But it will be welcomed by most of the community (as you said , 90%, the casual players)
1 Like
Iām sorry, I couldnāt understand why you āhave to change that civ quite a lot for itā if the Indians are not too strong with BE?
Now Iām not denying at all that there are people who clearly wish Indians had more Eles.
And Iām also not coming up with half assed numbers out of my head to try and prove a point.
3 Likes
I think we should focus on fixing the Indians in this thread, the Chinese issues are different and should be seen on their own merit
1 Like
Indians are already good. Over 50% winrate means they are one of the strongest civs in the game.
1 Like
This thread is about fixing the horrible civ design, it was never about buffing Indians to the point of making them OP,
so donāt characterize the discussion to be about an Indian buff.
2 Likes
The civ design is already good. This is not a simulation, it is a game, and it shoots for variety, not representation.
I already gave you a large list of completely unhistorical garbage taht the original devs put into the game.
1 Like
Well participating in the āKhmer OPā thread taught me that this right there is quite an unpopular opinion. We can at least agree eles are more pop efficient than camels, and that it will change Indian balance at least in some settings (DM, arena, team games)
I think all of these are represented by the Rocketry tech.
Well, people have been complaining that Khmer are OP because they have both a food bonus and elephants. I disagreed but turns out I was wrong since the devs are going to nerf said food bonus AND remove a unit from the civ to balance all this out. And it happens that Indian donāt have one but two food bonuses. I let you guess what happens next. Also I donāt get the whole āitās going to be balanced if they donāt get an UT/Elite upgradeā First problem: if it lack either of these it will suck and be inferior to Imp camel. So basically you will never be able to use them seriously like the current Ele archer and youāre going to ask for a buff. Second problem: donāt tell me you want Indian to be more accurate and not care about the fact the three current UT that affect elesā¦ are all named after Indian stuff while being on non Indian civs.
4 Likes
You obviously canāt give a civās UU to another civ.
But Battle Elephant? IDK
Itās a UU, you canāt really do that.
I agree with that, but they tried to make them more accurate.
Still tho, Indians having War Elephants is just too out of touch imo.
This is a different story.
Heck, Sandy Peterson, Lead Designer of AoC freaked out when he heard thereās an Indian ācivā.
Indians are basically 8 different civs in AOE2 timeline. And trust me, that guys knows a lot about history.
But this does not call the need for BE
If they decided to make this accurate, they should turn India into 8 civs.
That is completely true, but adding Battle Elephants would just make an already strong civ even stronger.
It isnāt that inaccurate though, it does have serious inaccuracies, but itās fine.
Obviously not 90%.
The best scenario is that FE takes the Indian civ and turns it into more civs that are more accurate.
But balancing that with all other civs is a bit difficult, so Iād be fine with buffing the Elephant Archers and being done with it.
If they do this, their āno civ for nowā word can be questioned.
1 Like
i am curious what are those 8 civs you are referring to??
1 Like
I meant non elite battle Elefants, not war Elefants. I agtre that giving UU is ridiculous. Sorry for the misunderstanding caused.
You really canāt be serous that non elite would causes the Indians civ become top tier suddenly in winrate
1 Like
They already are. Indians are OP right now, with winrate over 50% in two different stat sites.
For me this sounds really arbitrary. You could also decide that a civ that explore a lot should be more important because it had a big impact. Thus you would be pushing super hard for FU Spanish arb. You could decide the civ that invented the most stuff, or the one that had the largest empire, and so on can come first. Of course, actually deciding which one is more important is pointless especially in AoE2.
They are indeed the Indian melee elephant. In the last mission of the Malay campaign, youāre supposed to kill some princes that are hosted in the Majapahit capital. Gajah mada, this big dummy, decides that using siege weapons against his own capital would be a crime but eles that deal splash damage are fine. Of course youāre Malay and your crappy eles will never cut it against the princesā bajilion body guards, their castles and the keeps they somehow managed to plant absolutely everywhere. Fortunately some indian merchants sell you their much better elephants, that happen to be represented by War elephants, and not Battle elephants. Same in the Tamerlane campaign: Delhi is defended by War and archer eles, not the southeastern battle eles.
Not only the Indian stable doesnāt have eles in it, but Indian originally had the same architecture as Saracens, which obviously doesnāt show eles in the stable.
I totally agree, and thatās why for me the Elephant archer is more than enough for the in-game Indian.
Fun fact: this totally happened TWICE already. Once in 1999, when they made a civ that is based around siege weapons but lack bombard cannon, and called them the Celts even tho irl Scots only ever used trebuchets and cannons, and they did it again in 2000 when they decided that a civ known for its arrow firing artillery wouldnāt get a bonus on its scorpion nor this famous artillery as a UU, but instead would be much better with onagers with more range and a weaponized Chinese civil chariot (imagine a RTS that takes place today in which Franceās best weapon is a british bus with a bazooka on top of it. Thatās what ES did to Korean 11)
Their archers are now fun to use, and their market bonus is one of the most interesting bonuses around. If you donāt like that, fine, but many people are ok with this design.
They already have their own camel aspect, Zealotry+the UU, that are different from the Indian aspects.
All of this is already represented just fine with the limitation to the Knight, the FU Hussar and HCA.
This sounds quite sensible.
2 Likes
The Celts UU is even an incredibly anachronistic Woad painted warrion, from the Iron age, that does not even wear mail armour.
If this game was for accurate depiction, the Celts UU would have been a Reaver Clansman, on a horse, with a Broadsword and a Targe shield.
It is clear this game never went for representation or accuracy at any level, and instead focused on gameplay and fun, with a side of real History.
But just a side.
1 Like
Thx to you I learnt why Celts get Paladin I guess.
1 Like
Thing is, Reavers were raiders in Padded Gambeson and Mail Hauberks, not Paladin-style Central European Heavy Cavalry.
It would be more a really high damage Light Cavalry.
Farimba for Celts when 11 Anyway, this representation is in line with stuff like Huns or Cuman getting Palas imo.
1 Like
The original unit design for the Imperial Camel Rider (up until patch 3.5) was based on the beta Age of Kingsā design for the Heavy Camel Rider. So they were probably trying to use that extra assets they had from AoK Beta. For the camel they thought Indians would be the best place to fit it in among all the FE civs they have added. It was a decision taken in haste(as modders donāt have the time or money. They try to use whatever is available to them). Certainly not a professional decision. But now it is the right time to correct the mistakes done in past.
1 Like
One ignorant question.
Since tibetans are one of the most requested civs to be added (together poles and new indians states), could a new civ be designed to represent both tibetans and one neighbour indian state?
Nepali Pahari and Bhutani are the closest thing you can get with Tibetans for Indians.