Perhaps remove the Siege Elephant and Flail Elephant from Indians, and add the Mysorean rocket (Grenadier-like unit) and a Mughal cannon towed by an elephant.
I am not sure what will be the new characteristics for Portuguese.
But if Organ Guns are removed from Portuguese, they can be a Leather-Cannon-like weak artillery mercenary and one of the mercenary that can be trained in the Commerce Age. Another one is Longbow Mercenary.
I feel typically there is a 2-3 month gap between an actively discussed topic and the actual in-game update, if it’s not an emergency one or part of the original plan. This is probably the devs’ pace of implementing new stuff.
I made a post about Mughal Cannons and the elephant towed cannons were mentioned in the thread. I think that would be a much more appropriate depiction for Siege Elephants. People lost their ■■■■ about reworking Siege Elephants the same as the reaction to my British Skirms suggestion but looks like we’re getting Rangers now so Mughal artillery is looking plausible.
In my opinion, Mysore ought to be it’s own full faction that would have those rockets. India should be made less of a Frankenstein civilization and more narrowly focused to a Mughal and Northern Indian identity. Then Mysore could be added as a South Indian nation.
For Portuguese, I’ve seen suggestions for Swivel Guns as the Organ Gun replacement. I’d still want Organ Guns retained as a mercenary unit though.
To be honest, I’d be fine with either elephant towed cannons or siege elephants.
Siege elephants now have a high mobility that is rare for artillery, which makes Indian siege units very different and one of the reasons why people want to keep them. One could not see what the Elephant towed cannons could offer different from the European artillery.
Like expecting the Mongols to separate from the Chinese into an independent faction, the probabilities are close to zero. Sometimes we have to compromise and bring these things into the game in other ways.
Mysorean Rockets could indeed be a good complement for the Indians as siege units, especially as Asian units rarely have anything grenadier-like.
2 basic siege units are required in Asian castles. They fit nicely with the another Elephant + Cannon unit (either on its back or in tow).
Another possibility is to use the Mysorean Rocket as a type of mercenary units, and add the another rocket unit, perhaps just named Rocketeer, into Indian Castles. This might make them more acceptable to you.
i mean, quite frankly a rocket infantry would make an excellent replacement for arsonists, without any radical changes to the civ. I think flails form an important part of the Indian army in both age 2 and lategame- I wouldn’t remove those, even if they are a bit of a meme unit.
Siege elephants are kinda one of India’s quirks with that highly mobile- but vulnerable- mortar culv. It really seperates the civ. Again, it would be very dramatic to remove an iconic unit that, quite frankly, is one of the best parts of playing india imo
i don’t disagree that an anti-infantry cannon would be welcome for india, but the civ really has always been geared towards not having artillery. It wouldn’t be entirely out of the question to add some form of age 4 cannon, but that would inherently buff the India FI, which is probably not at all desirable.
Mongols as anything more than a minor faction is very improbable. I’d say splitting India into Mughals and Mysore is more akin to splitting Germany into Prussia and Austria and while still unlikely is plausible.
That being said, a mercenary Mysorean Rocket would be the way to go for the short term.
Arsonists make no sense as mercenary and should be an outlaw instead. A rocket infantry mercenary would be much cooler anyways.
I was kinda hyperbolic and controversial with my post about removing Siege Elephants to spark a bit more discussion about it. Reworking them is probably the best way to go to fix their inaccuracies. A cannon towed or carried by Elephant would make way more sense than firing from its back and still preserve the unit in some capacity. If it’s just carried on its back the setup time could be made short enough to keep its mobility as a distinguishing feature.
It sounds great, but it has been explicitly rejected by the developers.
The response from the community was also insufficient, with developers preferring to add Poland, Denmark, and Italy.
Indians are the same as Chinese, extremely unlikely that another faction will be independent from them. As a Taiwanese, I would also like to see what it would be like if the Kingdom of Tungning became a faction, but I know it’s impossible.
For elements that are not part of an existing civilization, being natives, outlaws, mercenaries or European revolutions is the main way to introduce them.
Well. More likely long term. As I stated above.
Otherwise I wanna see Iron Troop as the main units of Tungning faction.
Like Rams, I’ve hardly ever seen anyone use Flail Elephants. Their memetic nature is also more suitable to exist in AoE2, and moreover their possible Sri Lankan origin makes them also more suitable as native units of Theravada Buddhism than as Indian units.
Just Give them Rocketeer at the Castles.
Exactly.
European civs can use grenadiers in the Commerce Age, so making the arsonists outlaws and giving the Indian castles Rocketeers in the Commerce Age is perfectly doable in terms of balance. Then make Mysorean Rocketeers be the Rocketeers-based mercenary, just like the Black Riders are based on Dragoons. Done.
It definitely has not. It was one tweet saying a wholly new Austrian civilization makes no sense as a new faction which is true considering the current German civ is de facto Austria. A new Prussia civ accompanied by renaming the Germans to Austria doesn’t seem out of the question for me.
A similar approach to renaming India to Mughals and adding a new Mysorean civilization could also be possible.
Simultaneously having Aztec and Mexico is way more of a stretch than splitting India and Germany.
I remember it was said by a dev member who was participated in the development of the Napoleonic Era. According to him, it is pointless to have both Prussian and Austrian civs same time in AoE3DE, and this is a team consensus.
Same logic for Indians. They wouldn’t be “Mughals”, even though they are mainly designed as Mughals.
Also, the Mexicans are Not another Aztecs. They are revolutionary civs, the same series with the United States. Their introduction could lead to the expectation that countries such as Brazil, Peru and Argentina would also become civs. Anyway the Mexicans have nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
I don’t think Prussia has been officially rejected anywhere. What was confirmed as not happening is having Austria and Germany simultaneously which makes sense as they are essentially the same thing.
So you don’t think the Prussians are parts of the Germans?
Even the German home city is Berlin.
Having a new civ based on Prussians or Austrians is the same thing as separating the current Germans.
Everything Prussian is so superficial that it’s a trivial change with no impact to gameplay. Change the home city to Vienna and leader to Maria Theresa or Metternich and rename the Skirmisher upgrade from Needle Guns to Pandurs and you’re good to go.
You have the right to continue to think that way, but not in reality.
Germans, Chinese, Indians are all like this.
By becoming a mercenary, let other forces have a representative in the game, which is the practice of AoE3.
Umbrella splitting is the trend of AoE2, not suitable for AoE3.
they are very common in tr40 as damage sponges, siege and are the fastest training lategame unit for india, so they’re good spam units. In age 2 they give india some siege options as well as a high hp cavalry they can utilize, since sowars are so frail. Most people are unfamiliar with flails but they are quite good at tanking. 4x vs artillery is nothing to scoff at either. Although a rocket infantry would be interesting, I think its better suited as a merc.
Well I want there are both a common one and a mercenary one.
Nobody plaintext limit the number of Castle units to 2, but I am not sure whether the dev are willing to giving Indians the 3rd units at Castle.
Is there a card upgrading the longbows to sharpshooters, like the Suvorov card of Russians?
There is an upcoming card that will completely replace Longbows with Rangers. The Roger’s Rangers Church tech now transforms Longbowmen similar to the Suvorov Reforms card but doesn’t enable their training.
The age 4 rangers card should just enable them, not replace longbows.
They should at very least be retained at Forts and in cards (unless Roger’s Rangers is researched). I also don’t like how they share all the upgrades. Yeomen giving them more range doesn’t make much sense, and something like Baker Rifles would be a more appropriate card to do that.
Another way they could be kept available is to make Siege Archery enable training them from Outposts the way the old Logistician used to.
