5 HC Cards for training time is ridiculous

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
1

Riding School, Zamindars, Fencing School, Tame elephants and Indian gunpowder plus Terror charge seems too much to just get a similar effect to europeans.
It was acceptable in some way due to Indian gunpowder just boosting sepoys train time BUT after last patch where they added a 10% boost it became a must to have in treaty matches. This last change wasnt needed as that 10% comes from imperial tech. Meanwhile everybody talks how strong is India in most ages of the game with diverse options.

@PratUshh @vitorcxb20 @Erchere @dansil92 #treaty_balance

3 Likes
2

hello friend, unfortunately I haven’t played with india for a long time in a treaty but it seems to me that + - this is better than before, they should give a mosque with an ottoman alliance in the cosulate to have access to training reduction as well as hausa and ethiopia

3

So I’ve restarted playing treaty with India, its definetly better or I should say “ATLEAST PLAYABLE”.

Okay lets see for treaty SEPOY we HAD PREVIOUSLY :

Base Train time : 34 SEC
(13.33% more than euro musk 30sec)

  • Riding School (card) - 40% to all infantry
  • Immigrants (TC research) - 10% for all

FINAL- 50% improved = 12SEC

After the new card introduced and other nerfs to sepoy :

BASE train time : 38SEC
(26.67% more than euro musk 30sec)

  • Riding School (card) - 40% to all infantry
  • Immigrants (TC research) - 10% for all
  • Zamindars (LOL I forgot its renamed) - 20% to all infantry
  • Indian Gunpoweder - 15% for sepoy + 10% COST + (in later update) 10% HP & DMG of Imperial upgrade shifted in this card

FINAL- 85% improved = 5.7SEC

SO it “looks like” there is HUGE TRAIN TIME improvement of 6SEC from 12 to 5.7(6)
And it makes it the ONLY unit of India to train this FAST! except Flail Elephant. COOL

BUT!!!

If I don’t want that 6SEC train improvement.

I still have to HAVE THAT CARD in my deck,
coz,
I NEED that 10% HP & DMG!
which was previously provided by the imperial upgrade.

SO. . . the card is basically forced upon India after the update,
coz before the update, If I don’t want that 6sec train time, I could still have the full stats Sepoy.
But NOW I have to keep that card to have a full stats SEPOY. :slight_smile:

THE PROBLEM :

Is it worth it ? If you want to spam sepoy using 6sec train time, probably yes !

But other wise ? NOPES!

  • Coz we used to have the sepoy with same stats without a 4th compulsory card, in an already over burdened deck. (Being the most shipment dependent civ.)

  • This card takes away even the last breathing room from the deck.

  • This might not look like a problem to other civ players, but for India its a huge problem.

  • As for everything its over dependent on cards. U cant even have basic stuff without the cards, like pop reduction etc, there are literally so much scope for many cards to become a research ONLY! but as India doesn’t have an arsenal, and the Monastry is mostly empty. All that burden is on the shipments ONLY!

THE BIG PICTURE

India needs a new building or merging of some cards to create a breathing room in the deck. This will make it a truely revived civ of a current DE.

All I can say is :

Currently it feels like an upgrade of 2005 civ, rather than a remastered DE civ.

An Old civ that’s just a little upgraded, but no new mechanic or anything is given. and Not on par with other civs.

And for the same reason, as an India player you can NEVER play alone as MAIN civ in team/treaty against any of the popular civs.

But those civ are they can stand a 1v2 fora little while or recover faster from a failed push, Basically always have a trick or an absurd spammable unit to fall back to. With India u never have that luxury. either u keep pushing fueled by constant wood burning. or you’ll loose the momentum,
AS WELL AS EVERYTHING U CONQURED ON THE MAP.

Untill these things are not resolved, India is a supporting civ, not a standalone treaty civ.

2 Likes
4

Maybe as the Chinese have a population cap of 220, the Indians could have a deck limit of 28 cards.

1 Like
5

WOW! increasing deck capacity, Thats actually a VERY brilliant Idea, it will provide the necessary breathing room, with less effort and still maintain the integrity of the civ.

IMO increasing the capacity by +1 is adequate. And I actually see this as possible way to solve it. But it has to be tested, there might be some loopholes in that, none of which I can think of rn. :confused: :slight_smile:

6

Why are you lot talking about compensating for nerfs to india? Its an overperforming, do-it-all civ for no good reason.

You’re comparing a overall balance to the civs own overloaded roster - yea itl be weaker than before and thats the whole point. ‘Oh no, I need 28 cards to maintain my power level’ - meanwhile the civ is already stronger then most with just 25 cards.

Like, recently the sepoy got scaled down from a super DUPER redcoat into a janissary/redcoat hybrid - as in; actual bs down to still really damn strong - and then the rajput got juiced. Somehow India players find a reason to fault this?

So your bizarrely powerful musk, with age 2 skirm support, on a high exp raking civ, that doesn’t compete with vils for res went down to merely a combo of the strongest musk types with age 2 skirm support, on a high exp raking civ, that doesn’t compete with vils for res.

Get that outta here.

2 Likes
7

i wanna point out they are talking about treaty here, so age 2 skirms is not meaningful to discuss here.

though as far as i know they are considered an above average civ by the top tier players, julian rates them at 13 (0 is average).

4 Likes
8

I get that it was about treaty, but in the end the proposed idea of boosting India’s card limit looked like a fine way to put the civ over the top in all other 1v1s.

Who is this julian you reference, anyway?

1 Like
9

Julian K is the best treaty player, also plays supremacy at a high level.

3 Likes
10

H O W ?

  • Russia and China have an abnormal pop limit.

  • There are civs that have a Dynamic deck/doesn’t need to keep factories in the deck :slight_smile: have 29 CARD ATLEAST! and can have more based on revolt etc mechanics.

  • And then there is Japan , an Asian Civ with JUST COUNT how many cards :slight_smile:
11

There are civs that have a Dynamic deck/doesn’t need to keep factories in the deck :slight_smile: have 29 CARD ATLEAST! and can have more based on revolt etc mechanics.

Tongue in cheek - lets apply the mechanics of Mexico, Us, revolutionary france and many others ONTOP of India’s own civ perks, without taking anything away from the civ.

Basically always have a trick or an absurd spammable unit to fall back to. With India u never have that luxury.
Russia and China have an abnormal pop limit.

K, lets give sepoy and gurkha a -25% stat penalty and you can spam em till the cows come home. Cuz thats the trade off for spammable ruskets and strelets. Feel better? No? Aight - you get more pop but gotta work with the banner army mechanic. Surely, thats a great way to mass an ideal comp of units?

And then there is Japan , an Asian Civ with JUST COUNT how many cards :slight_smile:

You’re right, lets give japan sacred fields - seven luck gods is now a civ perk! And then put tempo reforms in age 2 cuz ritual bovines is there! Then, if thats your only point of comparison, all should be well. Otherwise, lets compare with japan in another way; India can doulble send most cards like japan - but no free vils with them and the build limit of vils is 75! Doest that allow more pop space for the oh-so-weak indian roster?

Look, just get out and say you wanna cherry pick the best parts of every civ in the game, without any of the penalties. Cuz apparently If India isnt a bizarre conglomerate of everything good from every civ in the game, then it should be right?

Also, lets find a way to do all that nonsense one deck, because commiting to one strat is just for everyone else but not India.

1 Like
12

Woah Woah! Calm down.

  1. You haven’t answered me, how increasing 1 deck size affect so hugely that u are asking people to “get out” ?

  2. This is a treaty discussion, just compare those civ final forms in treaty vs India. :slight_smile: as well as their eco, and then talk about commiting to one single strategy. Its India that has to commit to only one stratergy and nothing to fall back on.

Also as for the sacred fields are redundant in treaty as they don’t produce enough and doesn’t scale well.

13

The solution is not giving them extra slots on deck, but become some of them techs, or in case to be a must to have card, a better long term effect:

  • Camels feel to weak to use their cards. We could become desert terror a tech.

  • Royal green jackets/Zamindars could grant soldiers with consulate armies and Infinite shipments.

  • Or we can swap effects of Zamindars (Cheaper Sepoys + 2 per shipment) and Indian gunpowder (infantry trains faster). Gurkhas use gunpowder too, arent they?

1 Like
14

Yups! either merging or increasing deck size by 1, anything is fine. But I prefer deck increasing as it’ll not harm anything existing , and just provide enough flexibility only, neither a buff or nerf.

15

Thats enough of the buzzfeed speak for me.

For my part, I noticed you considered nothing about any rebalancing for all the extra buffs you want on an already strong civ. Boost treaty and break supermacy again. Effects on other game modes are a valid part of considering changes to a civs performance in any one.

India has enough and needs nothing. If it gains something, it should lose something. I really feel no need to give anymore counter examples to challenge your tunnel vision.

16

How becoming a card into a (have to be paid) tech can be OP? I think it would weaken India a bit on supremacy, where everyone says is too strong.

Same happens with adding a lategame tech to ottoman consulate. Several threads aimed for a mosque with unique improvements for them. This way it wouldnt be needed that much HC cards for just training times, like everyone.

I dont understand the complains about imperial techs, most supremacy games dont reach that point, so they shouldnt be a problem.

1 Like
17

Exactly ! especially the least played format of 1v1 never reaches imperial. and this topic isn’t about that…

I asked HOW! and you weren’t able to answer it twice. How the either of these solutions “BREAK” the supremacy where even calling the basic 25 cards is almost impossible :

  • Merging of cards
  • Converting to research
  • 1 More deck slot.

This post isn’t an ask for buff, this is ask for flexibility and balance, finding a solution. If you don’t get the point please do read OG and my reply again.

You are just bashing people coz U don’t like their efforts to address the issue. Meanwhile you don’t have any valid points for the same. I doubt you even played treaty with India.

1 Like
18

I was referring more specifically to the ideas of extra pop space or extra deck space for India. Which I maintain is bs - for the reasons that the extra pop can add alot more power to age 2 pushes on a civ that is already pretty good at that and a card advantage is a card advantage. Unless yall mean this only applies at age 5, which I doubt cuz no one said that.

Now @PratUshh ,

This post isn’t an ask for buff, this is ask for flexibility and balance, finding a solution. If you don’t get the point please do read OG and my reply again.

WOW! increasing deck capacity, Thats actually a VERY brilliant Idea, it will provide the necessary breathing room, with less effort and still maintain the integrity of the civ.

Yups! either merging or increasing deck size by 1, anything is fine. But I prefer deck increasing as it’ll not harm anything existing , and just provide enough flexibility only, neither a buff or nerf.

Really?

I asked HOW! and you weren’t able to answer it twice. How the either of these solutions “BREAK” the supremacy where even calling the basic 25 cards is almost impossible :

  • Merging of cards
  • Converting to research
  • 1 More deck slot.

Pointing it out is enough explanation for anyone with an objective view, which you danced around twice - I notice nothing from my comments . India is, as a fact, a high performing civ in supremacy. All the suggested treaty changes add power to this mode - anywhere between age 1 to age 4 - without taking anything away to bring it back into line. I did notice that all proposed treaty buffs didnt consider corrections for maintaining balance in other game modes.

You are just bashing people coz U don’t like their efforts to address the issue. Meanwhile you don’t have any valid points for the same. I doubt you even played treaty with India.

Pointing out holes in ideas is constructive criticism because it brings attention to those holes. I expanded on the tradeoffs with the associated civs you brought up as comparisons - so yes, I have valid points here.

Attacking ideas is not a personal attack. That you’re taking it personally, is just a matter of an excessive attachment on your part.

19

As for this :

Just read ur own answer its absolutely out of context. Ur points just oppose any change to the civ coz u see it as a “BUFF” , but you are unable to prove, HOW its a BUFF and how it can affect the supremacy :slight_smile:

Neither you looked at the “TREATY” rating and stregth of the civs I mentioned, and kept on assuming India as “India isnt a bizarre conglomerate of everything good from every civ” / “India has enough and needs nothing” I mentioned only adding 1 more card to deck considering the balance, meanwhile You have clearly thinking as If i hav suggested to add 28 or more cards :slight_smile:

Either give me some valid point the 4th time you reply, or if you wanna bash out you can :

20

India is, as a fact, a high performing civ in supremacy. All the suggested treaty changes add power to this mode - anywhere between age 1 to age 4 - without taking anything away to bring it back into line

I was referring more specifically to the ideas of extra pop space or extra deck space for India. Which I maintain is bs - for the reasons that the extra pop can add alot more power to age 2 pushes on a civ that is already pretty good at that and a card advantage is a card advantage.

Unless you want the governors seal on a comment, this is enough reason. You really think I need to offer more to challenge your completely subjective opinion? You own (weightless) proof is your own experience - that is called bias. Arguing with your own bias as fact, makes you something like FOX news.

Either give me some valid point the 4th time you reply, or if you wanna bash out you can :

Before chanting ‘HOW’ and ignoring offered answer a fifth time, consider parsing the thread again yourself:


jonasnee4671Dev Agent N°7
though as far as i know they are considered an above average civ by the top tier players, julian rates them at 13 (0 is average).

Julian K is the best treaty player, also plays supremacy at a high level.