Samudragupta. The guy was undefeated throughout his life, with inscriptions describing him "having deep scars over his body" after coming from wars, he is also depicted as an excellent Veena player, and a patron of arts and sciences. He also maintained a peaceful and flourishing empire dubbed as the Golden Age.
I think Gandhi has gotten a little stale. Sure, nuclear Gandhi is funny, but I would much prefer having an actual leader as India's first leader.
My pick is [Ashoka](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka)
He was first a conquerer, but after a particularly bloody battle during the Kalinga war while uniting India, he was horrified at the carnage and went on to convert to Buddhism. For the rest of his rule, he would focus on expanding his influence through peace and trade as well as spreading Buddhism across ancient India and Asia and building many Buddhist temples, including Mahabodi Temple
I think this can lead to a very fun playstyle where his bonuses push you to war early and to transition towards growing your cities, building wonders, and spreading your religion in the later parts of the game
P.S: Can this be continued for more civs? I would love to have more of these leader discussions for civs that are common but aren't staples. Like the Ottomans, Poland, Brazil, etc. These discussions are teaching me all of these amazing rulers and I had a blast finding out about their achievements
Here's the thing with Gandhi. A proper Gandhi as a diplo leader would be epic. IRL Gandhi basically wrote the playbook on using soft power to get what you want that MLK and Mandela would later improve upon. VI missed a huge opportunity to not give him any bonuses that actually help towards a diplomatic victory. Gandhi would still be great _if_ they get rid of the meme, which is super stale.
For me India would ideally be a versatile faith based Civ that's represented by multiple leaders:
Ashoka: Military/Religion
Akbar: Cultural/Economic
Gandhi: Diplomatic
With city-states like Nalanda and Governers like Pingala representing the more scientific side. Edit: Maybe even Nehru as a scientific leader.
There's definitely a lot that you can do with India and I really hope they do.
It would be so cool if they had unique governors for leaders. Nehru + INC big shots or Akbar + Navratna. Would be great for others civs too, like Washington + founding fathers.
Ashoka is great, but we recently had him in Civ 4. I think it's time for someone new.
Also, Chandragupta from Civ 6 was his grandfather. The only leaders who have represented India have been modern (Gandhi) or from the Mauryan dynasty (Chandragupta, Ashoka). It would be nice to add a leader from a different time period for a change
Didn't know he was in Civ 4. But at the very least, he should be a good candidate for a dlc leader.
Also, Civ 4 was quite some time ago, and I think realistically, Ashoka could make it into Civ 7
Persia is a good one because you have literally dozens of options. I liked the inclusion of Nader Shah in vi because all the previous versions of Persia were very ancient.
I like mongols a good bit. Zulu are really boring though. They’re really only as interesting as the combat system is. Corps and Armies were nifty I guess, I did really like support units though even if I never used them. I think the Zulu are overdone kinda like Nuclear Ghandi
Gandhi being a Civ meme makes it almost essential to have Gandhi in the game, but it would be cool to see another Indian ruler alongside Gandhi as a playable option, because India has so many good options.
[Chandragupta II](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_II) (NOT related to Chandragupta in Civ 6) from the Gupta Dynasty. It's about time India receives a leader from its golden age. The flourishing of mathematics and art during this dynasty would hopefully give India bonuses to science and/or culture in place of the faith/peace/population bonuses we always see.
Chandragupta II is cool, but I prefer Samudragupta. An undefeated warrior-emperor who played the Veena while covered in scars. He also sponsored the arts and sciences
Was a great king, ruled over a golden age, and has a badass title to boot (Chandragupta II *Vikramaditya*). If OOP is reading this, please put the title alongside his name in the next post.
Imagine if we got the Vetala as the leader bonus lmao
I think South India/Dravidians should just get an independent civ, as they were independent for most of history. India in Civ is supposed to represent various iterations of states that were centered on the Ganges and expanded sufficiently far to the South, such as the Maurya, Mughals, or modern India.
A Dravidian/South Indian civ would represent all of the polities that roughly controlled all of South India, such as the Chola (which you mentioned), Pandya, or Vijaynagar.
I’d say Rajendra I, Rajaraja’s son would be a better pick. He built on Rajaraja’s successes, defeated all his Indian rivals and managed to turn the Malay archipelago into essentially a Chola vassal state, leading to the end of Srivijaya. It was the greatest extent of Chola power, both direct and indirect. Tamil merchants absolutely dominated trade in south east Asia for decades to come.
I think this is something that should be represented in a separate South India civ. India as a civ is supposed to represent the states formed or centered on the Ganges that spread south. There are also other empires that controlled a similar area/population as the Vijayanagar, such as the Chola or Pandya Empires, so I think a separate civilization makes more sense in the spirit of Civ.
We've had Gandhi. We've had Ashoka and we've had Chandragupta. I'd like it we go south or east and get one of the Tamil Kings or someone from Kalinga as India's leader. Perhaps someone from the Ahom Kingdom.
I do think we will get Gandhi (again) but I expect another Indian leader in an expansion set.
I know many are going to ask for someone from the Mughal Empire but that's just gonna be North-centric again. Unless they choose Aurangzeb. For chaos.
I think South India deserves to be represented as its own civ. I would argue that India is meant to represent the civ that originated and was centered on the Ganges before ultimately spreading South. For example, the original Ganges city-states, Maurya Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and modern India would be examples of the India civ. If you look at maps of these states, they all controlled very similar areas. The Chola, Pandya, and Vijaynagar would be examples of a separate South Indian, Dravidian civ that was largely independent until recently. These states also controlled very similar areas.
Akbar. India should finally be ruled by its most iconic Mughal ruler. It's a crime that we haven't had any Mughal rulers for India, considering India's high levels of unity and prosperity during their rule. Akbar's achievements in terms of religious tolerance, administration, and conquest would give the devs a lot of options in terms of design.
My girlfriend is punjabi, and I've gotten a deeper look at inner Desi beef which has been a wild ride. No chance they put a Muslim ruler alone. Hindu nationalism is very real, and I've heard multiple people say that the Mughals were colonial occupiers, not much different from the British. Maybe they'd do split leaders like in 6 to try to appease anyone, and Gandhi is essentially the games mascot so i think if they were to put a mughal in the game it would be like that.
I'm Desi and the hate towards Akbar is totally manufactured. There were for sure other Mughal rulers that were religiously intolerant, but Akbar literally built his empire on religious tolerance. His chief consort was a Hindu. He celebrated Hindu festivals and followed a Jain diet. Hell, he even tried to start his own religion to bring about national unity--which ended up not holding but still, the guy tried. He also ushered in a golden age of poetry, architecture, and trade which, coupled with agricultural advancements, led to rapid population growth in India. Even 50 years ago, Akbar was as respected in India as Ashoka or Gandhi. (In contrast, the much less religiously tolerant Aurangzeb was idolized in Pakistan.) The hate towards him is just the latest trend of Hindu nationalists distorting history to their own preferences--these are the same guys who claim that ancient Indians had invented airplanes and space shuttles.
> and I've heard multiple people say that the Mughals were colonial occupiers, not much different from the British
Which is true. They were invaders that brought huge destruction and misery upon India.
There's a difference between a state being subservient to a foreign metropole (British India) and a state in which foreign rulers just become new rulers of the state (Mughal India), representing that state as their primary state. The only reason Akbar is controversial is because he was Muslim.
We already have Kublai Khan leading China, and he was also part of an invading dynasty
This is just Hindu nationalist gaslighting, the British EXTRACTED the money from colonies to the isles, the Mughals made it their home. The equivalent would be present day British getting mad at any monarch past the 10th century representing them as they would all be a mix of danes, normans and germanics.
Akbar should lead a separate Mughal civ, I feel like due to their status as invaders and the legacy of Timur it makes sense for them to be a seperate Civ (also, please give us more non-European civs)
Eh, but they roughly controlled the territory and population of modern India. The Mughals also called themselves Hindustan (translation: India). They're kind of like China's Qing Dynasty: an iteration of a civ ruled by foreigners.
We definitely need more non-European civs, and we can make a lot out of regional powers within India, like the Cholas or Bengal.
Depends on how you define foreign. The Mughals were a Persian dynasty that lived and died in modern-day India and Pakistan for generations. Over time the Mughals adopted Indian language and culture, mixing it with their own and creating a new sub-culture. Like for example: the entire Urdu language which is undeniably Indian regardless of what Hindu nationalists argue.
Babur, the first Mughal Emperor could certainly be considered a foreigner who born in Persia (actually modern Uzbekistan) and later came to India. But by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal “Emperor”, there was virtually no connection remaining to Persia. He and his ancestors had been Indian for generations. So where is the line where the Mughals became Indian?
You aren't wrong. It's hard to see for us as outsiders but a lot of Hindus do in fact, feel like the Mughals were a colonial power, and with the amount of tension between Hindus and Muslims it would not go over well if he was the only leader.
I have many options as an Indian ,Chatrapati Shivaji, Ashoka, Raja Raja Chola, Krishnadevaraya, Lachit Barphukan, Shah Jhan , Peshwa Bajirao, Vikram aditya, Ajatshatru, etc
All of them bring some unique characteristics
Shivaji and Barphukan are known to be Guirella warriors
Raja Raja chola is said to be great naval power
Krishnadevaraya,Ashoka and Ajatshatru are said to be great military leaders
Bajirao is known for not being defeated in even a single battle he fough in his life
Vikram aditya, he's just a legendary king literally, he is said to have the largest empire in the history but is not backed by any proofs
Just I don't want Gandhi one more time leading India
I’m not sure Kanishka would really fit as an Indian ruler. He was born outside the subcontinent, led an empire heavily focused on Central Asia and would probably have considered himself more Central Asian than Indian.
Chandragupta II 'Vikramaditya' (*Fierce as the Sun*), by a mile. He is the most mythologized king in Indian history, ruled over arguably *THE* golden age of India, defeated Persia and the Indo-Greeks, and was a great patron of the arts.
going for Samudragupta the king who stated the amazing golden age of Indian making the subcontinent reach peak economy.
Conquered nearly 2/3 of india with thestates in the deccan be his vassals. Huns couldn't set a step in the empire under his rule.
Managed to maintain a stable state, and a rich economy even with constant wars. (Edit : the latter which his great great grandsons couldn't)
can go for a civ with an military focus but also culture bonuses. similar to what france should have been in civ 5.
+ he's called the napoleon of india, even though he was doing art patronage and doing wars before the Italian frech guy was born
There are so many choices, but I would like to pick one from below:
Chola emperors : Rajaraja or Rajendra, naval power, strong religious and cultural identities
Mugal emperors : Akbar or Shahjahan, Shah Jahan may be the zenith of mugal culture
Modern : Jawaharlal Nehru, secular and scientific leader, Indira Gandhi (May be already represented, but if you want a woman leader and domination)
However, there are more interesting choices like
Bindu sara, great mouryian emperor (may be the actual 'devanampiya piyadasi', according to some theories)
Kanishka, great budhist emperor, ruled north india, pakistan, afghanistan, parts of central asia, his only chance of appearing in civ is as indian leaders only I think (edited for clarity)
So, obviously all civ games need Gandhi for the memes. But India can have 2 leaders. I like the idea of Krishna being like an opposite play style of Gandhi.
Have one leader be passive all game, then nuke
Have the other be aggressive early game, then pivot hard to science
The modern country, yes, but we've seen states emerge with roughly the same borders as modern India that could be considered past iterations of India, such as the Mughals or the Maurya.
The PRC is only 72 years old.
I'm not an expert and maybe it's just name bias but I feel like the continuity between the PRC and Imperial China is clear, whereas the continuity between the state of India, British India, The East India Company, the Mughals, the Dehli Sultanate, the Chalukya Empire, the Satavahana Empire, the Gupta Empire, the Maurya Empire, the Indus Valley Civilization etc... is much less clearcut. Not least because it woudn't entirely surprise me to see some of those turning up in civ games as civilizations in their own right.
It's actually not that different. The only true difference is that China spent a greater fraction of its history unified. Many of those Chinese dynasties were separated by several hundred years, yet we still consider all of them representations of a Chinese state. For example, between the end of the Han dynasty in ~200 and the Mongol conquest in 1279, China spent actually spent most of its time divided.
India, like China, experienced periods of unity and fragmentation, except, likely due to geography, India spent a much greater fraction of its history in that fragmentation period. However, you still see examples of states that were centered on the Ganges (the historical core of Indian civilization), controlled roughly the same area as modern India (Mughals, Maurya, etc.), and show cultural continuity.
A lot of the states you mentioned, like the Satavahana dynasty or the Chalukya, don't really meet these criteria for being considered a past iteration of India. They could be represented as separate civs in the game.
Off the top of my head, Ahilyabai Holkar, Kittur Chennamma, Rani Lakshimbai, and Razia Sultan, though dont think any of em will get picked except for Ahilyabai
How about Nur Jahan? She ruled (her husband had... issues), was a patron of the arts, rode into war on an elephant, and enjoyed hunting (she slew some tigers).
Let's be realistic here; it HAS to be Gandhi. He's the closest this series has to a mascot and he's been in the base game for every single Civ game. However, I hope they go for a double leader alongside Ashoka, because there's far too many awesome Indian leaders to just have one.
I really would want India to be split up into different civs. But if we kept a single Indian I would like to have multiple leaders of Ashoka and Nehru.
I think we should have a civ representing the original Indian civilization centered on the Ganges as well as relatively unified iterations of India with that same center (Maurya, Mughal, modern India) as well as civs representing different parts of India that historically had their own empires. Examples would include South India/Dravidians, the Marathas, Bengal, etc.
I don't think doing away with India makes much sense when we've had multiple states control roughly 90%+ of the territory and area of India throughout history. It makes about as much sense as splitting China up by dynasties. We would also be unable to represent the original Ganges states that emerged and gave us religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and had other major achievements.
If it was up to me I'd pick Maryuana empire, Chola empire, Mughal empire, and the modern India.
>We would also be unable to represent the original Ganges states that emerged and have as religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
We don't have Israel either for the abrahamic religions.
I mean the historical center of India since the emergence of the Gangetic states has been the Ganges. I think India is named after Indus because civs to the west of India made contact with India over the Indus (since the Indus was the historical western boundary). The Harappans were centered on the Indus, but they collapsed.
We should also have the Aztecs, Persians, and Arabians. They're "essential" civs that have been in pretty much every base game (the only exception was the Persians in Civ 6 I believe)
Would be interesting if Aztec would have someone that isn't a Montezuma. But other civs that have been here from the start would be locked to 1-2 leaders too. Looking at you Shaka, Genghis and Kublai. Well Mongolia did have a couple leaders in between Genghis and Kublai but those two were easily the biggest.
Would like to see a Gupta emperor as the Civ Indian leader, like Chandragupta II Vikramditya.
Or a Martha chhatrapati, peshwa, for example: Shivaji, or Bajirao II.
Nur Jahan. Patron of the arts (especially architecture). Huntress who killed tigers. Warrior who rode on the back of an elephant. She had her own imperial seal, and historians consider her the real power behind her throne while her husband Jahangir was ill (he was addicted to many things). Also it would be great to get a female leader. The list has all but one woman right now, and Civ hasn't had Mughal representatives for India before (to my knowledge).
My preference in following order:
1. Samudra Gupta
2. Krishnadevaraya
3. Swati Tirunal (Yeah. He is pretty cool)
4. Queen of Jhansi
5. Rajendra Chola
6. Chandragupta Vikramaditya (chandragupta II)
7. Shivaji
8. Harshavardhana
9. Krishnaraja wadiyar IV
10. Akbar
Edit: Sardar Patel would make an interesting choice too.
Lakshmibai, 19th century queen rebelling against British, very popular in India and frequently depicted in culture. Also interesting personality: "According to Vishnu Bhatt Godse, the Rani would exercise at weightlifting, wrestling, and steeplechasing before breakfast. An intelligent and simply-dressed woman, she ruled in a businesslike manner."
What about Abdul Kalam? He's quite recent though but played a very important role in India's space program and is a very good choice for a science leader.
There were so many more iconic empires than the Mughals. I would say Krishnadev Raya from Vijaynagara or someone from Chola , Chalukya or Maratha Empires.
Either Krishna Deva Raya or Chatrapati Raja Raja Chola or Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.
Krishnadeva Raya: Conqueror supreme, great administrator, wealth was so much that people sold diamonds on the streets like hawkers and street vendors rather than as merchants.
Bonus: Suvarna Rajyam: 3% on treasury every turn.
Unit: War elephant.
Building: Kamala Mahal.
Chatrapati Raja Raja Chola: Conquered from Ganga to Sri Lanka. Son expanded the empire to the Indonesia islands. Brave king good administrator and had a huge navy as well as army.
Bonus: Chozha Ekkapatiya: 50% cost of production for Naval Units and Harbours buildings and Sea based wonders.
Unit: The Indian Caravel.
Building: Pattana for sea and river based buildings for usage of water ways.
Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj: Started the Maratha war of independence, defeater of the Mlecchas, started the independence movement of India 300 years after Hari Hara and Bukka Raya. Great adminstrator, never attacked cities to prevent harming people and was a women's rights activist for his time.
Bonus: Chauth: Cities have 25% higher production in times of war.
Unit: Maratha Cavalry.
Building: Gadhs to replace forts.
Personally it's Shivaji Maharaj for me but the rest are good shouts.
Indra Jimi Jambhpar, Vadhav Suamb Par,
Ravan Sadambh Par, Raghukul Raaj Hain.
Paun Baari Baah Par, Santu Ratinaah Par,
Jyon Sahasrabaar Par, Raam Dwijraaj Hain.
Hridayaat Maauli, Rayates Saauli,
Gad Kot Raauli ShivShankar Haa.
Muktichi Mantranaa,Yuktichi Yantranaa,
Gad Dusht Durjana Pralyankar Haan.
Santaas Rakhshito Shatrunsi Khandato,
Bhavand Bhaavna Sansthapito.
Naisa Yuge Yuge Smaraneeya Sarvada,
Maata Pita Sakha Shiv Bhupato.
Daava Drumdand Par,Cheeta Mrugjhund Par,
Bhushan Bitund Par, Jaise Mrugraaj Hain.
Tej Tam Ans Par, Kaanha Jimi Kans Par,
Tyon Malech Vans Par, Sher Shivraaj Hain.
Jai Bhavani Jai Bhavani
Jai Shivaji Jai Shivaji
Jai Bhavani Jai Bhavani
Jai Shivaji Jai Shivaji
Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki Jai!!
Besides the fact that Gandhi is essential to the Civ series, if it has to be anybody else: I’d choose Subhas Chandra Bose for a more military focused India.
Jawaharlal Nehru. That’s who it always should’ve been. Gandhi is a Civ tradition at this point, but he was not the right pick as he never actually led India. Nehru was the first leader of modern India and had great fashion sense.
Sidestepping the issue that a single united india probably should just not exist, and should be swept away to make room for 2+ South Asian civs, I would pick Nehru.
If India were to be split, I would split it in 3:
- Hindu South Indian civ: Tamils/Chola led by Rajendra I
- Buddhist Gangetic Indian civ: Mauryans led by Ashoka
- Muslim Deccan/Northwestern civ: Mughals led by Shah Jahan
I think Firaxis could make a separation between Modern India and the former empires of the Indian continent, like the Sikhs, Mughals, Marathas etc, kinda like Humankind.
For Modern India, I think the best would be Jawarhalal Nehru. He was the Prime Minister for 17 years and lead India throught some of it's most important events, like it's independence and partition, the Indo-Pakistani War, the annexation of Goa and the borde conflict with China. Also, Nehru secularism and religious tolerance were able to unite India into a proper modern and unified state and was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, making India "neutral" in the Cold War. Oh, and was with him that the Indian Nuclear Program started
He could have bonus towards diplomacy, defense and alliance with other nations and towards himself.
It's not in the spirit of Civ to split India like that. Many of those states (Mughals, Maurya, and modern India) were centered on the Ganges (the core of Indian civilization) and largely controlled the same patchwork of people. Those states all controlled roughly 90% of modern India's area and population. Splitting India like that would be like splitting China into different dynasties.
I think it makes much more sense to keep an India civ and then add civs that maintained influential states in certain regions, such as South Indian/Dravidian civ for all the empires in that area. You could also throw in a Sikh civ as well.
The overlap between Rome and its successor states like Spain, France, Byzantium, and the Holy Roman Empire/Germans is at least as severe, and yet we have all of those and more in civ.
Yea, because none of those civs controlled anything close to the entire territory of Rome. Those civs, alone, only make up a fraction of Rome's total territory. Many states have roughly controlled the modern territory of India. Similarly, civs which only represented a fraction of India's territory, such as the South Indians/Dravidians (e.g. Chola) or Bengal should receive their own civ.
Tipu Sultan! Famous for his Mysorean rockets. India had plenty of war and empires, so why does it always have to be the nice guy civ? Switch it up, guys!
Still feel like JFK would not be a good pick. I feel like he's not been dead long enough. Lots of people alive who would have voted for or against him. Seems too political for Sid to want to deal with it.
Maybe two choices, modern and ancient. Either Chola with a strong navy base, or maybe Shivaji/Akbar. For a modern leader either, Sardar Patel, Nehru or Netaji Subah Chandra Bose.
I think so it must be subah Chandar Bose or Bhagat Singh because I strongly deny the leading capabilities of mahatma gandhi and his forward block we don't need saints we need protector but if u ask me as true indian I think best leader for india is - chhatrapati shivaji maharaj the real tiger the king of India 🇮🇳
It's gonna be Gandhi anyways. And you know what, I'm fine with that. Civ can have its own Monaco GP, its one silly mainstay that's always been in the base game, and Gandhi is the only leader that fills that criteria.
Religious India: Ghandi, this is a tradition.
Military India: Rajaraja. The Chola emperor who conquered a big chunk of land in south India and Sri Lanka. He can get some navy bonus since Chola had a powerful fleet, India doesn't have to be associated with elephant.
Cultural India: Shah Jahan. Mughal was at peak during his reign, Taj Mahal is his most renowned work.
Oh god. Seeing Gandhi again in civ vii would absolutely piss me off Heres my list from earliest to latest
From the Mauryans Chandragupta is obviously iconic. A military heavy civ would be obvious. They could give him something like Kautilya as a unique governor like Suleiman. I think following the principles of his current iteration make sense. Asoka is another obvious candidate. Again something military heavy makes sense, but they could give him a second personality that's more religious focused for him post Kalinga war would be cool
Kanishka of the Kushanas would kinda be a curveball pick cuz the kushanas are from Xinjiang, but he'd still be awesome. Something trade focused to show his position and use at the centre of the silk route would be insane
Pulakesin II is my personal FAVOURITE indian ruler. He'd be a legendary choice. Again, mil focus. Give him a movement related ability to reflect that he ruled from the mountainous deccan maybe?
Rajaraja Chola would be insanely cool to represent the south. There's a lot you can do with him too. A naval focused civ makes sense. Give him something with trade to reflect the strength of the trade guilds
Alauddin Khilji would be neat too, someone from the Delhi sultanate. Went as far the Deccan. Known for being ruthless, powerful, and strict. Banned drinking and partying as he was scared of his ministers conspiring together, keeping his subjects at the brink of poverty to stop rebellions when they got too rich, insane spy system. Mil focus again, something where you can increase your mil strength at the cost of happiness or loyalty maybe? Even espionage focus would be cool
Of course. Can't forget Akbar. It's wild how we haven't had Akbar yet in civ. You can genuinely argue his civ being focused on any and every aspect. Although I'd say something cultural focus makes sense. Add something with religious tolerance too. Include his 9 jewels of his court. Even shah Jahan as a wonder focused civ from the mughals would be interesting
And of course. The person I really think is the best choice is Nehru. Still our most iconic modern leader. A science and diplomacy focused civ would be most accurate to his workings and strength. Maybe IITs as a unique building??
Also yea as everyone's saying please split up india into 2 or more civs like they did for Greece and Sparta. India is just too big and different
I am surprised no one picked Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Marath empire covered basically whole of India at some point. The empire also had a navy to fight against dutch empire on their coastline.
Looks like this comment section is pretty full already but I want to make a good case for Shivaji Maharaj, a renaissance leader of the Maratha Empire.
For a civ like India, apart from Chadragupta we rarely see them have domination bonuses, which I think Shivaji could be a perfect fit for. Most notably because of the role he played in the downfall of the Mughal Empire.
His unique building. could be the mountain forts (i forgot the official name) such as sinhagad, rajgad and shivneri (which is gorgeous recommend everyone to visit once)
There are a few options for the unique unit. A good one is the Kokani Musketeer, replacing the musketman, or the Shiledar, replacing the cavalry.
The final important point is that on top of being a domination focussed civ, he could also be a diplomatic or cultural civ. Now I'm not massively aware of the Maratha's diplomatic history (despite being from Pune whoops) but afaik he centralised princely states, standardised the legal system, extended Diplomatic relations to Britain, Portugal and other European powers.
Shivaji is, in my opinion, the most underrated leader for India in civ 7. Having a leader like him with the history, culture and military capabilities would be fantastic to see, overall making india an interesting (and powerful) force on the map.
RajaRaja Cholan is a good choice, he and his son had a very good naval campaign and managed to capture cities in the south asian region (Indonesia/Malaysia). He also restored old temples and lot of new temples, so they could be religious / naval civ.
No love for Tipu Sultan of Mysore? He pioneered rocketry which could make for a great leader ability or even a unique unit. He was a badass who held off the British for almost 20 years, and commissioned an [iconic automaton of a tiger mauling a British solider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan). A great administrator too by all accounts. Even if he didn't rule over most of India, having him as a secondary Indian leader or even making Mysore its own Civ would be a great take on India that could be more domination/science focused.
I like Ashoka, Changragupta II, Akbar, and Nur Jahan.
After these civ votes are done can we do votes for Arabia, Aztecs, Babylon, Inca, Mali, Mongols, Persia, and Zulu since they also have been in the original games like Civ 4 and 5
You don't know what the definition of colonization is. A territory is a colony if it is ruled as a peripheral territory subject (colony) to the metropole (the colonizer). The Mughals were conquerors, not colonizers, because they ruled India from within India. They essentially became India. Britain, on the other hand, ruled as a foreign power in which India was given an unequal status compared to the metropole (Britain).
No, the myth that India didn't exist is British colonial propaganda used to justify the colonization of India. The Mughal and Maurya Empires controlled 90% of the territory and population known today as India. It's absurd to not call them India. In fact, the Mughal Empire even called itself Hindustan (translation: India).
The definition of colonialism presented in that article is not consistent with the scholarly consensus for the definition of colonialism.
That doesn't matter. The Qing and Yuan dynasties were Mongol and Manchu-led, but they're still considered Chinese dynasties because they adapted to China. The Mughals adapted to India in the same way.
It's not more like 60%- go look at a map. If we hold civilizations to stringent standards such that holding 90%+ of the territory and area is necessary, then Qin Shi Huang could not be a leader of China. That's an absurd standard.
Sure, but the Yuan are still included under Kublai Khan in Civ 6, so there's no reason the Mughals can't be included for India. The Mughals also used Indian methods for administration and introduced other aspects from previous Indian states into their rule.
That map pretty much just excludes largely uninhabited areas like the Thar desert. If you look at a map of the Han Dynasty, it looks very similar, but I don't see people using it to argue that the Han shouldn't be considered part of Chinese civilization.
You're just a colonial bootlicker. Things like infrastructure would have inevitably been built anyways- just look at uncolonized states like Japan or Thailand. If anything, the British stunted India's development by forcing Indians into agricultural labor and by destroying their textile manufacturing industry. Their rule should absolutely not be glorified. India exited British rule as one of the poorest states on a per capita basis.
My vote is gonna go with Akbar. He may not have the largest empire, but it was during his reign that we achieved some form of tolerance and friendship between Hindus and Muslims. He even tried to syncretise the faiths, an attempt which is in itself a great achievement for a ruler in India.
Samudragupta. The guy was undefeated throughout his life, with inscriptions describing him "having deep scars over his body" after coming from wars, he is also depicted as an excellent Veena player, and a patron of arts and sciences. He also maintained a peaceful and flourishing empire dubbed as the Golden Age.
A Gupta emperor is exactly what we need for Indian civ.
I think Gandhi has gotten a little stale. Sure, nuclear Gandhi is funny, but I would much prefer having an actual leader as India's first leader. My pick is [Ashoka](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka) He was first a conquerer, but after a particularly bloody battle during the Kalinga war while uniting India, he was horrified at the carnage and went on to convert to Buddhism. For the rest of his rule, he would focus on expanding his influence through peace and trade as well as spreading Buddhism across ancient India and Asia and building many Buddhist temples, including Mahabodi Temple I think this can lead to a very fun playstyle where his bonuses push you to war early and to transition towards growing your cities, building wonders, and spreading your religion in the later parts of the game P.S: Can this be continued for more civs? I would love to have more of these leader discussions for civs that are common but aren't staples. Like the Ottomans, Poland, Brazil, etc. These discussions are teaching me all of these amazing rulers and I had a blast finding out about their achievements
Here's the thing with Gandhi. A proper Gandhi as a diplo leader would be epic. IRL Gandhi basically wrote the playbook on using soft power to get what you want that MLK and Mandela would later improve upon. VI missed a huge opportunity to not give him any bonuses that actually help towards a diplomatic victory. Gandhi would still be great _if_ they get rid of the meme, which is super stale. For me India would ideally be a versatile faith based Civ that's represented by multiple leaders: Ashoka: Military/Religion Akbar: Cultural/Economic Gandhi: Diplomatic With city-states like Nalanda and Governers like Pingala representing the more scientific side. Edit: Maybe even Nehru as a scientific leader. There's definitely a lot that you can do with India and I really hope they do.
I'd love it if Nehru led India and had gandhi as a governor
It would be so cool if they had unique governors for leaders. Nehru + INC big shots or Akbar + Navratna. Would be great for others civs too, like Washington + founding fathers.
They have it with the ottoman leader in 6
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Should be a thing for all civs for sure then
Would be awesome to have a mod or just employ the leaders change from era to era and create the need for different strategies based on the era
Ashoka is great, but we recently had him in Civ 4. I think it's time for someone new. Also, Chandragupta from Civ 6 was his grandfather. The only leaders who have represented India have been modern (Gandhi) or from the Mauryan dynasty (Chandragupta, Ashoka). It would be nice to add a leader from a different time period for a change
> recently Civ 4 would be 20 years old when Civ 7 release next year I think thats fine
Yippee, another game older than me :D
How dare you remind me of my own mortality
How dare they remind me I'm just as old as Civ. I'm a golden age relic.
How dare you lie, it's not Civ 4 that'll be 20 but Civ 1 and I am in no way in severe denial about how much time has gone. /s
Didn't know he was in Civ 4. But at the very least, he should be a good candidate for a dlc leader. Also, Civ 4 was quite some time ago, and I think realistically, Ashoka could make it into Civ 7
Agree, we should have at least Aztec, Zulu and Mongols since they have appeared in every edition.
Also Persia!
Persia is a good one because you have literally dozens of options. I liked the inclusion of Nader Shah in vi because all the previous versions of Persia were very ancient.
I like mongols a good bit. Zulu are really boring though. They’re really only as interesting as the combat system is. Corps and Armies were nifty I guess, I did really like support units though even if I never used them. I think the Zulu are overdone kinda like Nuclear Ghandi
"recently"
Well, Ashoka survived from order 66 so at least she can be new leader.
Yeah! Ashoka for the win!
His leader skill could be +5 food and production in all cities for 20 terms after making peace.
Gandhi being a Civ meme makes it almost essential to have Gandhi in the game, but it would be cool to see another Indian ruler alongside Gandhi as a playable option, because India has so many good options.
I think Gandhi should be there. He's too iconic but as the secondary leader. You can't have civ without nuclear Gandhi.
[Chandragupta II](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_II) (NOT related to Chandragupta in Civ 6) from the Gupta Dynasty. It's about time India receives a leader from its golden age. The flourishing of mathematics and art during this dynasty would hopefully give India bonuses to science and/or culture in place of the faith/peace/population bonuses we always see.
Chandragupta II is cool, but I prefer Samudragupta. An undefeated warrior-emperor who played the Veena while covered in scars. He also sponsored the arts and sciences
Yep same, Chandragupta II is the more popular one for sure, but reading about history growing up, I always thought Samudragupta was just way cooler.
Was a great king, ruled over a golden age, and has a badass title to boot (Chandragupta II *Vikramaditya*). If OOP is reading this, please put the title alongside his name in the next post. Imagine if we got the Vetala as the leader bonus lmao
Not Chandragupta, just Gupta. First name Chandra
r/unexpectedbillwurtz
Very difficult. People will say no. Unless they read up on him. He was my fourth choice.
Rajaraja the Great. He was a emperor of Chola (modern day southern India),
I think South India/Dravidians should just get an independent civ, as they were independent for most of history. India in Civ is supposed to represent various iterations of states that were centered on the Ganges and expanded sufficiently far to the South, such as the Maurya, Mughals, or modern India. A Dravidian/South Indian civ would represent all of the polities that roughly controlled all of South India, such as the Chola (which you mentioned), Pandya, or Vijaynagar.
Good shout. He was my second pick.
I’d say Rajendra I, Rajaraja’s son would be a better pick. He built on Rajaraja’s successes, defeated all his Indian rivals and managed to turn the Malay archipelago into essentially a Chola vassal state, leading to the end of Srivijaya. It was the greatest extent of Chola power, both direct and indirect. Tamil merchants absolutely dominated trade in south east Asia for decades to come.
And the cholas were a maritime power so you can get a naval civ out of them.
Krishnadevaraya, the greatest ruler of the Vijayanagara empire.
love that pirates didn't want to touch the trade ships of his empire. I think a Portuguese wrote this when in hampi
I think this is something that should be represented in a separate South India civ. India as a civ is supposed to represent the states formed or centered on the Ganges that spread south. There are also other empires that controlled a similar area/population as the Vijayanagar, such as the Chola or Pandya Empires, so I think a separate civilization makes more sense in the spirit of Civ.
We've had Gandhi. We've had Ashoka and we've had Chandragupta. I'd like it we go south or east and get one of the Tamil Kings or someone from Kalinga as India's leader. Perhaps someone from the Ahom Kingdom. I do think we will get Gandhi (again) but I expect another Indian leader in an expansion set. I know many are going to ask for someone from the Mughal Empire but that's just gonna be North-centric again. Unless they choose Aurangzeb. For chaos.
Who are the Tamil Kings? (Merchants, probably)
I think South India deserves to be represented as its own civ. I would argue that India is meant to represent the civ that originated and was centered on the Ganges before ultimately spreading South. For example, the original Ganges city-states, Maurya Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and modern India would be examples of the India civ. If you look at maps of these states, they all controlled very similar areas. The Chola, Pandya, and Vijaynagar would be examples of a separate South Indian, Dravidian civ that was largely independent until recently. These states also controlled very similar areas.
Aurangazebs ability should be 65 damage to his units when they end the turn on a hill.
Akbar. India should finally be ruled by its most iconic Mughal ruler. It's a crime that we haven't had any Mughal rulers for India, considering India's high levels of unity and prosperity during their rule. Akbar's achievements in terms of religious tolerance, administration, and conquest would give the devs a lot of options in terms of design.
I'm pretty sure if you used a Mughal ruler to represent India a lot of Indians would be pissed.
My girlfriend is punjabi, and I've gotten a deeper look at inner Desi beef which has been a wild ride. No chance they put a Muslim ruler alone. Hindu nationalism is very real, and I've heard multiple people say that the Mughals were colonial occupiers, not much different from the British. Maybe they'd do split leaders like in 6 to try to appease anyone, and Gandhi is essentially the games mascot so i think if they were to put a mughal in the game it would be like that.
I'm Desi and the hate towards Akbar is totally manufactured. There were for sure other Mughal rulers that were religiously intolerant, but Akbar literally built his empire on religious tolerance. His chief consort was a Hindu. He celebrated Hindu festivals and followed a Jain diet. Hell, he even tried to start his own religion to bring about national unity--which ended up not holding but still, the guy tried. He also ushered in a golden age of poetry, architecture, and trade which, coupled with agricultural advancements, led to rapid population growth in India. Even 50 years ago, Akbar was as respected in India as Ashoka or Gandhi. (In contrast, the much less religiously tolerant Aurangzeb was idolized in Pakistan.) The hate towards him is just the latest trend of Hindu nationalists distorting history to their own preferences--these are the same guys who claim that ancient Indians had invented airplanes and space shuttles.
The word “Desi” doesn’t give you extra credibility.
if you did the Mughals you’d probably make them a standalone Civ, or group them with the Timurids even if that’s a little anachronistic
> and I've heard multiple people say that the Mughals were colonial occupiers, not much different from the British Which is true. They were invaders that brought huge destruction and misery upon India.
hindu nationalists dont care about Akbar, they would be mad if it was Aurangzeb
Couldn't agree more. He definitely deserves it and he could be very interesting gameplay-wise.
Akbar was also my pick
[удалено]
There's a difference between a state being subservient to a foreign metropole (British India) and a state in which foreign rulers just become new rulers of the state (Mughal India), representing that state as their primary state. The only reason Akbar is controversial is because he was Muslim. We already have Kublai Khan leading China, and he was also part of an invading dynasty
I can’t argue with that logic. My view stands changed. I’ll delete my earlier comment.
This is just Hindu nationalist gaslighting, the British EXTRACTED the money from colonies to the isles, the Mughals made it their home. The equivalent would be present day British getting mad at any monarch past the 10th century representing them as they would all be a mix of danes, normans and germanics.
Akbar should lead a separate Mughal civ, I feel like due to their status as invaders and the legacy of Timur it makes sense for them to be a seperate Civ (also, please give us more non-European civs)
Eh, but they roughly controlled the territory and population of modern India. The Mughals also called themselves Hindustan (translation: India). They're kind of like China's Qing Dynasty: an iteration of a civ ruled by foreigners. We definitely need more non-European civs, and we can make a lot out of regional powers within India, like the Cholas or Bengal.
Wasn't he and his empire foreign? It was persianate and descended from Mongolians. Most Indians weren't muslim, either.
Yes, but foreign dynasties haven't stopped foreign rulers from leading other civs. Take Kublai Khan from China in Civ 6, for example.
Depends on how you define foreign. The Mughals were a Persian dynasty that lived and died in modern-day India and Pakistan for generations. Over time the Mughals adopted Indian language and culture, mixing it with their own and creating a new sub-culture. Like for example: the entire Urdu language which is undeniably Indian regardless of what Hindu nationalists argue. Babur, the first Mughal Emperor could certainly be considered a foreigner who born in Persia (actually modern Uzbekistan) and later came to India. But by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal “Emperor”, there was virtually no connection remaining to Persia. He and his ancestors had been Indian for generations. So where is the line where the Mughals became Indian?
Yea, it's pretty much analogous to the Qing or Yuan Dynasties of China
You aren't wrong. It's hard to see for us as outsiders but a lot of Hindus do in fact, feel like the Mughals were a colonial power, and with the amount of tension between Hindus and Muslims it would not go over well if he was the only leader.
Might be bold, but I'm going throw my own hat in the ring.
I have many options as an Indian ,Chatrapati Shivaji, Ashoka, Raja Raja Chola, Krishnadevaraya, Lachit Barphukan, Shah Jhan , Peshwa Bajirao, Vikram aditya, Ajatshatru, etc All of them bring some unique characteristics Shivaji and Barphukan are known to be Guirella warriors Raja Raja chola is said to be great naval power Krishnadevaraya,Ashoka and Ajatshatru are said to be great military leaders Bajirao is known for not being defeated in even a single battle he fough in his life Vikram aditya, he's just a legendary king literally, he is said to have the largest empire in the history but is not backed by any proofs Just I don't want Gandhi one more time leading India
It might never happen but I would like to see Kanishka the Great from the Kushan Empire. Or make Kushan a separate civilization.
I’m not sure Kanishka would really fit as an Indian ruler. He was born outside the subcontinent, led an empire heavily focused on Central Asia and would probably have considered himself more Central Asian than Indian.
Chandragupta II 'Vikramaditya' (*Fierce as the Sun*), by a mile. He is the most mythologized king in Indian history, ruled over arguably *THE* golden age of India, defeated Persia and the Indo-Greeks, and was a great patron of the arts.
going for Samudragupta the king who stated the amazing golden age of Indian making the subcontinent reach peak economy. Conquered nearly 2/3 of india with thestates in the deccan be his vassals. Huns couldn't set a step in the empire under his rule. Managed to maintain a stable state, and a rich economy even with constant wars. (Edit : the latter which his great great grandsons couldn't)
can go for a civ with an military focus but also culture bonuses. similar to what france should have been in civ 5. + he's called the napoleon of india, even though he was doing art patronage and doing wars before the Italian frech guy was born
Ashoka
There are so many choices, but I would like to pick one from below: Chola emperors : Rajaraja or Rajendra, naval power, strong religious and cultural identities Mugal emperors : Akbar or Shahjahan, Shah Jahan may be the zenith of mugal culture Modern : Jawaharlal Nehru, secular and scientific leader, Indira Gandhi (May be already represented, but if you want a woman leader and domination) However, there are more interesting choices like Bindu sara, great mouryian emperor (may be the actual 'devanampiya piyadasi', according to some theories) Kanishka, great budhist emperor, ruled north india, pakistan, afghanistan, parts of central asia, his only chance of appearing in civ is as indian leaders only I think (edited for clarity)
Ashoka the Great
I might be alone on this but I think it should be Gandhi.
Seeing as Ghandi would only be an inevitability, and that I think we need someone other than Chandragupta to go alongside him, I vote Ashoka.
TIL: there are 2 Indian leaders named Ashoka and Akbar. Disney’s now changing cannon in real life.
Ashoka, one of the greatest rulers of India, and one that more should know about
So, obviously all civ games need Gandhi for the memes. But India can have 2 leaders. I like the idea of Krishna being like an opposite play style of Gandhi. Have one leader be passive all game, then nuke Have the other be aggressive early game, then pivot hard to science
Damn what is this saussage party bring some girls in here.
I guess you could choose Indira Gandhi from modern India, but that's very recent
Indira was in Civ2, which was released less than 20 years after her death.
Also, Indira Gandhi is about as popular Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan
The country is only 74 years old.
The modern country, yes, but we've seen states emerge with roughly the same borders as modern India that could be considered past iterations of India, such as the Mughals or the Maurya. The PRC is only 72 years old.
I'm not an expert and maybe it's just name bias but I feel like the continuity between the PRC and Imperial China is clear, whereas the continuity between the state of India, British India, The East India Company, the Mughals, the Dehli Sultanate, the Chalukya Empire, the Satavahana Empire, the Gupta Empire, the Maurya Empire, the Indus Valley Civilization etc... is much less clearcut. Not least because it woudn't entirely surprise me to see some of those turning up in civ games as civilizations in their own right.
It's actually not that different. The only true difference is that China spent a greater fraction of its history unified. Many of those Chinese dynasties were separated by several hundred years, yet we still consider all of them representations of a Chinese state. For example, between the end of the Han dynasty in ~200 and the Mongol conquest in 1279, China spent actually spent most of its time divided. India, like China, experienced periods of unity and fragmentation, except, likely due to geography, India spent a much greater fraction of its history in that fragmentation period. However, you still see examples of states that were centered on the Ganges (the historical core of Indian civilization), controlled roughly the same area as modern India (Mughals, Maurya, etc.), and show cultural continuity. A lot of the states you mentioned, like the Satavahana dynasty or the Chalukya, don't really meet these criteria for being considered a past iteration of India. They could be represented as separate civs in the game.
Off the top of my head, Ahilyabai Holkar, Kittur Chennamma, Rani Lakshimbai, and Razia Sultan, though dont think any of em will get picked except for Ahilyabai
How about Nur Jahan? She ruled (her husband had... issues), was a patron of the arts, rode into war on an elephant, and enjoyed hunting (she slew some tigers).
Let's be realistic here; it HAS to be Gandhi. He's the closest this series has to a mascot and he's been in the base game for every single Civ game. However, I hope they go for a double leader alongside Ashoka, because there's far too many awesome Indian leaders to just have one.
I really would want India to be split up into different civs. But if we kept a single Indian I would like to have multiple leaders of Ashoka and Nehru.
I think we should have a civ representing the original Indian civilization centered on the Ganges as well as relatively unified iterations of India with that same center (Maurya, Mughal, modern India) as well as civs representing different parts of India that historically had their own empires. Examples would include South India/Dravidians, the Marathas, Bengal, etc. I don't think doing away with India makes much sense when we've had multiple states control roughly 90%+ of the territory and area of India throughout history. It makes about as much sense as splitting China up by dynasties. We would also be unable to represent the original Ganges states that emerged and gave us religions like Hinduism and Buddhism and had other major achievements.
If it was up to me I'd pick Maryuana empire, Chola empire, Mughal empire, and the modern India. >We would also be unable to represent the original Ganges states that emerged and have as religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. We don't have Israel either for the abrahamic religions.
Sure, but I think Gangetic India should represent India in the same way the Yellow River Valley civ represents China.
And what about the Indus? You know, the river that India is named after?
I mean the historical center of India since the emergence of the Gangetic states has been the Ganges. I think India is named after Indus because civs to the west of India made contact with India over the Indus (since the Indus was the historical western boundary). The Harappans were centered on the Indus, but they collapsed.
Ashoka would be a very interesting leader, what with his concept of *dhamma* and his militaristic side.
Are you moving on to more civs after this?
Maybe.
We should also have the Aztecs, Persians, and Arabians. They're "essential" civs that have been in pretty much every base game (the only exception was the Persians in Civ 6 I believe)
The Inca also appeared in Civ IV vanilla, and Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) in Civ V vanilla, so those could be included too.
Would be interesting if Aztec would have someone that isn't a Montezuma. But other civs that have been here from the start would be locked to 1-2 leaders too. Looking at you Shaka, Genghis and Kublai. Well Mongolia did have a couple leaders in between Genghis and Kublai but those two were easily the biggest.
# Bimbisara, the king of Magadha, who once see the Buddha.
You can’t take crazy nuclear Gandhi away now, he has brand value!
Would like to see a Gupta emperor as the Civ Indian leader, like Chandragupta II Vikramditya. Or a Martha chhatrapati, peshwa, for example: Shivaji, or Bajirao II.
Modi for modern India
Nur Jahan. Patron of the arts (especially architecture). Huntress who killed tigers. Warrior who rode on the back of an elephant. She had her own imperial seal, and historians consider her the real power behind her throne while her husband Jahangir was ill (he was addicted to many things). Also it would be great to get a female leader. The list has all but one woman right now, and Civ hasn't had Mughal representatives for India before (to my knowledge).
My preference in following order: 1. Samudra Gupta 2. Krishnadevaraya 3. Swati Tirunal (Yeah. He is pretty cool) 4. Queen of Jhansi 5. Rajendra Chola 6. Chandragupta Vikramaditya (chandragupta II) 7. Shivaji 8. Harshavardhana 9. Krishnaraja wadiyar IV 10. Akbar Edit: Sardar Patel would make an interesting choice too.
Lakshmibai, 19th century queen rebelling against British, very popular in India and frequently depicted in culture. Also interesting personality: "According to Vishnu Bhatt Godse, the Rani would exercise at weightlifting, wrestling, and steeplechasing before breakfast. An intelligent and simply-dressed woman, she ruled in a businesslike manner."
Gandhi
Apu from the Simpsons. If we can have Agamemnon, we can have him.
1. Samudragupt 2. Jawaharlal Nehru 3. Akbar 4. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj 5. Shershah Suri
What about Abdul Kalam? He's quite recent though but played a very important role in India's space program and is a very good choice for a science leader.
Good shout but Wings need to be on fire for that. People's president.
Kushan rulers
It hands down has to be Chiranjeevi. no questions.
No Augustus for Rome? I am disappointed.
There were so many more iconic empires than the Mughals. I would say Krishnadev Raya from Vijaynagara or someone from Chola , Chalukya or Maratha Empires.
[Shivaji Maharaj]()
I call for Chhatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj the GOAT
The GOAT.
Maybe Akhbar the Great of the Mughal Dynasty?
Queen Victoria. The ultimate shitpost choice
Either Krishna Deva Raya or Chatrapati Raja Raja Chola or Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Krishnadeva Raya: Conqueror supreme, great administrator, wealth was so much that people sold diamonds on the streets like hawkers and street vendors rather than as merchants. Bonus: Suvarna Rajyam: 3% on treasury every turn. Unit: War elephant. Building: Kamala Mahal. Chatrapati Raja Raja Chola: Conquered from Ganga to Sri Lanka. Son expanded the empire to the Indonesia islands. Brave king good administrator and had a huge navy as well as army. Bonus: Chozha Ekkapatiya: 50% cost of production for Naval Units and Harbours buildings and Sea based wonders. Unit: The Indian Caravel. Building: Pattana for sea and river based buildings for usage of water ways. Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj: Started the Maratha war of independence, defeater of the Mlecchas, started the independence movement of India 300 years after Hari Hara and Bukka Raya. Great adminstrator, never attacked cities to prevent harming people and was a women's rights activist for his time. Bonus: Chauth: Cities have 25% higher production in times of war. Unit: Maratha Cavalry. Building: Gadhs to replace forts. Personally it's Shivaji Maharaj for me but the rest are good shouts. Indra Jimi Jambhpar, Vadhav Suamb Par, Ravan Sadambh Par, Raghukul Raaj Hain. Paun Baari Baah Par, Santu Ratinaah Par, Jyon Sahasrabaar Par, Raam Dwijraaj Hain. Hridayaat Maauli, Rayates Saauli, Gad Kot Raauli ShivShankar Haa. Muktichi Mantranaa,Yuktichi Yantranaa, Gad Dusht Durjana Pralyankar Haan. Santaas Rakhshito Shatrunsi Khandato, Bhavand Bhaavna Sansthapito. Naisa Yuge Yuge Smaraneeya Sarvada, Maata Pita Sakha Shiv Bhupato. Daava Drumdand Par,Cheeta Mrugjhund Par, Bhushan Bitund Par, Jaise Mrugraaj Hain. Tej Tam Ans Par, Kaanha Jimi Kans Par, Tyon Malech Vans Par, Sher Shivraaj Hain. Jai Bhavani Jai Bhavani Jai Shivaji Jai Shivaji Jai Bhavani Jai Bhavani Jai Shivaji Jai Shivaji Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki Jai!!
Besides the fact that Gandhi is essential to the Civ series, if it has to be anybody else: I’d choose Subhas Chandra Bose for a more military focused India.
Jawaharlal Nehru. That’s who it always should’ve been. Gandhi is a Civ tradition at this point, but he was not the right pick as he never actually led India. Nehru was the first leader of modern India and had great fashion sense.
Sidestepping the issue that a single united india probably should just not exist, and should be swept away to make room for 2+ South Asian civs, I would pick Nehru. If India were to be split, I would split it in 3: - Hindu South Indian civ: Tamils/Chola led by Rajendra I - Buddhist Gangetic Indian civ: Mauryans led by Ashoka - Muslim Deccan/Northwestern civ: Mughals led by Shah Jahan
I think Firaxis could make a separation between Modern India and the former empires of the Indian continent, like the Sikhs, Mughals, Marathas etc, kinda like Humankind. For Modern India, I think the best would be Jawarhalal Nehru. He was the Prime Minister for 17 years and lead India throught some of it's most important events, like it's independence and partition, the Indo-Pakistani War, the annexation of Goa and the borde conflict with China. Also, Nehru secularism and religious tolerance were able to unite India into a proper modern and unified state and was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, making India "neutral" in the Cold War. Oh, and was with him that the Indian Nuclear Program started He could have bonus towards diplomacy, defense and alliance with other nations and towards himself.
It's not in the spirit of Civ to split India like that. Many of those states (Mughals, Maurya, and modern India) were centered on the Ganges (the core of Indian civilization) and largely controlled the same patchwork of people. Those states all controlled roughly 90% of modern India's area and population. Splitting India like that would be like splitting China into different dynasties. I think it makes much more sense to keep an India civ and then add civs that maintained influential states in certain regions, such as South Indian/Dravidian civ for all the empires in that area. You could also throw in a Sikh civ as well.
The overlap between Rome and its successor states like Spain, France, Byzantium, and the Holy Roman Empire/Germans is at least as severe, and yet we have all of those and more in civ.
Yea, because none of those civs controlled anything close to the entire territory of Rome. Those civs, alone, only make up a fraction of Rome's total territory. Many states have roughly controlled the modern territory of India. Similarly, civs which only represented a fraction of India's territory, such as the South Indians/Dravidians (e.g. Chola) or Bengal should receive their own civ.
Tipu Sultan! Famous for his Mysorean rockets. India had plenty of war and empires, so why does it always have to be the nice guy civ? Switch it up, guys!
I think he would be great for a separate South Indian civ, as his state didn't really reach far enough to be called "India"
Empress Victoria
Actually an interesting choice, George V will also do
Hope this is a joke; no colonizers please, especially for a civ that has far better rulers available.
Empress Victoria /s
Timur
Still feel like JFK would not be a good pick. I feel like he's not been dead long enough. Lots of people alive who would have voted for or against him. Seems too political for Sid to want to deal with it.
Shah Jahan
Maybe two choices, modern and ancient. Either Chola with a strong navy base, or maybe Shivaji/Akbar. For a modern leader either, Sardar Patel, Nehru or Netaji Subah Chandra Bose.
Porus.
Man, that sure is a lot of dudes.
Babur of Mughals
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 “Hatshepsut”
I think so it must be subah Chandar Bose or Bhagat Singh because I strongly deny the leading capabilities of mahatma gandhi and his forward block we don't need saints we need protector but if u ask me as true indian I think best leader for india is - chhatrapati shivaji maharaj the real tiger the king of India 🇮🇳
chhatrapati shivaji maharaj
Fuck me... once again - ME!
Akbar the Great
It's about time we got a maratha leader for India the last great native power in the subcontinent. Maybe Bajirao peshwa Or Shivaji himself
It's gonna be Gandhi anyways. And you know what, I'm fine with that. Civ can have its own Monaco GP, its one silly mainstay that's always been in the base game, and Gandhi is the only leader that fills that criteria.
I don’t care if Ghandi is stale. He’s a staple for a reason. Nuclear Ghandi forever.
Empress Victoria
The "Do not redeem" guy
Religious India: Ghandi, this is a tradition. Military India: Rajaraja. The Chola emperor who conquered a big chunk of land in south India and Sri Lanka. He can get some navy bonus since Chola had a powerful fleet, India doesn't have to be associated with elephant. Cultural India: Shah Jahan. Mughal was at peak during his reign, Taj Mahal is his most renowned work.
Shah Jahan literally had a famine in Deccan to torture people. Not him. Even Akbar was a better shout.
Oh god. Seeing Gandhi again in civ vii would absolutely piss me off Heres my list from earliest to latest From the Mauryans Chandragupta is obviously iconic. A military heavy civ would be obvious. They could give him something like Kautilya as a unique governor like Suleiman. I think following the principles of his current iteration make sense. Asoka is another obvious candidate. Again something military heavy makes sense, but they could give him a second personality that's more religious focused for him post Kalinga war would be cool Kanishka of the Kushanas would kinda be a curveball pick cuz the kushanas are from Xinjiang, but he'd still be awesome. Something trade focused to show his position and use at the centre of the silk route would be insane Pulakesin II is my personal FAVOURITE indian ruler. He'd be a legendary choice. Again, mil focus. Give him a movement related ability to reflect that he ruled from the mountainous deccan maybe? Rajaraja Chola would be insanely cool to represent the south. There's a lot you can do with him too. A naval focused civ makes sense. Give him something with trade to reflect the strength of the trade guilds Alauddin Khilji would be neat too, someone from the Delhi sultanate. Went as far the Deccan. Known for being ruthless, powerful, and strict. Banned drinking and partying as he was scared of his ministers conspiring together, keeping his subjects at the brink of poverty to stop rebellions when they got too rich, insane spy system. Mil focus again, something where you can increase your mil strength at the cost of happiness or loyalty maybe? Even espionage focus would be cool Of course. Can't forget Akbar. It's wild how we haven't had Akbar yet in civ. You can genuinely argue his civ being focused on any and every aspect. Although I'd say something cultural focus makes sense. Add something with religious tolerance too. Include his 9 jewels of his court. Even shah Jahan as a wonder focused civ from the mughals would be interesting And of course. The person I really think is the best choice is Nehru. Still our most iconic modern leader. A science and diplomacy focused civ would be most accurate to his workings and strength. Maybe IITs as a unique building?? Also yea as everyone's saying please split up india into 2 or more civs like they did for Greece and Sparta. India is just too big and different
Literally not a single woman on this so far despite good mentions
Shah Jahan or Rana Lakshmibai
I am surprised no one picked Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Marath empire covered basically whole of India at some point. The empire also had a navy to fight against dutch empire on their coastline.
Looks like this comment section is pretty full already but I want to make a good case for Shivaji Maharaj, a renaissance leader of the Maratha Empire. For a civ like India, apart from Chadragupta we rarely see them have domination bonuses, which I think Shivaji could be a perfect fit for. Most notably because of the role he played in the downfall of the Mughal Empire. His unique building. could be the mountain forts (i forgot the official name) such as sinhagad, rajgad and shivneri (which is gorgeous recommend everyone to visit once) There are a few options for the unique unit. A good one is the Kokani Musketeer, replacing the musketman, or the Shiledar, replacing the cavalry. The final important point is that on top of being a domination focussed civ, he could also be a diplomatic or cultural civ. Now I'm not massively aware of the Maratha's diplomatic history (despite being from Pune whoops) but afaik he centralised princely states, standardised the legal system, extended Diplomatic relations to Britain, Portugal and other European powers. Shivaji is, in my opinion, the most underrated leader for India in civ 7. Having a leader like him with the history, culture and military capabilities would be fantastic to see, overall making india an interesting (and powerful) force on the map.
I want Shivaji.
Jawaharlal Nehru
RajaRaja Cholan is a good choice, he and his son had a very good naval campaign and managed to capture cities in the south asian region (Indonesia/Malaysia). He also restored old temples and lot of new temples, so they could be religious / naval civ.
Aurangzeb of the Mughal Empire
No love for Tipu Sultan of Mysore? He pioneered rocketry which could make for a great leader ability or even a unique unit. He was a badass who held off the British for almost 20 years, and commissioned an [iconic automaton of a tiger mauling a British solider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan). A great administrator too by all accounts. Even if he didn't rule over most of India, having him as a secondary Indian leader or even making Mysore its own Civ would be a great take on India that could be more domination/science focused.
I like Ashoka, Changragupta II, Akbar, and Nur Jahan. After these civ votes are done can we do votes for Arabia, Aztecs, Babylon, Inca, Mali, Mongols, Persia, and Zulu since they also have been in the original games like Civ 4 and 5
You gotta add Wales and other new ones after you finish.
Wait, is Wales in Civ 7!
Idk
Crazy Horse
wrong Indian LOL
The US Army hates me and is trying to silence me.
Gandhi…. Lets be real. It’s a boring pick but would it be Civ without him there? Warmongering and threatening global peace?
[удалено]
Having a colonizer lead a civ is ridiculous, absolutely not.
[удалено]
You don't know what the definition of colonization is. A territory is a colony if it is ruled as a peripheral territory subject (colony) to the metropole (the colonizer). The Mughals were conquerors, not colonizers, because they ruled India from within India. They essentially became India. Britain, on the other hand, ruled as a foreign power in which India was given an unequal status compared to the metropole (Britain).
[удалено]
No, the myth that India didn't exist is British colonial propaganda used to justify the colonization of India. The Mughal and Maurya Empires controlled 90% of the territory and population known today as India. It's absurd to not call them India. In fact, the Mughal Empire even called itself Hindustan (translation: India). The definition of colonialism presented in that article is not consistent with the scholarly consensus for the definition of colonialism.
[удалено]
That doesn't matter. The Qing and Yuan dynasties were Mongol and Manchu-led, but they're still considered Chinese dynasties because they adapted to China. The Mughals adapted to India in the same way. It's not more like 60%- go look at a map. If we hold civilizations to stringent standards such that holding 90%+ of the territory and area is necessary, then Qin Shi Huang could not be a leader of China. That's an absurd standard.
[удалено]
Sure, but the Yuan are still included under Kublai Khan in Civ 6, so there's no reason the Mughals can't be included for India. The Mughals also used Indian methods for administration and introduced other aspects from previous Indian states into their rule. That map pretty much just excludes largely uninhabited areas like the Thar desert. If you look at a map of the Han Dynasty, it looks very similar, but I don't see people using it to argue that the Han shouldn't be considered part of Chinese civilization. You're just a colonial bootlicker. Things like infrastructure would have inevitably been built anyways- just look at uncolonized states like Japan or Thailand. If anything, the British stunted India's development by forcing Indians into agricultural labor and by destroying their textile manufacturing industry. Their rule should absolutely not be glorified. India exited British rule as one of the poorest states on a per capita basis.
Then you'd not mind Shivaji or Chatrapati Yashwant Rao Holkar. Shivaji defeated the Portuguese and Holkars defeated the British from time to time.
The local call center scammer.
Virat Kohli
RCBian.
Akbar the great or Akbar the tolerant continue the idea of the tolerant india with cultural diversity
Empress Victoria of India.
I hope we get more than just “India”
My vote is gonna go with Akbar. He may not have the largest empire, but it was during his reign that we achieved some form of tolerance and friendship between Hindus and Muslims. He even tried to syncretise the faiths, an attempt which is in itself a great achievement for a ruler in India.
Aurangzeb, emperor at the height of Mughal power
We need hitler for germany