ok, i know but at the start of DE we did and peole learnd them.
Its not like people only play original civs (thoes had great changes from original too)
Not making changes make a game stale and people stop playing
4 Likes
Indians shore fish bonus is going to be nerfed in may patch
Already nerfed. And yet not nerfed enough to give them battle elephants without making them op.
1 Like
Can you please elaborate?
For that, they would have to lose both the Fisherman and the Villager discount bonii.
You cannot have an efficient Booming civ, with such a population efficient unit like the Battle Elephant.
The whole purpose of the BE, is that it is overly expensive for what it does, so it cannot be just spammed (unless you are Malay, but those miss 2 Armour upgrades, and turn out worse value than a mere Cavalier with all upgrades except Paladin).
With the Villager discount (even starts in the Dark Age) + an almost full Archery Range (only miss Arbalest) a super Camel, and BBCs; there is no way to justify giving them Battle Elephants.
Simple. A 5% nerf to fishing is not going to offset the huge advantage having battle elephants added to their roster would give them.
Youd need to rework the entire civ to shift its focus, odds are it would likely stop being a camel civ and lose the associated bonuses and even might see its villager bonus nerfed.
2 Likes
Holy monkeys, this thread blew up. Maybe go for a hike, amigos?
I tend to agree, which is why I donât see the Indians being changed in the way some people want without adding a new Indian civ that focuses more on elephants. But that is the topic for another thread (or rather, it has already been explored in many other threads), and is contingent on the devs adding new civs, which we have no reason to believe they will do based on their statements.
Sure, Indians are a hot mess from a historical perspective, but on paper they satisfy the âmust have elephantsâ requirement, and are a relatively balanced civ. Being rife with inaccuracy, and subject to the oddities of being a very broad umbrella civ, are not issues exclusive to Indians, and while this is not ideal, balance and gameplay considerations come first. Even legacy issues may come into play, considering the Indians have been around for many years, and players whoâve come to love the civ for what it is, might dislike a more historical Indian civ since it would likely destroy the old playstyle.
Now, I personally would love one or more new Indian civs that can better divide and represent the various cultures of the Indian subcontinent, but thereâs no reason to believe that the devs will make such civs, or that clamoring for this again and again will do anything but flood the forum with rehashed, recycled, repeat conversations that have already been seen dozens of times, until their inevitable descent into the chaos of petty argumentation and conflicting visions. It would be more reasonable for us to focus on a way to make Indiansâ current UU, Elephant Archers, better without giving too much of a buff to the civ overall.
Anything beyond that is, at least for the foreseeable future, in the realm of fantasyland, or user-created mods at best.
2 Likes
OK, I recently joined the forum though I have been playing the game since more than 15 years. That time there was no indian civilisation and when inrecently started playing the DE edition I can see lot of new civs including my favorite of Indians. (Goths and tuetons are my other favs ). Whenever i see a nerf to these civs I feel bad though DEVs do this from a balance point of view and we need to agree.
I have been reading this thread since a few days and clearly no other thread has garnered more interest in recent days and this enough proof that people are interested to get Battle Elephant to Indians. While I like this to happen at the same time the Indiana currently also are quite good and have good variety though I feel camels were mostly used by Rajputana. Rest of Indians relied more on horses and elephants. So let the game Devs take a call of what to nerf while adding the B. Elephant to the stables. If some else wants a buff to their fav Civ then they can open a new thread and see how much interest it generates.
2 Likes
Enough people? Literally about a third of this thread is like 6 people going back and forth earlier today.
Furthermore even if this thread was one post per person(which they arenât), all in agreement (which they arenât) on changing indians youd still only be talking about less then 400 people wanting to change Indians. In a game that has sold over 2 million copies. Thats .2% not even 1% of the population of the game.
1 Like
If you consider only the replies on this thread counting the users, you are clearly the minority. Only one guy ranting the same thing again and again.
The minority is forum goers in general. The majority is people who donât bother coming to the forums.
1 Like
400 people vs 1 person (i.e. you)
1 Like
Whenever a company launches annew product it just does a sample survey and not all the customer base which is impractical and costly. I feel that only those people who are most interested in the game come to forums, YouTube and other channels. So here too itâs impossible to get opinion of entire customers of this game. Out of which more then 90% might not care about Indian civ or game balancing and stuff.
Except its not 400 vs me. Because literally the top 5 posters in this thread are effectively 75% of the posts. Let that sink in.
1 Like
man dont try to aruge with that guy 11 he is here just to act like he knows what everyone else whants and a dev at the same time ( also cant understand that one change doesnt mean that you whant to change everything) 
1 Like
Point is you donât get to act like you have the majority opinion when you donât know the majority opinion.
Almost 400 posts in this thread. 75% of that is from 5 people. That means you got roughly potential for 100 peoples opinion here. Should only 100 people get to decide what changes happen in the game?
1 Like
I never claimed to know what everyone wants. I claimed you donât know what others want despite repeated claims from the pro change crowd that the majority want Indians changed.
1 Like
Trying to discourage discussion?
1 Like
everyone can go back and see all or nothing mentality and twisting words, while not providing any suggestion. We all understand that all people wont ever agree on anytihing so you have a poitles argument. (it is evident that people come to forums to talk about it and thoes people need to be heard pro or con)
1 Like
Nope. Trying to make sure you understand. The claim made was This thread is huge and proves lots of people support the idea.
No. Not really. 5 people make up 300 of the posts in this thread. You have less then 100 different people expressing opinions. That does not mean that the idea is super popular and well liked.
No. My all or nothing mentality is pointing out your hypocrisy. Most of you guys arenât âpro historical accuracyâ that you claim to be.
Your âpro historical accuracy that I wantâ.
That is what I was pointing out. Again I donât care if they change indians. I would prefer not because then it would lead to further revamps, but if it happened I wouldnât be upset.
1 Like