All of them start out poorly, and then have winrate curves that gradually climb as the game goes on. Slavs and Georgians accomplish this through better eco of course, while Dravidians do so via better units, but the result is the same: a rising curve.
By contrast, Vikings have a falling curve. Once their power spike from wheelbarrow and handcart fades, they quickly lose power and winrate.
The two are fundamentally different. And, crucially, if you give Dravidians a Slavs-like or georgians-like eco bonus, their winrate curve will further resemble the slavs or the georgians; namely, stronger in the lategame(which they will never get to), while remaining poor in the midgame.
This is why what Dravidians really need is a much earlier defensive bonus. If they are very hard to kill in the midgame, then their winrate curve will be perfectly acceptable.
Donât forget bumping! I just ran a test 5 times, 8 viillagers on standard arabia berries. Default villagers finished collecting in an average of 6:09. +15 villagers finished collecting in an average of 5:35, or about a 10% improvement.
Except they donât. Dravidians do well in the feudal age. Its because of being forced to rush but nevertheless their early feudal age is above average. Thatâs not the case with Georgians or Slavs.
Nobody else other than you thinks Dravidian units are better. They are terrible. Like seriously? Georgians have monaspa which is a top-10 unique unit, other stable units and ca regenerate. Excellent mobility and free bonus on usable units.
Slavs have reasonable mobility and both better economy plus cheaper castles for more map control. And except against Teutonic melee units, Druzinha is the better upgrade in all other matchups. So NO, Dravidians donât get better units.
A rising curve means they start poor and keep getting better. Georgians with 38% winrate in early castle age, 50% in mid game and 55+% in late game is a rising curve. Poles, Sicilians, Vietnamese are a few others with such winrates. 39, 41, 42 is NOT a climbing winrate. Its just extremely abysmal, absymal, a little less abysmal. So once again NO, the civ doesnât get good, they get less terrible. You need to have some reasonable improvement and get to about 50% winrate to make such a claim.
Two civs are considered fundamentally different based on their tech tree, military options. Not their winrate curve. Two civs can have the exact same bonuses but yet a different winrate curve if the economic bonus differs a lot. Suppose lets say Dravidians also get a bonus nearly as strong as Vikings for the mid game their winrate curve would get more similar to Vikings. Its a very similar military composition. Slavs, Georgians are not. Slavs have poor ranged units, great monks and cavalry, cheap castles for more map. Georgians get a very good fast unique unit, better ability to hold map position with cheaper repairs, reasonable infantry and ranged units. Dravidians have no cavalry, subpar monks, no bonus for map control, terrible unique unit.
Btw Slavs have an excellent mid game. Once again turn on âArabia onlyâ and read the graph properly. Both Slavs and Georgians get 50+% winrate. I canât understand how you believe 41-42% change as âclimbingâ and 42% late game winrate as âstrongâ but somehow 50+% winrate for Georgians and Slavs as weak. Thatâs twisted and illogically biased.
I can put a scenario where I manually shift queue the berry movements and produce a lower benefit and thatâs the point. Your bonus is dependent on bad pathing and the expectation that the other civ would also do the same.
I expanded on your 10 villager example to show how much its ineffective theoretically but in reality that many villagers on berries is extremely impractical. Youâll only get the 750 food but you wonât have enough farms because you put too little on wood or you wonât have sufficient wood for ranged units, blacksmith etc. Thereâs no competitive build order in practice that recommends something like this. Its more for gimmicks like hoang or youpudding rushes
I donât understand why you would be so rigid with your impractical beliefs but a simple bonus like 15% more dropoff can produce a strong impact along the lines you propose. Its 15% faster and longer lasting. Instead of putting 10 or 15, you can just put 1 extra villager and in a little less time youâd get 110 extra food. Both practical and doesnât require bad pathing.
Its not even that. Atleast a ship that moves fast and kills galleons fast could be useful. This is just a battle elephant on water. Pop efficient but quite vulnerable to demos and fires due to lower mobility.
Its again the food cost and enormous cost of upgrading them for a mere +1 attack and the same approx +20% hp. Iâd gladly prefer them over archer line if they benefitted from supplies, gambesons and squires.
Agree with you on this, that tech by itself is too little too late. His intention to give a good use for their UT is nice but Iâd also prefer something else over this for UT.
Exactly. So giving that to the Dravidians will only help them on the ~5% of games that actually get to that lategame power.
IE, itâs not a useful bonus for the Dravidians. They need a bonus earlier in the game, to help them survive through their period of weakness and get to their later-game strength.
The trouble is, your theoretical example didnât hold up to practical testing. Expanding the fishing bonus to foraging would be small but meaningful buff, one which could easily accompany their existing bonus, fits in with it thematically, and which could allow them a bit more breathing room in the early game to succeed.
The big problem with most of the buffs suggested so far is (A) That they donât fit the existing theme of the civ at all, and (B) They wonât actually help until well after theyâve already lost the game anyway. (C) They have a high probability of making Dravidians extremely overpowered on water maps, where they are already strong.
Hence my stone walls suggestion, paired with some other small buff, like the foraging buff. Allowing them to delay putting down farms by even 30 seconds can mean getting horse collar where it might otherwise not come in. This means their economy is in a good spot in feudal age, allowing them more time to lay down stone walls, which would also come out twice as fast, due to the build speed bonus. This forces the enemy into siege, which could then be countered by the dravidian siege bonus in the case of rams, or elephant archers in the case of mangonels. And this, in turn, segues into any number of potential strategies, anything from infantry, to elephants, to urumi swordsmen.
Of course, youâd still need some additional incentive behind Medical Corps. So, my three buffs would be:
Fishermen and Fishing Ships carry +15 Food â Fishermen, Foragers, and Fishing Ships carry +15 Food.
Stone walls are built +100% faster.
Medical Corps: Elephants Regenerate 30 hp/minute â Elephants and Garrisoned Units regenerate 30hp/minute.
Notably, none of these bonuses are particularly helpful on water maps.
I think the thread is still fulfilling its purpose. Let it die, and in a week youâll get another dravidians thread discussing the exact same things.
And honestly, I do think weâre making some progress here. Maybe if we do come to a complete stalemate we could agree to let it die, but I donât think weâre quite there yet.
And that was @benithisrael 's initial proposal. Work rate within tc los being 10% faster from the beginning but siege discount removed or other changes to the extra wood bonus. This can be balanced by restricting it to the first town center for later stages. You were the one that hyped it as OP. And now youâve circled back yourself.
Iâm not against an earlier bonus but helping them get a stronger mid game to have close to 50% winrate isnât bad either. You could do either way. Your way theyâd have higher winrates at 20-30 and his way at 30-45. The whole idea is to give a broader time frame for them to win instead of being a one-trick pony.
Your scenario testing is not a practical game, its a mikeempires video. Its still hypothetical and not a good competitive build. Watch any pro streams or even some random semi pro ladder, you would notice no one puts 8 or 10 vills on berries. Its 4-5 on berries and mostly focused on farm setup. If you put too many that early on berries, either farming or range addition will get delayed. Thatâs not my theory, thatâs the actual build for competitive 1v1.
(A) The theme of the civ is being terrible with an improper design, needs a fix which is the point of discussion.
(B) Several bonuses proposed will avoid that. The problem here is your inability to comprehend how an economic bonus or a strong anti-raid bonus will change the odds of losing against cavalry.
Youâve repeatedly ignored the Viking comparison by dismissing it as a different civ due to a different winrate distribution even though thatâs the point being made. A civ with bad stable can remain strong in mid game if it has stronger economic benefit.
(C) Again your misunderstanding that water is a well balanced and a commonly played setting. If at all Dravidians feel too strong on water that can be balanced through a water specific nerf - remove heavy demo upgrade to make it vulnerable to fast fire ships or remove fast fire upgrade to make a fast imperial less usable or remove some other upgrade like dry dock or shipwright. Viking donât have fire galley, Portuguese donât get fast fire, koreans donât get demo line. Its totally possible to balance it that way.
Ignoring some comments like Dravidian siege bonus counters enemy siege and the potential strategies which involve terrible urumi swordsmen, the walling bonus is a decent idea when paired with a more practically useful and powerful eco bonus. But something strong instead of your version of berry bonus which is almost zero. Something like start with 2 shore fish under tc or villagers except farmers drop-off 10% more food or foragers drop-off 15% more food. Any other bonus which lets them get 200-300 extra food in under 15 minutes.
Then they can hit castle age faster, get crossbows, siege and do some damage. By the time opponent stops it, Dravidians can get a significant eco lead, get a castle on the forward hill, hit imp and push with halbs arbalesters and trebs while also wall their base quickly to defend against counter raids. Not any useless urumis or elephants.
Fishmermen, hunters and foragers drop-off 15% more food. OR Villagers dropoff 15% more resources within range of first town center. OR Villagers work 10% faster within LOS of town centers from castle age + siege discount removed ( only in the 3rd scenario)
All walls and gates built 100% faster
Medical corps removed. Replaced with a new UT that gives +1 extra range and attack for all defensive buildings OR infantry and elephants take 20% less damage.
Yes and theyâre not helpful on land as well because theyâre negligible donât fit a mediocre economic civ.
I think @benithisrael did a day ago and so did you. Its still relevant to the title.
I guess thatâs our fundamental disagreement? I think the civ is salvageable. More than that, I think many of the bonuses people want removed are iconic to the civ and wonât go away, no matter what people want.
There are a few things you cannot change about Dravidians. One is the wood bonus, which is the most important aspect of currently play. Another is the fact theyâre an elephant civ. A third is that theyâre slow. Any idea contingent on removing any of those things is gonna have a hard time.
I donât disagree with that, just the ways proposed to deal with it. The Vikings getting free eco techs is actually something Iâve thought about for Dravidians in the past, and would help them out in the midgame without making them too strong early or late. The problem is, most of the free eco techs have already been given to other civs!
If you could just give them free wheelbarrow and hand cart like the Vikings, theyâd probably become equivalently strong as the Vikings, but theyâd also practically become the Vikings - since thatâs by far their most defining trait. On the flipside, give them an eco bonus like +10% workrate near TCs(which would almost exclusively apply to farms), and theyâd basically just become a worse version of the Slavs, which wouldnât particularly help them where they need help, not to mention it would discourage the use of their fishing bonus even when itâs available.
Sure, but then weâre reworking the civ even more. Iâm looking for an ideal, refined solution, not one which requires iterative rounds of buff and nerf to get them back to where they are right now anyway.
Youâre right, but thatâs in large part due to the efficiency loss which results. For example, if Franks got their berry bonus but NOT free Horse Collar, I could easily see going far more all-in on the berries. Basically my point is, you canât base how things would be with this new bonus, on how things are without it.
Yes, this is a small bonus, but thatâs part of the point; itâs small enough you can put it in in combo with their other bonuses early on without breaking the civ for rushing, and itâs also probably not a bonus some other civ is going to get later on down the line, so it can be added with no cost to future development.
I think itâs important to remember what a big difference the Hindustanis getting even 3% more savings on villagers made on their winrates. They instantly spiked from lower-quarter to number 1. Sometimes, it only takes a tiny shift one way or another to take a civ from bad to good, or even overpowered. I wouldnât be at all surprised to see them get a ~1% nerf to their villager cost reduction with the next patch, and that alone might be enough to bring them back to a more reasonable place.
Similarly, the Dravidians likely donât need to get a massive bonus to what theyâve already got. They just need enough to push them over the top.
This discussion should not be stopped. It has finally moved from a position of civ theme and original design to the practical aspects of gameplay.
What are you talking about dude? Dravidians do save a lot of resources just like Vikings. Just like Vikings donât need to research wheelborrow and Handcart. Dravidians donât need to research 'Bloodlines, Husbandry, Cavalrier, light cav or even bother to build a stable for that matter.
Dude, try to settle on a position on the 10% workrate bonus. Intially, you had mentioned it was OP. Now you see it as an underwhelming version of slav bonus. Deepsea fish is the fastest foodsource in the game. Farming has a workrate ceiling. So no. If easy deepfish were there, nobody will pass that up . If Fishing was dangerous, then nobody will do it reardless of +5/10/15 carry capacity
Yup! More like âWhite elephantâ in tech tree and less useful than Dravidian âBattle elephantâ in water. It should be available in castle age atleast.
A 10% WR bonus around the town center is going to be weak at the stage of the game where Dravidians are currently already weak, the early castle age. They lose 95% of games by that point. In fact, 10% work rate will do literally nothing if youâve got knights running wild through your economy.
However, itâs way too strong in the lategame, and, when paired with their already powerful units like Elephant Archers, would make them unstoppable if they can survive that earlier weak point.
Itâs not about saved resources. The reason the Vikings are so potent in the midgame is because they can get those eco techs before they make sense economically, and multiply their economy until other civs can justify it. If you just gave them the resources to research them, they wouldnât be anywhere near as strong.
To be clear, Iâm talking about the fisherman bonus, not the fishing ship bonus. Itâs a bad design if you have two different bonuses that directly conflict with each other. Fishing shore fish is already of dubious benefit on many maps; the last thing they need is to make it even less worthwhile. Thatâs just removing the bonus with extra steps.
10% workrate will still be better than just getting 200 wood at the beginning of castle age with an economy well behind that of the opponent. The biggest issue with the 200 wood bonus is that it does not scale well with different ages. The bonus should be modified to suit the different ages.
Receive 200 wood, 200 stone and 200 gold on reaching Feudal, Castle and Imp ages respectively.
Receiving 200 stone is far more flexible and useful for Dravidians. You could have stone walled in feudal after your early aggression and still 2-TC boom in castle age. You could have towered your woodline to prevent raiding. Heck You can sell your starting stone and still make TCs in castle age. 200 gold in imp will help with trebuchet, arbalest, chemistry or conscription. This bonus is worth calling a civ bonus. Maybe this bonus can salvage the civ without making it unrecognizable.
I admire the amount of work you did for this carry capacity bonus. But Even taking at facevalue, your 10% increase in collection rate(0.341 food per sec) for Dravidians through +15 carry is just 5% faster than farming(0.339 food per sec) . If we take @Pulikesi25 value of 5% faster, then even that increase is lost. So I propose to implement the bonus like the Goth hunt bonus.
Fish and berry last 20% longer with +15 gather capacity for villagers and fishing ships.
This bonus will make sure that wood is not expended on farms and used for aggressive play on land. But no change will happen on water since deepsea fish vs berries will no be an issue as you mentioned.
These above 2 bonuses economically can fix the gameplay till you build a castle or do a 2-TC boom. Then we need another economy boost.
Then we can have: âSpice tradeâ replace âMedical corpsâ
Spice trade - Vills, fishing ships and trade cog\carts within LOS of drop points move and work 10% faster
âMedical corpsâ can replace 33% wood discount on Siege as a Civ bonus. Then we may see some elephant play from Dravidians. Otherwise just giving a useless tech and calling it an identity is just a canard.
Just a wild thought, What if we made an addition to the Barracks discount of Dravidians.
Barrack and castle technologies cost -50%
Castle technologies benefit Infantry and Urumi which is again infantry. Maybe this could also help with early agression when Dravidians hit imp with âconscriptionâ easily available.
Yes, I believe theyâre a subpar civ poorly designed without proper testing of the bonuses and proper comparison with similar early, mid game civs.
As far as bonuses going away, things that donât fit can and will go away. Orthodoxy, Madrasah, Boiling oil. These are underwhelming techs which got removed from the game since they didnât do much. Pretty much like Medical corps.
All of those are fine except they lack important things such civs should have. Either a great economy or good monks or very strong defensive bonuses. A civ canât be slow by design yet have lots of missing techs, mediocre economy and modest military bonus. Thatâs just keeping a civ terrible and incompetent.
You can keep the wood bonus and introduce a 2nd bonus. Plenty of civs have recieved a second economic benefit or military discount in the recent past. Portuguese, Malians, Khmer, Cumans, Incas, Koreans. As long as the 2nd bonus isnât numerically a LOT it will make the civ quite useful despite tech tree gaps.
workrate near tc isnât just farms. For dark age it would apply to boar, sheep and straggler trees. From castle age it can be any resource. So its not a strictly subpar version of Slavs. Plus Slavs donât get 200 wood extra per age, so it isnât their second economic benefit. Fishing bonus and tc arenât mutually exclusive. You can do extra town centers on wood, boost the wood collection rate and add more fishing ships in hybrid maps. So thatâs not getting discouraged in any way.
Weâre not. And a buff-nerf isnât going to get them right back to now because the buff is for land and nerf is for water. Several civs have gone through this cycle for balance purposes. Indians/Hindustanis, Burgundians, Bohemians, Mayans, Aztecs, Persians, Slavs, Portuguese, Burmese, Cumans and a dozen others. Its ultimately about finding the spot where a civ is good to use, competent but not unbeatable. The balance wrt others.
It might either be temporarily for a minute or the map might have an extra pack or berries or if its a closed map. On standard open maps, though you get the food fast, the net food you get is still the same. So its not beneficial to put more vills on berries permanently. The player will run out of berries somewhere in mid feudal and the rate at which food stockpile grows will become low which can slow down your castle age.
Thereâs plenty of ways to innovate economic bonuses with the dropoff and trickle being the latest innovations. So thatâs not a concern. Second, youâd be breaking a civ if it was a very strong civ had a very strong bonus for that age. Lets say Dravidians have a normal tech tree, get free bloodlines or free f letching. In that case youâd have to be cautious about what second bonus you give to avoid making them overpowered or too much of an advantage.
For a civ that has no knights, CA, poor monks, one of the worst unique units, thereâs no problem in giving a strong buff.
The overall point of discussion is to provide them with a solid advantage before the tech tree weaknesses become an issue, not some small 20 resource advantage that has zero impact.
The percentage depends on the bonus. Hindustanis, Poles, Incas these have bonus on something thatâs repeatedly done almost throughout the game. This is why 1 or 2% makes a big difference. The net savings or resource advantage immediately becomes competent wrt other civs. Plus Hindustanis have a holistic tech tree with options against all kinds of military.
None of this applies to Dravidians. They have a terrible tech tree, terrible units. A very strong economic bonus is a mere necessity like it is for Vikings.
If they are designed to be âslowâ, they definitely need . You canât justify a civ design with no mobility, no good monks, and mediocre economy. And even though its not what I feel about Dravidians, but quoting you, an âElephant civâ needs a massive bonus.
Lol Heâs going to take it seriously and argue that Dravidians are great.
Exactly he goes back and forth wrt his reasons on why this terrible civ shouldnât get a good bonus. Its either too good or insufficient and wonât help them at the same time. His take is that a civ like Dravidians with one of the worst winrate in the game and unusable units is actually very good and only need a small minor buff.
Lets assume for your sake that their late game is good, (Fun fact: Its not, they have 42% winrate in 45+ min games), still this is not a problem since farming rates are capped at 24/min, gold and stone will expire late game and no one builds town center on every forest in late game.
And even otherwise thereâs a lot of ways to balance that:
Starts from dark age but doesnât apply to farms.
Starts from dark age but has a limit on the number of town centers (2 or 3)
Starts from feudal age but has a smaller range (within 4 tiles)
Some combination of the above three.
The second thing about this argument - your failing to understand post facto effect of an early game bonus. They die a lot of times to early castle age raids BECAUSE theyâre either slower to castle age or reach around the same time compared to most civs and 200 wood is about the same or lower than the eco benefit most of other civs get.
Thatâs also one of the main reasons why Hindustanis jumped a lot of places to be a top few civ on ladder when their villager discount was buffed by 2 additional food per villager in dark and feudal ages. Early game benefits change the relative strength of a civ and if a civ always hits castle age sooner, it naturally pulls ahead in economy and position. So it wonât be âtoo lateâ anymore.
[quote=âDemiserofD, post:139, topic:246549â]
fisherman bonus, not the fishing ship bonus. Itâs a bad design if you have two different bonuses that directly conflict with each other. Fishing shore fish is already of dubious benefit on many maps; the last thing they need is to make it even less worthwhile. Thatâs just removing the bonus with extra steps.
[/quote].
Fisherman have negligible bonus very similar to your berry bonus. +15 carry capacity is a relative speed up of <1% right next to mill, increases by 2% for every 2 tiles further. Usually people do a tc or another mill before this bonus gets to 10%
And anyways tc workrate bonus doesnât exclude that. People doing a 2nd town center near the ponds can both protect their fishermen and get a 10% boost to workrate, once fishermen move away they can continue to get a small advantage from carry capacity.
That is an interesting idea. It would basically allow you to use your stone for other things earlier, knowing youâll still be able to 3tc boom on hitting castle age. And as you say, it preserves the thematic elements of the civ.
Neat idea. I wouldnât have it apply to deep sea fish, but otherwise I like it.
Iâm still not convinced here. Itâs a pretty significant change in theme for the civ. It also feels like it will come in too late, as well as emulate civs like georgians with their fortified churches, or bengalis with their 10% better population efficiency. Iâd be more inclined to further enhance their units somehow. Given they already have a healing theme, Iâd be more inclined to do as you say, and have medical corps be active by default, and have the technology expand or enhance the effect.
Something that tickled my fancy was to make any healing effect generate gold. So the regeneration on elephants would not just restore their hp directly, it would also actually generate a slow trickle of gold over time. Garrisoning units in buildings or healing them with monks would also slowly generate resources over time. This would directly encourage the slow, careful playstyle the dravidians already use.
The issue isnât with how or when it comes in, itâs in the nature of the bonus.
Letâs do the math!
In dark age, you generally go up around 19-20 villagers. That means collecting about 600 food for 12 villagers, as well as 500 for the age upgrade. Thatâs 1200 food, so this bonus will generate 120 food for you. Substantially weaker, in other words, than the existing wood bonus.
In Feudal, you generally go up around 20 minutes, with 8 farms around your town center(feudal age farmers without wheelbarrow will still be better close to a mill than walking further to a TC), over 10 minutes, that gains you an additional 1472 food, meaning youâve gained an additional 147 food over the feudal age. Again, substantially weaker than the existing wood bonus.
Itâs only once you hit multiple TCs in castle age that a bonus like this truly comes into its own, as the Slavs winrate curve demonstrates. Unfortunately, this is heavily reliant on their tech tree, which comes with both knights and powerful monks, both of which the Dravidians lack.
Basically, my point here is that this bonus is always going to be fighting with itself. If you make it strong enough to make a difference in the dark and feudal ages, itâll be completely OP in the lategame. If you make it balanced in the lategame, itâll be far too weak to have a significant impact in the early game.
Ultimately, why make a bonus with an impact that balloons only after the weak point youâre trying to solve? Why not just make a more tailor-made bonus that targets specifically the point you want to target? Thatâs what Iâm trying to do, and, I feel, is the better and more reasoned approach.
Food is more important than wood. You need food to produce vills, do blacksmith techs for military and 800 food to go up not wood. So its not a 1:1 numbers comparison. In fact wood bonuses are considered 2nd best only because they are converted into food bonus through farming. Second thing food is also collected slower in feudal 19/min for farms, 18.6/min for berries. Wood is ~27/min and a direct abundant source (the three forests around your starting base fetch you 15k wood)
Third, thereâs a slight deviation with your calculation - Clicking with 19-20 vills means you produced 15-16 vills not 12 and thats 750-800 food + 500 for feudal and youâre usually still left with 3-4 sheep after youâve clicked up, additional 300. So its close to 1600 before farming and about 1400-1500 from farms. 10% of its is about 300 extra food plus the difference due to faster wood from stragglers before clicking castle age which is extremely good, almost on par with top eco civs (Chinese, Mayans, Mongols, Persians, Gurjaras) and actually better than most civs.
Thatâs more powerful than just 200 wood.
Fourth, the 20 min uptime is not a fixed point and youâre ignoring the cascading effect of such a bonus. What I mean is Mongols donât wait till 20th min, and go up with 1200 food in the bank. They start farming sooner, get the 800 food at 17th min and click up. When dark age food gets over sooner and they get the wood for farming from stragglers sooner, the farming would start sooner.
This can potentially speed up their castle age by 2 mins in my opinion.
Lets say that its still insufficient why not have just a 100 wood extra plus this bonus. If at all that feels OP for water, you can have something like barracks cost -100 wood plus this tc bonus.
Personally I feel other civs try to play more aggressive vs Slavs early on since Slav mid game is very strong after enough farms are laid and Detinets is researched. While thereâs no such necessity vs Dravidians. So thatâs the reason for lower winrate for Slavs early on.
And if you feel its quite weak by itself, then why call it OP paired with the 200 wood. 200 wood is mediocre, 300 food is mediocre. You can have something like Dravidians get 200 wood indirectly on land plus villagers work 10% faster within tc range. Thatâs a stronger resource advantage than Vikings.
What if the bonus doesnât apply for gold and its subject to the 24/min farming cap. Limits market abuse potential, farming advantage goes away after handcart. Just fyi Khmer and Aztec farming is subject to this cap, they have a negligible advantage 23.7-23.8 f/min farms compared to 23.5 f/min for other civs but before wheelbarrow its a huge advantage 10-12% depending on the layout. Only Poles and Slavs exceed the 24/min cap as of now.
That would not make it OP late game but still be strong for early game like it is for Aztecs and Khmer.
Lol Heâs going to take it seriously and argue that Dravidians are great.