yeah but you dont undestand that this topic was opend about indians its not about overall historical accuracy. And we all said like (same as the titel does) that balanc is first
Well thanks to you, you are keeping the thread alive with your awkward replies. 11 Keep it up! 
2 Likes
Umm one of the very arguments given for changing Indians (repeatedly) has been historical accuracy. So yeah. You donât get to choose when historical accuracy argument gets to be used and not used
Doesnât matter. You guys think its going to end with Indians? Youâd just open the flood gates for more and more changes.
Yeah no problem, make sure you keep being a hypocrite.
1 Like
Yeah and repeatedly saying balanc first and you going lalala can hear you âŠ
More people coming to forums is good and talking about the game. They gave indians theyr own arhitecture cous eveyone liked that mode and now its in the game and i dont see people coming here and saying that every civ need theyr ownâŠ
maybe there are more chanages to be made idk⊠but talking about them if people open topics doesnt bother me
This topic is listed in the top threads since few days. Obviously I will compare apples to apples. So I can gauge that this thread is generating lot of replies for the devs to look at. Obviously you can get all the million buyers to come here and respond. 100 is a decent number to get an opinion, we are not electing US President here. Itâs just a game and that too we are talking about one civ out of 35 civs. Not everyone would be interested. So opinion of interested people is enough.
yeah and suggesting things with
about indians is the point of this topic. i dont see topics about other civs (maybe cous thoes civs even thoe not accurate are fun to play -not that indians arent) (maybe other reasons)
There isnât even a hundred people posting here. Maybe 30 tops.
1 Like
Or maybe because people realizeâŠ
1 Like
yeah? but AoE has a historical them and i think most players play becous they like that so if balanc and gameplay is not affacted why not make a positive change (positive as coming closer to history)
2 Likes
It also plays fast and loose with that history. Several of the heroes in Joan mission 6? Dead by then.
1 Like
ok i dont need a simulator (if i whanted that i would play total war etc.)
i dont see topics about that but would be willing to read what people think
I would be totally on to this 
They already have FU Hussars, and the Elephant Archer UU, so they are covered. The Indians civ is one of the best designed ons, people just want to give it a unit that 4 other civs already have, because they are stubborn.
There already are enough Elephants.
Itâs funny how many times you see people advocating for adding a more powerful unit to a civilization and using historical basis as justification.
Where are all the people who want to remove trebuchets from some civilizations at? I think if youâre going to argue on a historical basis, you now have to argue for all of it. No more cafeteria historians here. Youâre welcome world.
1 Like
Itâs funny how people donât read but make opinions
No-one is willing to make them overpowered by adding powerful units. They are willing to re-balance.
1 Like
They do not need a rebalance. Indians are fine as is.
Sure. They can start by also adding a man-operated trebuchet and give it to the Indians. They never used a counterweight trebuchet like the one in the game. 
So it should have less range and firepower, maybe be a little cheaper.
Boom. Historical accuracy at work.
itâs your opinion, try to convince the others. not by imposing your will.
1 Like
noone is talking about that kind of historical accuracy. donât talk non-sense.
1 Like
If you use historical accuracy as your justification, you need to be prepared for all of it.