Play Khmer, which have a much lower winrate than Indians. Elephant suck.
Exactly. Which is why RIGHTFULLY adding them to Indians shouldn’t generate outrage.
It will, Indians have a much, MUCH better Food economy, because cheap Vills means Farm Boom.
Not to mention the Fisherman bonus.
except you’d be buffing the civ twice, and they are already a good civ.
1 Like
Indians on sarengetti would be a scary sight to behold.
1 Like
They do much better on Coastal, but any map that allows them to Farm Boom already favours them from the Castle Age onwards.
If they had any Heavy Cavalry (Knights or Battle Elephants), they would just spamm them to a ridiculous degree.
then why did the Kalinga War with highest casualities of all battles in the subcontinent happen? Didn’t they have the same dharmic belief system by your definition?
Pandya Chera Chola Pallawa and other kingdoms fought with each other for dominance and invaded Sri Lanka too.
Regardless of religion or believes strong always stepped on the weak.Cholas did not build a mighty empire with dharmic belief.
3 Likes
No one builds an empire by being nice.
4 Likes
Started by the noble emperor Ashoka, the poster boy of your DMK-Nehruvian ideology. The great Hindu king who after witnessing the bloodshed converted to Buddhism as taught in our history books in school, except he didn’t because there was no discrimination between the Dharmic belief system back then which was started by the British and is now being continued by you and your ilk. Thing is Ashoka was not even a shade of his great grandfather Chandragupta Maurya, whose great name was even adopted by the Emperors of the Gupta Empire, Chandragupta I and Chandragupta II Vikramaditya in the Golden Age of Indian civilization. But facts remain facts, they did share the same dharmic belief system as do you and I if I’m not mistaken and look at us. I blame human nature.
Facts. If anyone ever followed the true core teaching of their belief system we wouldn’t have any conflicts anywhere.
Undeniable fact.
Now here is my problem with this whole thing, the use of the word Civilization instead of Kingdoms or Empires. I mean it’s not entirely inaccurate but on the contemporary political sense it’s often used by certain individuals to peddle their political ideas of separatism, even on a gaming forum like this. That’s all I’m trying to avoid here.
What? I couldn’t comprehend what did you say? Can you please elaborate?
Not surprised. Never mind, carry on.
As far as this topic is concerned I feel I see the point that the ones against adding BE to Indians are making. So regardless of how much I’d love to see another elephant unit, I vote against it.
Yes because Indians were totally a Camel riding civilization, they could barely manage to ever train a elephant to be of any use, right?
It’s not like they had elephants that could attack humans for any purpose ever, Indian Elephantos have always been Peaceful Elephantos!
They just stand and admire the scener… i mean the BLOOD
Meanwhile, Persians and SE Asians :
1 Like
I’d like to sum up the opinions stated in this thread.
Indians, despite already getting elephants, need two kinds of elephants, to achieve complete historical accuracy.
However, the civ is currently well-balanced.
Therefore, in compensation for this, they should be nerfed to keep them balanced.
In other words, the objective is: Dramatically change the civ without changing its power level in any way. Or, in simpler terms, expend significant effort to achieve absolutely nothing.
Frankly, I have a much simpler suggestion: go play a different game, with historical accuracy that meets your exacting demands.
6 Likes
OK then atleast buff EAs very significantly, like cost down to 100F 40G, where they could be usable, AND give them regular BE not EBE, so not upgradable with no bonuses.
Actually true historical accuracy according to some requires the Indian civilization to be broken up into 8 different civs Mughal 1, Mughal 2, Mughal 3, Mughal 4, Tamil 1, Tamil 2, Tamil 3, Tamil 4.
P.S. Those names are just placeholders so feel free to improvise with something a bit more exotic.
1 Like
Hindustanis, Palas, Rajputs, Marathas, Tamils, Oriyas, Kannadas, Cholas and also Sinhalese, Nepalese and Afghans if you want more
There are actualy many many more ethnicities
Currently the so-called “Indian” civilization represents all these 11 completely different civilizations, who were entirely seperate empires with hardly any dependence on the others.
Each one of those 11 had a higher population and GDP than european countries at that time, by far.
So ULTRAMAG5762, and others, read a bit on actual history before you sport literal placeholders for these actual independent civilizations, which never get proper representation in this Eurocentric game.
1 Like
And Mughals are out of the time period of AoE2, you should know that by now
should we split up the chinese civilization too then? what about the goths? and the Slavs?
2 Likes
Tell that to Microsoft devs, lol, you do not want to get involved in politics my boy
I would not oppose that in any way
Indians and Chinese are the only two that deserve more diversification
Simply because of the vastness and the hundreds of independent ethinicities
Indian subcontinent and China = All of europe genealogically and in terms of Population as well as GDP the whole medieval ages