Yup! I completely agree with you dude. Dravidians play is exactly as you described it. I had quoted Hera as well in my previous post. Dravidians need better eco bonus. Since they don’t get castle age mining bonus, they struggle too much after that. I propose Dravidian fish carry bonus can be replaced with all resources collect 5% faster. Dravidians can use these earlier, higher resources collected to rush with military or mass elephant which feed on lot of food and gold. They can also try to get out of castle age faster which is where they struggle the most and into imperial where they have BBC and woots.
And medical corps need to apply to all military units dude, it just does not make sense as a tech to research otherwise.
1 Like
Dravidians need only stronger light cav, no knights and FFS no additional eco bonus wood is insane.
give them HP + Speed stable upgrades and their LC becomes viable.
Also you could forgo these and give them a special type of upgrade that affects ONLY their light cavalry. like extra HP + Speed
How small is this meta? Most people don’t even play EW. Water? RBW is a bad benchmark. Its bad that people think it gives any indication of how balanced civs are. It’s worse than trying to balance civs around BF, which is played more than EW, and certainly more than the niche RBW maps. The game shouldn’t be balance around BF, so it certainly shouldn’t be balanced around RBW. What’s next? People will start to say Bengali is balanced because it’s good on michi?
3 Likes
I didn’t say they were balanced, just saying that they are picked in water maps in a EW tournament more than Vikings and Portos which were always draft for water maps with Italians
Don’t know who that is but I’ve played the civ in RM land and its unusable. Stats support that.
Worst possible form of justification. They were used exactly on ONE map. Daut alone used them in Bull and got wiped up.
They do, just like every other civ does. Unless you’re playing Regicide Fortress or Michi or Black forest or DM, how on earth will you defent till you get chemistry, hand canoneers and Elephants?
Exactly. And having them both means the civ can open kts offense or kts-crossbow or camel-crossbow or just passive camel-kts defense or all-in kts-camels-monks siege push, a few kts eco and then a lot of shrivamsha raids. SO many options. And that’s OP.
That doesn’t matter. Knights with bloodlines is a very good unit for early castle age, probably the only short stage of the game under current meta where Gurjaras can remain vulnerable before their eco gets set.
Its not like I didn’t read. I read that part, I’m asking why make this suggestion at all? Why BE or why CA instead of EA? All those are buffs. Adding better or extra unit options are buffs in general. And Gurjaras don’t need buffs, they’re S tier already. Just trying to help you understand why the knight addition and EA replacement in Castle age is far more powerful than you think.
RTS game, not a history teaching tool.
Once again, I don’t know this person or his research but I guess its a lot about history and very little about game balance.
Of course I understand that its a net buff as it adds a usable unit option but does NOT solve the weak castle age problem of not having Knights.
Elephants as such have the conversion vulnerability, high cost and low mobility problem. The ROR civs that have BE ALSO get knights, so this hasn’t been seen as a major problem with those civs. However when a civ doesn’t have knights, a BE discount won’t help address the handicap. Meso civs don’t have knights but get eagles that are fast and have good p.armor, Gurjaras have Shrivamshas and Hindustanis get their own pseudo eagles in Ghilman and strong eco bonus. All these units are fast and have good p.armor (or dodge arrows).
Again I get that. But the way to balance it out is giving a much stronger eco bonus (someone suggested faster food gathering rates from all sources) or a new melee unit that’s fast and good against ranged units. In a previous thread a while ago, someone suggested that each infantry upgrade gives extra hp to militia line and medical corps getting replaced by charge speed for infantry, maybe something like that. A fast and good p.armor unit option OR a very strong eco to get them the lead is the way to balance out the lack of knights. Not giving discounts on Elephants. That’s just an additional option for Black forest 4v4 or Fortress.
Yes that’s a great example of a strong eco bonus.
Yes somewhat like Vikings.
2 Likes
I don’t know if the 5% will help them, but if I were to remove the fishing bonus I might try to increase the extra wood they receive.
I think just give them a decent BE bonus like the BE discount and elite BE upgrade that I keep mentioning, then Medical Corps can be similar to Maghrebi Camels and not be so embarrassed.
This makes sense.
BE aside, EA is very much in need of Husbandry.
I can’t forget that Gkt_cloud couldn’t help complaining about what a sick civilization when he didn’t see Husbandry after he built a Stable. 11
Bloodline doesn’t matter much for elephant units, but it does look decent for Light Cavalry.
Without a basis for conversation, there is no need for conversation.
All you have to do is scroll up the page, look at past conversations, find his research (yes, it’s just in this thread), look at its content and my following replies there CAREFULLY.
Bloodlines will be OP with Wootz Steel. No one would use Dravidians Champion and Urumi in late game if they had 80 hp Light Cav. Only Husbandry is enough. In fact, all civs except Meso should have Knight in the game. As far as I know, every civ in Eurasia and Africa had various heavy cavalry units in their army.
1 Like
Bengalis shouldn’t have knight. (I’m not sure on Dravidians). Surely you can give them as this is a game, not a history lesson. But don’t need to add them as those civs are already in game now.
4 Likes
Ok I did this and did read it CAREFULLY. And there’s REALLY REALLY NOTHING relevant to the changes you’ve recommended and in fact he himself has addressed that as a reply to your balance changes. While he emphasizes hand canoneer addition for Bengalis and a buff to Mahayanas, he did mention it himself how they NEED something for castle age.
Gurjaras using Turkish tactics for light cavalry and having used one of the “finest” cavalry and non-negligible use of Camels, in terms of his research doesn’t imply they should get Hussar, Knights, Camels with Imperial Camel upgrade trained 25% faster and attack 25% faster, have CA etc.
Same points about Dravidians on how they need an answer to siege and some use for Urumi and not involving Malay.
It just seems like you believe your balance suggestions are based on his research but they are definitely NOT. And that would be ok, if those suggestions are good for game balance which is also NOT true with those changes. It buffs civs that are already debated as being broken and has negligible impact on the worst unusable land civs.
I’m not so sure about this since their campaign hero unit looks like a steppe lancer and another hero unit somewhat like a Boyar. I’m ok with the civ not getting knights or cavalry and some other alternative to balance it out in the game but were they as abysmal in Cavalry usage as meso-american civs?
3 Likes
The introduction of Knights as well as Cavalier was in keeping with the tradition of cavalry in Northwest India (Gur & Hin).
Strengthen the Dravidians’ elephant strategy and the Bengalis’ gunpowder.
These all are the conclusions that reflect his research. How can you say “nothing”.
I even made conclusions about each of these at the time. The list was just the product of further detailing later.
Not Knights anyway.
At the time, people (including me) later also discussed a lot about strengthening Ratha in the Castle Age. But I don’t really feel the need for the Bengalis to get too decent fighting power in the Castle Age.
This is just a conclusion. This never means that there can only be such this one way of reflecting his research, but this is indeed a way that can reflect his research and I just brought it up.
For the siege, they’ve already got Bombard Connons. Maybe try making Urumi move faster, base damage reduced, bonus attack against siege increased, etc. Anyway, the discussions about them and the Malays are all about BE strategy, reflecting the part of the research about elephants, not siege. Of course they may have other ways of improving elephants that don’t require Malay involvement. As I just said, this is just indeed a way that can reflect his research and I just brought it up.
The truth is that my list is indeed based on his research, regardless of whether people are satisfied with the content of the list. Everyone may have their own way of how to present his research results as best as possible in the game, but that’s what I was thinking at the time. This listing was not advertised as a balancing service from the start, and I have emphasized from the outset that these conclusions are just ideal.
Come to argue with me without understanding the starting point for my opinion, even if you claim to have read it. From the beginning to the end of the discussion with you, I only feel your unreasonable harshness.
When they had light cavalry, their horses were already clearly better than the Americans.
But that’s all.
Hold your swords, brothers, @UpmostRook9474, @Pulikesi25. Let me stand in a middle ground and try to conciliate in the discussion.
My “”“research”“” was aimed to provide a basis from which to analyze the civs’ design from a historical point of view. I don’t like to be the “historical accuracy” guy, even though I am most of the time.
I completely agree with this, but the game, on a basis level, draws inspiration from history, and that’s something that should be kept. When the civ design is completely cut off from historical reality the matter becomes an issue.
At the end of my comment I left the following conclusion:
My only actual complain here is about Hindustanis. While I would like to scrap the lack of knights principle away from them I understand I am not able to provide a factible alternative. I recognize I’m not the best at grasping balance and gameplay reality. I’m just a humble 1200 elo. So I will just say “I would like them to have knights and not such good camels” and refuse to elaborate further.
@UpmostRook9474 you’re trying too hard to justify changes to Gurjaras and Dravidians where they don’t need it.
Dravidians already portray their extensive use of elephants prety well. They have 3 elephant units with a bonus on each one of them. They should have proficient BE? Maybe, but that’s certainly not a major inaccuracy, and certainly a buff to their elephants is not what they actually need.
Gurjaras should have some kind of heavy cavalry? Well yes, I would like them to, but they have such a strong stable already that giving them knights would require an entire redesign. Their combination of light cavalry is so strong that they can be considered as medium cavalry. Again, it’s not a major inaccuracy. The rest is perfectly represented.
Buff to Bengalis and Dravidians should be made keeping their current identities and tweaking numbers.
Same for the nerf to Gurjaras, unless devs want to go through a redesign.
Hindustanis… I hate to say it but despite being ass inaccurate as old Indians they have a solid identity and just need nerfing some numbers to be balanced. Also, the villager discount would be hard to balance incombination with acces to knights.
What you have said about Dravidians is correct. Their extensive use of elephants is well represented. But Elephants are not well represented in AOE2.
Elephant archers and Armoured elephant are pretty much vegetables to their counters since they have negative armour. But historically elephants were the most armoured in south India since they carried Kings and generals in battle. Only their cost represents any accuracy of historical elephants not their armour or speed. Nobody in their right mind will invest on average 100+ food in elephants if trash units can kill them . If we need to represent historical accuracy in game play, we need to remove negative armour of Elephant archers and Armoured elephants. In castle age, If these elephants are knocking on an enemy base, the equally expensive knights should be tied up engaging them. This will prevent them from raiding Dravidian/Bengali economy. This can be a legitimate gameplay option with elephants.
Battle elephant and Elephant archers should have base movement speed of 1 tile per second. They should be able to counter archers in a defensive role. In real world, elephants are faster than humans. Only if they catch upto archers, battle elephants can do splash damage as in historical elephant charges. The speed helps elephant archers become a viable defense against eco raids by catching upto archers and eliminating them even if skirmishers are in the mix. Speed tech for elephant civs like husbandry can be optional if the base speed is good enough to catch up and neutralize threats. Armored elephant spped is good enough as it is.
These 2 changes can make elephant units viable against heavy horse cavalry and by extension buff Bengalis and Dravidians. South India did not have heavy horse cavalry because they had tank like elephants which can punch through enemy lines like a hammer. There was no point investing in breeding horses for heavy cavalry. But I horses were part of armies as light cavalry. So no-hussar is not accurate. let us see if we can replicate that in AOE2.
4 Likes
Exactly they don’t need, as I also said it’s my own ideal list for “higher historical accuracy”. While higher accuracy is always something expected, I can accept that people think these ideas are unnecessary for the game (which is what I think too), and respect that people have their own ideas and come up with.
It bothered me that these purposeful ideas for accuracy were criticized as if I thought they were “indispensable proposals for balance”, ignoring their starting point. Just like, we can emphasize the nutritional value of animal protein to try to show that there is no need to be vegetarian, or suggest how people can eat better if they want to be vegetarian. However, complaining about the loss of the benefits of meat over a menu that is clearly stated to be developed for vegetarians is only disturbing.
Armored elephant doesn’t have negative armor.
Can you state your reason?
1 Like
The current Dravidian BE is equivalent to non-existence, which is a pity.
Besides their theoretically strong late game and water game, they now have very good monk siege sush strategy that can defend decently but also push slowly.
FC Ratha is not the best among FC UUs, but not bad either.
In Castle Age as their due weakness, I think they don’t have much room for strengthening, in particular they should not be encouraged to have more opportunities for quicker or earlier pushes or raids.
Let Castle Age Parthian Tactics be an example, a quite powerful bonus, but at the cost of resources at least and they cannot get it too early.
Armoured elephants start with negative 2 melee armour. What are you smoking man?
I thought you were talking about negative armor class.
Anyway your proposal will make both EA and Armored Ele broken.
4 Likes
Yeah, the armoured elephant line needs no buffs, and giving ea no negative armor and a speed boost would make them pretty much uncounterable
4 Likes
Broken is your opinion. It does not reflect in the meta where heavy horse cavalry easily kills Dravidians/Bengalis in castle age. Please look at the first post. It specifically asks for husbandry which is the need for speed. Elephant archer speed has been on bumped by 0.1 in ‘Dynasties of India’. But it is not enough and ‘cavalry archer armour’ bump in last patch also did not make it a viable unit. A base speed and armour bump is due for them. Elephant archers still won’t become the OP raiding unit like cav archers. But they will become good defenders against cavalry or archers attacking your economy. Even in small numbers of 2-3, they will soak up damage and give enough time to counter raids by using defensive structures and skirms/halbs. It gives Dravidians options to survive castle age. Please refer the huge dip in 45-55 min mark. This is where they need to prep for imperial age tech like woots to come in and economy to pick up for bombard cannon push or armoured elephant push. They need strong defence during that time and elephant archers and battle elephants can be that sponge.
The devs purposefully made Dravidian elephants bad. Below I’m quoting ‘battle elphant’ trivia from aoe2 wiki.
Dravidians have objectively the worst Elephants. They fulfil no purpose, and are the only ones lacking Husbandry and the Elite upgrade.
- Ironically, the Dravidians historically developed one of the most powerful Elephant troops. In the Chola Dynasty, they not only utilized many Elephants in their main military, but also use the kind in Sri Lanka which are suited for battling. This is done probably only for balance reason, as the Dravidians are supposed to have an direct weakness in their lacking cavalry.
They also need eco bonus for longer games due to not having Gold/Stone shaft mining and crop rotation. But that is how the devs have designed the civ to be “Rush and Kill or be killed”. Surprisingly even for rushing buildings “Treadmill crane” is not there. The civ definitely needs Husbandry, better speed and durability for elephant archer.
How do you counter an EA death ball later on then? Bengali EA later in the game are already almost impossible to stop in some situations . You introduce more bonus damage somehow? Unbroken is your opinion.
4 Likes