Printable View
I've read that the Mauryan kingdom of India used war chariots. Don't you think that India should have a regional chariot unit or at least a noble chariot unit. The Mauryans were the rulers of India during at least part of EB's time frame so I think it would be accurate to have a representative chariot unit for them.
General Aetius
No, because such noblemen would neither be hired out as mercenaries nor would they have appeared in the type of rebel armies portrayed in EB.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Aetius
MeinPanzer-The Eleutheroi aren't always rebels. They are mostly the unplayable minor nations who own their own regions and have large, sometimes elite armies. In EB India I've seen armies of around 3-4 elephents, 2-3 guild warriors, 4 Indian long bowman. a couple Indian Heavy Cavalry and some levy units. I believe this is accurate because India was known to be very rich and therefore supported huge armies. However I do believe that chariots instead of elephants( which is usually the General of the EB Indian armies) were the bodyguards of rulers and nobles. Also I think it would be nice for other nations ,like Baktria and Saka Rauka, to be able to recruit from the Mauryan Nobility once they have conquered and instituted the right government in a region.
General Aetius
Yeah! IIRC most nobles and lords from the two great epic of India, Mahabharata and Ramayana always went to the battle with chariots not elephants. BTW these 2 epic stories were written too long before the EB time frame. May be the chariot usage already phase out and replace by elephant during EB timeframe; moreover, I think a general on the back of great beast is cooler than that crappy chariot:coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by General Aetius
If you're serious, (and learning from past experiences) you guys will have to show your sources and state reasons, taken from those sources, of why you believe those units should be in EB. Mein Panzer, who is a ruthless expert in these kind of arguments, looks as if he'll oppose it with all his powers. I'm scared. :laugh4:
Chariots were certainly used by Indian nobles in this time period (as evidenced primarily by the Sanchi reliefs, but also by numerous other representations). However, to expand on my statement from before, as only a small part of the Mauryan/Sungan state is represented on the EB map, I thought that the EB team reckoned that representing full royal armies would be unrealistic. That is what I meant by "nor would they have appeared in the type of rebel armies portrayed in EB"- large rebel armies may appear, but they are not supposed to be large royal armies, which would have included chariots.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Aetius
An Indian chariot unit would only be used by an Indian faction. To create a unit that is only used by the rebels would be a waste of a precious unit slot. If there is no Indian faction, there will be no Indian chariots...
Yeah! That's absolutely right.:rtwyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
I am confused, you said if there is no Indian faction. I thought it was already confirmed there would be none.
It's been confirmed that the Maurean Empire won't be included. However, comments by the team members have left open the possibility that a Maurean satrapy (representing the western-most part of the Maurean Empire) will be included. I hope it is, although given the engine's limitations it is unlikely.
As much as I'd like to see an Indian faction in EB2, sadly, I don't think it will happen. In order to do an Indian faction justice, it would need a separate culture slot, so I have a feeling that it won't be included for the same reason a Kushite/ Ethiopian faction won't be included, i.e. culture slot limitations.
I second the Indian Chariots idea. Even if there isn't a Mauryan Faction/Satrapy the Indian leaders would ride to battle on chariots :charge: and rarely elephants :elephant:
That's nice. Satrapies far from the center of power were usually independant in many ways, I heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Qualifying them as an eastern culture wouldn't do, huh? I suppose you're right. But it's debatable...Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlinues
I would have to disagree with you there, India had a culture very different then any of the other cultures we see in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
I only suggested that India shoud be under the eastern faction slot. I never stated it should definitey be. And yes, India was its own faction. But because such a small land area of India would be in the map, it woud seem like a waste making an extra culture slot for them. But the decision lies with the EB Team, not us.Quote:
I would have to disagree with you there, India had a culture very different then any of the other cultures we see in the game.
Well, the suggestion just seemed kind of unrealistic in general, no offense.
None taken. It's a debatable issue that would be made more for gameplay reasons than historical accuracy. Come what may, it's not in our hands. :wink:
How many culture slots are there any way?
Seven.
How much is currently used in EB1, and how much is being planned for EB2?
Mister Spammer, you have been on these boards long enough to know that EB uses all seven.
Therefor there can't be an Indian faction, because India was not "eastern" and therefor there will be no Indian chariots. Question answered. I think I may have used therefor wrongly in one of those two uses.
Don't worry, due to the presence of the conjunction "and", you haven't used the word incorrectly. Apart from the fact you have spelled it wrong, but that of course is another matter. From a stylistic standpoint though, it is considered bad form to use the same word twice in the same sentence unless you do so intentionally for emphasis :) Consequently, if I was editing your sentence I would simply remove the second therefor[e] as it is already implied by the first and as such is an unnescessary drain on the reader's attention.
Sweet, thanks man.