times correspond to old Indian kingdoms), I think it is well outside the time period and practicality of EU3.

I think it's kind of silly for Paradox to include a Mughal empire and not an Indian empire, given the fact that in EU (and arguably in real life) it is a lot more likely for a united India to be formed by a native Indian kingdom than by an Altaic empire such as the Timurids.

I would really like to see an Indian nation in the game, as a choice for both Hindu and Muslim countries to form. Sure, it would be ahistorical, but so is Scandinavia.

But in real life that's just what happened, no native Indian kingdom united India, whereas the Mughals and Babur, who claimed a hereditary link to Timur, did. A big problem with EU is there is no easy way to simulate the Mughals before they settled in India. They weren't a nation, they were a dynasty.

Scandinavia is actually a terrible example and nothing like an Indian nation. The Indian subcontinent is incredibly diverse and has multiple languages that are unintelligible to each other. Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) all have similar languages, were all actually united under the Kalmar union for a brief time, and in the 19th century where nationalism arose there was active and realistic talk of union. I see Scandinavia mentioned frequently on the forums as an example of a "fantasy" nation, when in reality it was very plausible. An Indian nation, in this time period, is total fantasy however.

 

[ADP101]

Too bad India is so underpowered in vanilla, by the time the Mughal empire reaches its peak, they wouldnt have even unlocked the Mughal Line unit types. Hell by the time the Marathas are at their peak, they wouldnt have even unlocked the Mughal line unites, or even their Maratha units. When the Mughals invade India in game, they still use archers >.>. Asia in general is overdue for a rebalance.

 

[Fishman786]

Not true exactly, all the major northern Indian nations (excluding the Rajputs) were all muslim. All of them were not native. Delhi was a Turkik/Afghan dynasty, Jaunpur (in game Bihar) was not hindu it was muslim and I'm pretty sure was an Afghan dynasty, and Bengal was Turkic/Afghan/Pashtun, and at one time had this Ethiopian dynasty ruling (im not sure how that happened lol). All of the major revolts at this time were not Hindu (except the one lead by Samart Hemu), but were actually from major afghan and persian leaders.

But I do agree that there should be a formable Hindustan or Bharat nation.

I still count Indian Muslims as being native. Their religion may be different but culturally they are similar to Hindus and Sikhs.

But in real life that's just what happened, no native Indian kingdom united India, whereas the Mughals and Babur, who claimed a hereditary link to Timur, did. A big problem with EU is there is no easy way to simulate the Mughals before they settled in India. They weren't a nation, they were a dynasty.

India was united under Asoka way back in the BCs, the Guptas got quite close and within EU's timeframe the Marathas almost made it.

 

[Trin Tragula]

The Marathas weren't that close. During their bigger extents they were more of a lose federation which fractured rather quickly and there where large parts of the subcontinent that they didn't control at all (not that I suppose they ever intended to).
Obviously a hindu pan-indian empire in this timeframe would've been entirely possible though (but I doubt it would ever refer to itself using the Persian name "Hindusthan").

I still count Indian Muslims as being native. Their religion may be different but culturally they are similar to Hindus and Sikhs.

The Sikh religion was born during the game's time frame and was at least then perceived as a bit of a mix between Hinduism and Islam. Many of it's converts where former Muslims. It would become a lot more anti muslim later on though due to events that also transpired during the game's time frame.
As for the Indian Muslims I think you can argue either way. In the Doab region in the north and in the Punjab Muslims had been part of the aristocracy for quite a while when the game starts and would IMHO be considered native (even if they where mostly of afghan/Persian/turkoman/Arab descent), there where also cases of actual native Indian Muslim dynasties in many places (i.e. converts). In southern and central India the Muslims were still a somewhat foreign element as a ruling class however. The Bahmani Sultanate (Deccan in vanilla) had continual problems with it's mostly Persian aristocracy versus the local aristocracy (even if they where all Muslims mostly) and eventually fractured because of this.
That said none of these nations treated their subjects in a way that would give an effect similar to the ones given in Eu3 for wrong cultured provinces...

 

[ADP101]

The Mayuras were the only people ever to unite the Indian subcontinent before the modern day nation (if you can call that united ). The Marathas could have done it, but a couple of bad moves, europeon interference and the fact that it was a confederacy stopped that.

And yea i agree with what Trig said, they werent native, but at the same time they kinda were (if that makes sense :wacko. The Mughals actually did not speak whatever language they spoke in the doab region at this time, im still not quite sure what it was. AFAIK, they spoke an eastern Persian language. That language eventually intertwined with the local doab languages and created Urdu. But in some aspects their "culture" was similar because they had been living there for centuries, but they still held on to Afghan/Persian/Arabian culture. And depending on the sultanate/the ruling sultan, most of them were fairly tolerant of other religions.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Babur spoke old Chagatai Or atleast that's what his autobiography is written in. They where Turkomans (in itself a rather vague term in this era). The army he brought with him is likely to have spoken some sort of Dari mostly as they where mostly afghans/turkomans/persians.
I think it's safe to say however that Persian in some form or another would be understood by most in the Doab region by 1399 and the Mughals could speak Persian so that's how they made themselves understood. As you say Urdu is basically what the official court language of the Mughal Empire evolved into.
The language spoken in that region during this era would be Hindavi, though that in itself doesn't mean much as it's really a general name used for the language spoken in the Delhi region after it is mixed with Persian (i.e. sometime during the 13th century) and before it evolves into modern Hindi

 

[6354201]

I still count Indian Muslims as being native. Their religion may be different but culturally they are similar to Hindus and Sikhs.

I think that is very questionable and it is really oversimplifying things. There is no such thing as a native "Indian", or "Indian" culture, it is a made up term, in the same way that there isn't really such a thing as a "European" nationality or culture. It's like saying English Protestants and Orthodox Greeks are 'native' Europeans and are culturally similar. Likewise, Muslim Punjabis and Hindu Tamils are just as different. They might as well be from different continents.

India was united under Asoka way back in the BCs, the Guptas got quite close and within EU's timeframe the Marathas almost made it.

And you could point out that Europe was basically united under Rome, does that make European unification feasible in this time period? Of course not. The Marathas, like Trin Tragula pointed out, were a very loose confederacy. Their control over their territory amounted to basically being the principle receivers of tribute in the area, they didn't really have a developed bureaucracy or anything like the advanced rank (mansabadari) system the Mughals had. They rose to power and when defeated basically evaporated, as if they were a bad memory and nothing more.

 

[unmerged(101035)]

I think what we have here is a sub-debate (if you will) of historical vs. fun to be honest. India WAS (not to mention is) formed, cultural differences or not... and yet, from a historical sense, always was (and probably is) as different as a nation called "Europe". From a game perspective, it's more a matter of personal taste. I think the vanilla version is clearly euro-centric (which by definition makes Scandinavia incomparable), yet if you want an Indian nation there are plenty of mods that let you do this. Even if you wanted to play in vanilla but just have a formable India, simply research how. No big deal.

More to the point (in my own opinion at any rate) is the previously mentioned fact that the Mughal Empire will not even use its own (vanilla) historical units ever if left to the AI. That is semi derailing though, since it's not exactly in the spirit of the OP post.

EDIT: Except that to be more helpful (although I haven't played vanilla at all since HTTT was released) the problem you are describing results from the game classification of "Indian" culture types vs. "Altaic". Any of the "Altaic" can form (even totally ahistoric countries), whereas not a single "Indian" country can form an "Indian" country. I think that is probably a problem in vanilla, if only because of the fact that clearly even Europe thought "India" was a country as evidenced by calling new world aboriginals "Indians". How that is more "fantastical" than Scandinavia I cannot rightly say now that I think about it. That said, I think we all know that forming a country in game terms is fun. Perhaps we are biased by wanting to form countries. I don't know... it's a rather circular debate...

 

[bippukt]

India most certainly didn't exist as a political entity. If you consider today's definition of a nation or nationalism, then India didn't exist. But despite all their differences, leaving aside the North-Eastern states (and perhaps a few others as I have no idea about these), their was a sense of a distinct identity. Some of the writings of that time also give this idea. It would have been nice to have a decision to form India, but not having it is not that big a deal. Even if it annoys me, I have the remedy of making my own decision

But the fact that Mughals can't even get their own units is a bit too much. As somebody mentioned earlier, Asia needs a rebalance. The reason, IMHO, why so many Muslims were able to rule a pre-dominantly Hindu India was not superior technology, at least not as much as the game makes it. It was a combination of superior technology and the gulf in the "warrior culture" between the two. The unique property of Indian culture to assimilate foreign cultures without too much conflict played its role, as did the Muslim rulers who, for whatever reason, displayed the necessary 'tolerance'.

On two counts, the game fails completely as far as India is concerned:
-As mentioned, the tech disparity makes historical units unavailable to the "countries" that had it.
-It has no way of showing the religious situation in India, with the Muslim rulers very much tolerating the Hindu religion of the population. 0% growth due to -3 tolerance for Mughals ruling much of India? I think not. Mughals and most other Muslim states in India should have a religious decision available to them giving +3 or +4 tolerance for Hinduism. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem possible.

 

[unmerged(148296)]

It was the British domination that formed the united indian idea, even though that fell apart to some extent. India is a region. Forming India as a nation is different than Scandinavia being formed because Scandinavia, was once united under a single ruler, and a shared cultural heritage.

 

[Trin Tragula]

-It has no way of showing the religious situation in India, with the Muslim rulers very much tolerating the Hindu religion of the population. 0% growth due to -3 tolerance for Mughals ruling much of India? I think not. Mughals and most other Muslim states in India should have a religious decision available to them giving +3 or +4 tolerance for Hinduism. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem possible.

That is entirely possible. I actually prefer doing it by triggered modifier. Active discrimination against Hindus was rare during this era and would have to be just that, an active choice (and so that's the decision one should be able to take rather than the tolerance). No way would any of these Muslim states have survived even for a few weeks had they had as low tolerance to hindus as vanilla shows.

Before HTTT it made sense to have hindus and muslims in the same religious group (they didn't hate eachother, they DID intermarry, etc) but with HTTT that allows them to inherit eachother's countries and get eachother's dynasties which is a tad bit too much (it's a stretch even for muslim vs muslim states).

 

[bippukt]

That is entirely possible. I actually prefer doing it by triggered modifier. Active discrimination against Hindus was rare during this era and would have to be just that, an active choice (and so that's the decision one should be able to take rather than the tolerance). No way would any of these Muslim states have survived even for a few weeks had they had as low tolerance to hindus as vanilla shows.

Before HTTT it made sense to have hindus and muslims in the same religious group (they didn't hate eachother, they DID intermarry, etc) but with HTTT that allows them to inherit eachother's countries and get eachother's dynasties which is a tad bit too much (it's a stretch even for muslim vs muslim states).

Is there a way to add a triggered modifier that will increase such Muslim states' tolerance for Hindus and not other Heathens? It would be great if you shared them with us