Well I don’t see Dravidians need a buff. Their elephant archers were so tough to deal with even before the last buff, and now their elephant archers are better. I don’t see them a bad civ at all.
I think same same even though they are boring to play and bad copy of Japanese, Ethiopians and Vikings with less options. Giving Husbandry and increasing Elephant healing to 30 per minute could be cool though. Who write 20 hp seconds per minute, doesn’t know basic Math.
that is not 30 hp per second
30 hp per minute means 1 hp per hit (1.9 seconds for Paladin, 2.0 seconds for 90% of melee units). Paladin took 14 hp per hit from enemy unit. Berserk has 20 hp per minute and Berserkergang increase regen to 40 hp per minute and Berserk’s heal isn’t OP.
This a proof Dravidians are utterly useless in Castle Age, their Elephant Archers are garbage.
3h:34m (2 games) more proof
So similarly, I can post videos of Dravidians winning and they are proof that Dravidians are OK (if not OP)?
Not every civ is meant to be insane at every stage of the game. Dravidian late game is very strong, and they have a very strong Archer play with free wood per age up, and likely very strong on Hybrid/Water maps as well.
They play as a mix of Malay and Ethiopians, and share similar weaknesses.
What if they just get +3 attack vs siege on skirms as a team bonus?
sorry where did you get these stats
You mistook minute with second.
You are right, I am fixing.
While my opinion on Dravidians isn’t something I consider to be definitive, I do think there is some underrating (from the OP) as well as overrating (of some of their options that aren’t that accessible).
I still think that the most apt comparison for them is with Japanese: Wood bonus, fishing bonus, strong infantry and infantry UUs, and good Archery Range.
Here are the things I prefer about Dravidians:
-Better niche UU
Here are the things I prefer about Japanese:
-Much better Monasteries
-Much better Stables
-Better defenses when it matters (Yasama, and being able to deal with siege better due to the previous 2 factors). I pick Dravidians for kicks fairly often, but I never bother to research most of their Uni techs (just ballistics, chemistry, sometimes masonry). Having fully upgraded towers isn’t something that’s impressive or very useful in Imp (except BBTs in TGs, but even those are kind of overrated), especially vs Japanese towers with 3x the DPS.
-Infantry bonus free from Feudal, and IMO somewhat more powerful in most cases.
-Fishing bonus is much better long term. Useless for Dravidians by the time you make fish traps.
-Better Siege apart from BBC (Treb UT + SE). I also think for most purposes, getting Onager + SE is more useful than SO without SE due to the importance of range, as well as its greater accessibility.
A couple comparisons are a little tricky, such as CA vs EA, but again, in most cases I greatly prefer the mobility + greater utility of FU HCA vs the niche utility of EAs. Dravidian EAs pack a punch, but are most useful in high res, confined space situations.
So overall, I still see them as very similar to Japanese, but the differences are mainly things that make them weaker. They have enough going for them that they are good on closed maps, and can perform some okay plays outside of that, but IMO still need a couple buffs.
Also missing BL and Husbandry for their elephant. IMO without a strong armored ele bonus like Gurjaras have, going AE in Castle is tricky because it can delay your Imp time, whereas rams’ wood+gold cost makes them a little more accessible until lategame.
Surely you could, although it doesn’t synergize well enough with infantry strengths to be a must. IMO moving Wootz to Castle Age would be enough of an infantry power-up.
Don’t hate it, but seems like a quite strong bonus for an already good unit. Also, why as a TB?
Considering skirms dont see much play on team games, I thought it would be a nice bonus. Also bonus damage bonuses are generally team bonuses
My two cents to buff Dravidians:
- Barracks cost -75 wood (not needed but its a good bonus related to the civ)
- Barracks upgrades and technologies cost -50% and are available one Age earlier than any other civ (starting in Feudal)
What do you think?
Normally I think it would be too OP. But given the fact that Dravidians and infantry are so weak, I think Castle age Two-Handed Swordsman is completely fine and Castle age Halberdier maybe too strong.
yes because having feudal longswords is a great idea.
It will be good to have the Two-Handed Swordsman in Castle at least
It would just make the civ more gimmicky nothing else.
Dravidians have good Feudal and Imperial, however, in Castle Age they are utterly useless. Their Elephant Archers are garbage compared to Bengalis. Giving them Knights is the only solution.
2HS in Castle Age is not even as powerful as you might think.
It should be something else than knights to buff them
Let’s try it at least
It can be both. The lack of Knights will never not be dumb.