India, always forgotten by Paradox

[Jihem]

Since Dharma, the changes in India have been quite minor, I have the sad impression that Paradox feels that the maximum has been done for this region. It is indeed very pleasant to play, but unfortunately the pattern is very stereotyped when it is controlled by the AI: three powers emerge (very often Bengal, Delhi, and the Bahmani or more rarely Vijayanagara), engulf the others, and a balance of power is established that freezes practically until the end. Thus, I have never seen the AI form Bharat or Hindustan, and the Mughals rarely descend further south than Gwalior.

Even for the human player I see some problems in this region, I made a small list of them:

- excessive stability in the Mughal empire while the Marathi revolt should be the equivalent of that of the Netherlands in Europe
- lack of missions from Central Indian minors to form Nagpur
- not much about Mysore, Golkonda and Bijapur, which have historically had some success
- very rudimentary mission tree for Punjab despite its religious singularity
- European colonizers far too rarely present

This list is of course not exhaustive, what could we add ? By the way, I would like to know the opinion of players from the Indian subcontinent about the way Paradox treats the area.

 

[Jihem]

I forgot to say India was a permanent alternate history in EU IV. I have never seen a result even remotely approaching historical verisimilitude. It's strange, but this phenomenon is strongly criticized for other regions, but never for India.

 

[Ashvin]

Indian History in the era has been a roller coaster but is badly represented.

First Some inconsistencies with actual history:
- It should be noted that Mughals which form in 1526 are thrown out of India by 1540.
- A unified Delhi rules as Suri Empire till 1556 and in turn of events Delhi sees a Hindu King, Hemu in 1556 - A Hindu Kingdom of Delhi is established in the North
- So In 1556 Akbar fights A Hindu Kingdom of Delhi to establish Mughal rule
- Its only by 1650s that Mughals start exerting pressure in Southern India and even after subjugating most of it had no actual control
- Aurangzeb spent last 27 years of his life only fighting rebels in the South and died doing it and within 15 years after his death in 1707 Mughals imploded

Some observational Inconsistency:
In the South Bahmanis in the game are too stable - They never break into Bijapur, Golconda, Ahmadnagar or Berar.
Similarly Vijayanagar though has some early disasters the Tamil and Poligar cores don't revolt after that.
Generally Sultanates blob and overall Sultanate mechanics make them way too stable - There remains no room for Nagpur, Punjab or Rajputana
Even Mughals if formed are way too stable - A Maratha Empire is simply impossible with current mechnics
Colonising AI are too lazy
Even if Portugal gets core and a free Goa there is no mechanic to hold to local diplomacy. They soon loose to some other power. No Western Ghats represented.
In reality they were able to hold by getting involved in local politics and not look to Lisbon for every short of things

In the end its just a game with some abilities to AI some not well emulated to desired effect.

 

[macky527]

I feel like relevant minor nations in India (Mysore, Bijapur, etc.) and some formables (Punjab, Nagpur, Marathas, etc.) just need a bit more

 

[Jihem]

Paradox will certainly say that EU IV is at the end of its life, that they have little time left and that they will concentrate their work on even more neglected regions (like the Baltic or the Middle East). I will probably be answered : if you want a true indian experience, just download a mod. Certainly. But almost all are exclusively in English. However, everyone does not have sufficient skills, personally I surf on this forum thanks to the automatic translation.

@ Archivn : What I take away from your post is that unrest should be consistently higher in all Indian sultanates. Maintaining stability should be an ongoing challenge for the player (but I'm afraid the AI will struggle to achieve this if such a mechanism is in place).

The Mughals should have at least two major disasters, one that could lead to the establishment of the Suri dynasty, the other to the revolt of the Marathas. Likewise, the decision to liberate the Deccan as a vassal is largely optional in-game, yet it should be of crucial importance.

Ultimately, it's a shame that the Mughals' only use in EU IV is to be a blobber machine from the perspective of a WC. It's largely ahistorical and almost a lack of consideration for people from peninsular India (hence my question in the first post). This cultural assimilation mechanic would have been more suitable for the Caliphate, for example, which is also only cosmetic.

All in all, playing in India should be a particularly tough challenge, especially if we select a Muslim state.

@ macky527 : the five nations you mention are not very fun to play indeed, to form Bharat they involve relying on the tedious spy network, or multiple request for orders. Not to mention the flavor events that they lack.

 

[macky527]

@ macky527 : the five nations you mention are not very fun to play indeed, to form Bharat they involve relying on the tedious spy network, or multiple request for orders. Not to mention the flavor events that they lack.

Yea I imagined that. Recently had a Mysore Tiger run and had several runs with Andhra (even pre-dharma) and I can tell you that spy networks are 100% mandatory.

 

[Jihem]

The use of the spy network because of a minimalist mission tree can be justified in Italy, with Ferrara or Bologna which do not have immense territories to conquer to unify the region. But much less in the case of an emerging Indian power.

Edit : I just started a game with Patna with the goal of training Nagpur. Once the neighboring minors have been annexed or vassalized, the Bahmani warn me and I cannot attack a weakened Orisha. So far : it's consistent. I then attack Bahmani, with a military tech superiority of one level, accompanied by Vijayanagara, who rushes on the Sri Lankan minor to the point of abandoning the fort of his capital which quickly falls into the hands of the enemy. I try to restore the situation, but each battle against the Bahmani soldiers ends in defeat despite the superiority in numbers (mercenaries) and the technological advantage.

A little discouraged, I randomly check the mission tree (generic North India) and find that the first accessible mission offers me a claim on the Upper Doab once two cultures are promoted. In other words : a region that is not neighbouring and about 1300 km away. 100% nonsense, 0% fun;

 

[macky527]

The use of the spy network because of a minimalist mission tree can be justified in Italy, with Ferrara or Bologna which do not have immense territories to conquer to unify the region. But much less in the case of an emerging Indian power.

Edit : I just started a game with Patna with the goal of training Nagpur. Once the neighboring minors have been annexed or vassalized, the Bahmani warn me and I cannot attack a weakened Orisha. So far : it's consistent. I then attack Bahmani, with a military tech superiority of one level, accompanied by Vijayanagara, who rushes on the Sri Lankan minor to the point of abandoning the fort of his capital which quickly falls into the hands of the enemy. I try to restore the situation, but each battle against the Bahmani soldiers ends in defeat despite the superiority in numbers (mercenaries) and the technological advantage.

A little discouraged, I randomly check the mission tree (generic North India) and find that the first accessible mission offers me a claim on the Upper Doab once two cultures are promoted. In other words : a region that is not neighbouring and about 1300 km away. 100% nonsense, 0% fun;

Yea if you want I can try my hand at indian minor missions
The groups should be smaller but more detailed, would have the regional missions align to the 5 regions (Bengal, Coromandel, Deccan, West India, Hindustan) with a few exceptions. Here is what I would do
1 - Coromandel minors, including Kerala minors (ex. Kandy, Calicut, Carnatic)
2 - Deccani minors (ex. Ahmednagar, Khandesh, Telingana)
3 - West India minors, including Vindhyas (ex. Jhalavad, Mewat, Bundelkhand)
4 - Gondwana minors (ex. Garha, Jharkhand, Parlakhimidi)
5 - "Seven Sisters" minors (ex. Sadiya, Kachar, Manipur)
6 - Hindustan minors (ex. Oudh, Patiala, Tirhut)
7 - Nepali/Himalaya minors (ex. Gorkha, Kumaon, Limbuwan)

 

[Jihem]

Your suggestion is relevant. I add that each zone should allow the formation of a regional tag, on the German model (with its own mission tree or permanent claims to then expand and form Bharat). My knowledge of Indian History is rudimentary, I nevertheless propose the following regional tags:

1 - Hoysala
2 - Marathas
3 - Punjab (if sikh) or Rajputana
4 - Nagpur
5 - to be determined
6 - to be determined
7 - Nepal

Of course, placing as a condition the rejection of Islam as the state religion (it would make no sense to have a Muslim Maratha kingdom) implying, at the formation, a massive rebellion of the emirs.

 

[macky527]

Your suggestion is relevant. I add that each zone should allow the formation of a regional tag, on the German model (with its own mission tree or permanent claims to then expand and form Bharat). My knowledge of Indian History is rudimentary, I nevertheless propose the following regional tags:

1 - Hoysala
2 - Marathas
3 - Punjab (if sikh) or Rajputana
4 - Nagpur
5 - to be determined
6 - to be determined
7 - Nepal

Of course, placing as a condition the rejection of Islam as the state religion (it would make no sense to have a Muslim Maratha kingdom) implying, at the formation, a massive rebellion of the emirs.

Hoysala is an odd choice imo, as it was in the Mysore area irl. For Coromandel minors, using one tag to "unite" them is odd imo. Like Sinhalese nations should form Ceylon/Lanka, Tamil nations (except Madurai) should form Chola or Carnatic, and malayalam nations should form Cheras.