Sikhs In AGE OF EMPIRES 3? No. Why Not When INDIA Is In It?

[BhagatSingh]

Hey people, I heard about Age of Empires 3, the asian dynasties, their 2nd expansion pack. So i thought cool they will have sikhs in the expansion, when Sikhs had their own empire, but when i checked it out, it said "India" in the "19th" century. I was like {censored}? China 16th century, japan 16th century then INDIA 19th CENTURY??
So I thought maybe they have Sikhs with the rest of the Indian army. But no ...
Features

• Starts with two elephant-mounted Brahmin units instead of an Explorer.
• Villagers cost Wood instead of Food.
• Villagers arrive at no cost with most Home City Shipments.
• Livestock cannot be harvested for Food, but can be tasked to Sacred Fields for experience points.

Why coudn't they include a SIkh empire??? http://www.ageofempires3.com/asiandynasties/india.html for more info
I think we should do something about this! Reply back ASAP!! This expansion pack comes out on Oct 23rd!!!!!!!
Bhagat

 

[Sherab]

Re: Sikhs in AGE OF EMPIRES 3??? no. Why not when INDIA is in it????

I agree.

 

[dalsingh]

Re: Sikhs in AGE OF EMPIRES 3??? no. Why not when INDIA is in it????

Get we'll just have to wait for Sarbloh Warriors.

 

[BhagatSingh]

I complained to Essemble Studios for leaving out a pretty big empire just like that. I think thats an insult to sikhs ince they should have an empire in the game but only have 1 sikh mercenary!! but anyways, if they dont add sikh empire then ya we wait for sarbloh warriors, which will still be the only game with sikhs

 

[Archived_Member_19]

LOL

cool it bro

60-100 years of rule by a couple of men does not consitute an empire...

in fact they are wrong for sure... in terms of timelines....

 

[BhagatSingh]

LOL

cool it bro

60-100 years of rule by a couple of men does not consitute an empire...

in fact they are wrong for sure... in terms of timelines....

so ur saying sikhs never had an empire?? did indians have an empire??? if yes how long did they rule for??

LMFAO i think u need to do some research before sharing ur "facts"!

 

[TGill]

What is the meaning of sikh empire Bhagat ji ?
Does this game include some christian empire in West or buddhist empire in China or some Jain empire as well ?

 

[BhagatSingh]

Check out the link. it wasnt there to look pretty.

 

[TGill]

All the best for your efforts dude or otherwise anyways you are going to wait for sarbloh warriors.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

Indian ~ belonging to Indian peninsula
- definition for pre partition history ( if we want to call it India)

kingdoms require continuity...

"indian" history dates back to 4000 years

so which phase do you want to know.

the "sikh kingdom", if u want to call the Ranjit Singh's rule as that, is a PART of the "INDIAN" history..

and 60 years in comparison to 4000 years....???

 

[Archived_Member_19]

ah..and btw... a huge majority of Sikhs are Indians..

 

[BhagatSingh]

Indian ~ belonging to Indian peninsula
- definition for pre partition history ( if we want to call it India)

kingdoms require continuity...

"indian" history dates back to 4000 years

so which phase do you want to know.

the "sikh kingdom", if u want to call the Ranjit Singh's rule as that, is a PART of the "INDIAN" history..

and 60 years in comparison to 4000 years....???

so assuming its part of indian history... sikhs should have been in numbers ... all I see is one mercenary "chakram".

But during the Sikh empire phase sikhs were separate from indians. it was not till the British rule that we were made a part of india.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

LOL

just by claiming it would not make it different...

as i explained...anyone living this side of the Kandhar upto Burma was " INDIAN" as per the definition of that time...

anyhow..

i can understand that one type of soldier could have been added....say a Nihang(horse raider), similar to the Hun Tarkan


but still i say that if they were trying to capture majority of INDIAN population, sikhs would get 1-2% representation only...

maybe you can send a mail to those guys..

 

[BhagatSingh]

LOL

just by claiming it would not make it different...

as i explained...anyone living this side of the Kandhar upto Burma was " INDIAN" as per the definition of that time...

anyhow..

i can understand that one type of soldier could have been added....say a Nihang(horse raider), similar to the Hun Tarkan


but still i say that if they were trying to capture majority of INDIAN population, sikhs would get 1-2% representation only...

maybe you can send a mail to those guys..

the game is about building an army to crush ur opponent,etc etc. so there wud be a lot of sikhs there, u shud check out the game, sikhs deserve way more than what they gave us. The villagers could be all hindu(for example) but the sikhs would be in front lines in terms of the army
But ya now I think u have understood me.

I did send a mail and i need everyone else to do the same.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

bhagat singh ji

understand your view point..

but if you made up the whole army of sikhs...what abt the marathas...or gurkhas...or bundelkhandis..or rohillas...or pandyas..or keralite martial men... ???

my point is...when we are talking abt representation in a game for indian martial figures...sikhs will get equivalent to their numbers....

sikh numbers in just the british army cannot be justified as an indicator to sikhs being the major martial race( sick concept purported by british)

in fact the british indian army was a fraction of the armies owned by other maharajas etc, and those were majorly local recruits

 

[BhagatSingh]

bhagat singh ji

understand your view point..

but if you made up the whole army of sikhs...what abt the marathas...or gurkhas...or bundelkhandis..or rohillas...or pandyas..or keralite martial men... ???

my point is...when we are talking abt representation in a game for indian martial figures...sikhs will get equivalent to their numbers....

sikh numbers in just the british army cannot be justified as an indicator to sikhs being the major martial race( sick concept purported by british)

in fact the british indian army was a fraction of the armies owned by other maharajas etc, and those were majorly local recruits

ok, now I urge you to go on the website and actually check out wut's going on.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

hahaha

i ama big AoE and AoM fan myself...i checked out..

they messed up the timeline sequence a big time...

Elephants went out in 18th century itself...

but later i dug deep and came across an interview

Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties Updated Q&A - Details on India - PC News at GameSpot

this should clear most of your doubts

 

[BhagatSingh]

hahaha

i ama big AoE and AoM fan myself...i checked out..

they messed up the timeline sequence a big time...

Elephants went out in 18th century itself...

but later i dug deep and came across an interview

Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties Updated Q&A - Details on India - PC News at GameSpot

this should clear most of your doubts

they didnt even mention sikhs...

 

[Archived_Member_19]

LOL

it mentioned how they selected various units...

anyhow... for a Sikh the sikh history becomes central, while for a neutral observer, maybe in the whole annals of indian history, sikhs are a relatively small part.

 

[BhagatSingh]

LOL

it mentioned how they selected various units...

anyhow... for a Sikh the sikh history becomes central, while for a neutral observer, maybe in the whole annals of indian history, sikhs are a relatively small part.

So true but now the sarbloh warriors team can create sumtin similar.