What does it have to do with what I said? When you raid in castle age you dont need knights, you can raid with anything. And in imp you dont raid with bad knights. Dradivian light cav is a better raiding unit than Viking cavalier because light cav are cheap
Yes I know that dealing with mangonels as dradivians is a problem, but it has nothing to do with raiding.
Then you should make it clear. You should not make blanket statements like āVikings and Koreans have just as bad cavalryā without explaining.
Dradivian light cav is a better raiding unit than Viking cavalier because light cav are cheap
Dravidian light cav die just as easily to Castle fire as viking light cav and with with wootz steel they get +1 vs villagers. They are not good raiding units.
Thanks for acknowledging that. If you see statements like the below one, you know they donāt play the civ.
Micro cannot be the deciding factor in siege fights since itās too dependent on frame refresh and other stuff. If Dravidian siege bonus was designed to counter enemy siege, the bonus would have been made like this below:
Siege weapons have 20% more HP.
Then mangonels can take a mangonels shot and still stand to fire itās return volley. Then Dravidian siege can counter enemy siege while only worrying about cavalry. Since the 33% wood discount only encourages more farms, it makes sense to have light cav with bloodlines counter siege in Castle age.
No dude. Dravidian elephant archers with medical corps donāt win against E skirms resource wise or in groups of similar numbers. battle elephants fail against all other elephant civs despite medical corps and woots steel. The tech is pretty bad. Itās better to get rid of it and make lower HP elephants useful with more speed.
11 dude itās wootz not woots,
the only thing i would chaneg on dravidians is their UU
The urumis should be faster and not have an initiial charge attack, insteead attacking continously in an area while moving. Thid would give the dravidians the pretty much needed āanti-siegeā and āmobilityā requirement.
Othetwises the instant 200 wood are an amazing eco bonus, especiallly in the current timing based some people call āhamsterā meta.
Weirdly enough amongst almost all settings and maps.
And I donāt like dravidians at all. But they are somehow fitting in as this weird abusing the meta that nobody really understnads but somwhow works civ.
I also have a queztion about why dravidianz get zuch a bad monk tech tree when they alreafy get a bad cav texh tree. Givin them redemption and illuminatuon should be fine
I think thats where the problem is. you see it as āwinā in terms of resources where as win is just the result while not counting in vast amount of non-engaged time where elephant can heal. also why fight a fight thats bad match up as if they must win with medical corp.
medical corp isnāt an offensive tech by any mean similar to georgianās cavalry regen civ bonus. most time you exchange hits, run around and heal up as a result to gain an advantage.
The conclusion first. I partially agree with the analysis of the civilization in the original post, but I disagree with some change suggestions there.
I would not deny that Bombard Cannons are indeed a good addition. It effectively solves some fatal problems in the late game. Of course I agree and also prefer that Redemption could solve the same problem in a way and even work in the Castle Age, but the developers seem unwilling to make them a civ with good monks especially when the Bengalis feature that.
The siege wood bonus is indeed a redundant and unclear bonus. Saving more wood feels unnecessary when they already have extra wood for siege weapons. It would be better if it were changed to a gold discount, at least Armored Elephants would also benefit.
I think the Medical Corps are seriously undervalued. If calculated on just one elephant, its effect would be difficult to see. It can make a difference in the late game when you have a large group of Elite Elephant Archers. To put it bluntly, it is Maghrebi Camels for elephants, but elephants have better regeneration effects because they are not easy to die immediately.
I donāt like the additional stone bonus suggestion very much. They would be pushed to dropping towers rather than dropping TCs. Receiving so many additional resources in both types at the same time is unnecessary.
I like the double effects in Blacksmith attack upgrades but with something changed. I would just make the Forging line have double effect. They donāt have the Knight so they could just have it and be balanced. This made their Scout Cavalry line and cheap-upgraded Militia line even more useful in the Feudal and Castle Ages, being very effective against skirmishers and siege weapons, while the advantageous Archery Range units and navies would not benefit from it. The Wootz Steel should be the reference for this bonus rather than an Imperial Age UT with no strategic value. The +4 attack from the Blast Furnace in the Imparial Age would be essentially equivalent to the actual effect brought by the Wootz Steel in most cases.
Iām also not a big fan of the population bonus suggestion. Its numbers are less elegant. Civilizationās superior naval power is not an issue that urgently needs to be changed.
I also donāt think the +30% speed helps make their Battle Elephants useful. The only real capability of non-elite armor-lacking Battle Elephants with a speed of 1.17 is to escape Halberdiers, but we donāt need units that can only escape. They are still too fragile compared to their cost and are still helpless against Arbalesters and Cavaliers. They still would not be used. On the other hand, their Elephant Archers are already the best in the game. They do not need more buff, which does nothing to address the civās weaknesses. However I welcome Husbandry, after all, it does not take up a UT slot, and is already enough to allow the elephants to catch up with foot archers.
Thereās not much point in having the Bloodlines. If youāre willing to let the Forging line have double effect, you canāt have Bloodlines for Light Cavalry. The elephantās high base health means that Bloodlines can bring little difference, and the benefits brought by Medical Corps may be greater than Bloodlines in the later stage.
My personal suggestion is to change the Imperial UT. This slot should really give their Battle Elephants a decent niche. Making these lower quality melee elephants cheaper and faster to train is an obvious direction. I saw an idea for -50% gold cost, but considering the situation with the Malay elephants, I think -50% gold is probably not enough as long as they donāt have the elite upgrade, and the theme of cheap elephants has been used by Malay elephants. Maybe we should explore the possibility of trash Battle Elephants.
Another personal suggestion of mine is always to tweak Urumi. The positioning of this unit is unclear. Iāve seen people say itās to cover the elephants from Halberdiers, but the civ still has fully upgraded Arbalesters, Hand Cannnoneers and even elite Skirmishers with the bonus. In my opinion, the fact that it completely overshadows the Militia line, which has cheap upgrades that should be a major identity of the civ, is a classic design failure. Being difficult to gather in the Castle Age doesnāt help the civ either. If itās really for anti-Halberdiers, then it could be cheaper, weaker but with a high attack bonus against spearman units to give the Champion more of a chance. Otherwise they could allow the charge bar to be used to dodge projectiles, reflecting the agility of these martial arts masters and beneficial against archers and siege weapons.
I made it clear. It was the first thing I said
Ofc they qrent good raiding units, but Viking cavaliers are almost as bad but way more expensive. Im saying that in late game having bad cavalier or no knights at all is the same
I dont think this is true, you can play Dravidians and think they are fine because you are fine with just fighting mangonels with your own. I think the current civ design is vulnerable to Mangonels, but the civ is having decent success anyway
Ran tests of Dravidian elephant archers vs Spanish and Dravidian skirms using a combat simulator. In 20v20, elephants will win by a large margin (assuming same tech level). The Dravidian elephant archers also defeated Vietnamese imp skirms quite handily in 20v20 (~16 elephants survived on avg, showing that this matchup isnāt even close). In 20v50 (3000 res for both), skirmishers won the imp and post-imp test, but Spanish skirms usually lost the castle age test (which means that with only feudal techs, generic skirms usually lose - but thatās not a case youāll see very often). So skirms trade cost effectively, but not pop-efficiently against elephant archers. These tests did assume no micro, however.
So saying Dravidian elephant archers donāt win against skirms resource wise: generally true. Saying that they donāt win against skirms in similar numbers: false (unless you have a tech disadvantage)
Dravidians were modelled on Vikings. Vikings had limited monk options and that has carried forward. Devs replaced fervor with sancity sensibly.
Dravidian Elephants at max 0.9 tps cannot run around after exchanging hits with foot archers or infantry. They will be chased or kited and shot down. Dravidians Elephants with Medical corps may not die immediately. But will be kited and killed effectively in a single engagement. The healing does not help Dravidian elephants like it does for Beserkers. If opponent is at disadvantage, slow units like foot archers, infantry and āvillagers with Hand cartā can still run away from the fastest Dravidian elephants moving @ 0.9 tps. In castle age, Medical corps does not give Dravidian elephants the advantage in 1vs1 or group fights against other Elephant civs. In Group fights scenario, individual Dravidian elephants die faster because of trample damage reducing healing. It is raw HP which matters more. In 1vs1, lack of bloodlines as well as no special bonus/tech for armour , attack and HP easily shows and Dravidian Battle elephants die against all civs except Malay. So āMahoutsā will allow Dravidian Elephants to run away when confronted by other Battle elephants. This is the same balance employed by Devs with āTeutonsā. Their Knights and scout-line get more Melee armour and no husbandry. This speed difference allows other civ Knights with husbandry to escape them.
I have always said they trade cost effectively and in big groups. Battles in games donāt play like in Scenario editor. Elephants and skirms donāt line up neatly and trade arrows against javelins. Elephant collision ### ## #### They have less range as well. They keep running into one another more than smaller units. Group of smaller units like skirms are also easier to micro. So its easy for them to target an Elephant Archer which has a big ### ### even if it tried to move around to the back and heal.
Most Dravidian players drop a forward archery range and follow it up with a tower anyway. If needed, the bonus can be modified to āReceive 150 wood and 50 Stone on reaching next ageā. Its enough for a dock on water. But not plentiful enough for an easy archery range as well as archers. With extra stone, Dravidian players will have the option to stone wall-up and play the game like a closed map which does not expose their weakness. They will still get almost enough resources for a TC. This strategy can elevate their castle age weakness. It can also help against the āhamsterā meta.
I agree that the āwood bonusā is an unclear and redundant bonus. That is why I proposed the āpop-spaceā modification for team bonus to make sure there is more wood before this bonus can be removed. Then the āBlacksmith attack bonus is doubledā can be added. The Blacksmith bonus was intended to reverse the āSiege identityā Dravidians gained. So I would not replace it with a gold discount on Siege.
Blacksmith attack upgrade damage is doubled
The above bonus can be given to given to Dravidians in place of the Siege discount. This bonus can make Dravidian archers and cavalry more powerful in castle age and help bridge absence of Knights in a meaningful way. To balance in imp, we need to remove ābracerā and āblast furnaceā from tech tree.
The result will be in castle age, you get:
This also weakens some units like Dravidian Skirms and Elephant archers who suffer from less range due to loss of Bracer. So Iād change the faster firing bonus to:
Skirms and Elephant archers +1 range
To balance naval play, we need to remove ācareeningā, āDry dockā and āfast fireā from tech tree. To compensate imperial age navy, āThirisadaiā speed can be increased by 15% and its base range increased by 1. It will work like an elephant archer version of ālong boatā.
To make Urumi viable, Iād include Urumi to benefit from effects of āMahoutsā. Urumi will move @ 1.5 tps with Squires and Mahouts. It will make them a swarm of fast raiders who sanitize areas of the map which are not protected by castles and ranged units. To balance them, Iād remove them from effects of āwoots steelā which is also design-wise technically correct.
Looking at all these changes, it looks like a new civ design. So its better to stick with the small changes mentioned in the first post. In the future, if there is an expansion of Dravidians like some have proposed then its best if the same mistakes in the design are not repeated.
Youāre missing the point. The EAs almost do not need to hit-and-run, not born for hit-and-run, and basically should not be able to hit-and-run.
When they are really used, itās in the late game in the maps like Arena or Black Forest. There they will be in large groups and wonāt need to be microed frequently like the CAs in the early Castle Age. They compete with other ranged units using power rather than agility.
As long as they can survive a wave of fire (which their high base HP allows them to do this better than other ranged units), the Mediecal Corps could likely bring better endurance than Bloodlines for them to face the next wave.
Doubtful.
From my experience, they are not and should not be a tower rush civilization.
A more common gameplay I think might be Feudal double Archery Ranges to train Archers and Skirmishers, or sometimes M@A rush then switching to Skirmishers.
In any case, the additional 200 wood they currently have is actually decent, especially when hitting the Feudal Age. They do not really need additional stones. Their civilization bonuses mostly encourage them to have more aggressive gameplay rather than encouraging them to turtle. They should maintain this aggressive style as much as possible to provide a clear contrast to the Bengalis, and thatās why I appreciate the double Forging line effects.
A siege indentity isnāt a big deal. Historically, the Dravidian dynasties did have records of using siege weapons. My gripe with it is only that it overlaps with the additional wood bonus, so I have no problem with the gold discount.
Regardless, the double effective attack upgrades in Blacksmith must have to be limited to the Forging line only.
Just having better Scout Cavalry line and Militia Line in the Feudal and Castle Ages would be enough to go a long way to improving their current weaknesses. As long as the Blast Furnace isnāt removed, replacing Wootz Steel with a new UT that effects the cost of Battle Elephants or siege weapons (except for Bombard Cannons) would more decently and realistically give them more of a niche.
Otherwise it would be literally the change that affects too many, annoying, unpopular and causes more risk to the balance maintainence. Youāre going to change too much that doesnāt need to be touched, including their currently advantagedous EAs, skirmishers, navies, and fully upgraded Arbalesters. The extra attack power for Corssbowmen alone is pretty enough to break the game. Thatās clearly risky and unnecessary.
Really? Why Viking just feel considerably better than Dravidians?
Iām currently in the process of using Krakenmeisterās Civ Builder website to make a Legend of Zelda-themed total civ overhaul (meaning no vanilla civs are present). When it came to the Zora, I originally made them like a hybrid of the Persians and Vikings, having faster-working TCs and Docks as well as access to Longboats. I originally gave them Thalassocracy to strengthen the water even more, but ended up replacing it with something else that Iāll talk about in a minute. Garland Wars was the Imperial Age UT, but since I took away Blast Furnace to compensate for the Bohemiansā Pikemen bonus, it was really +2, much more balanced overall.
Today, however, I decided to give them access to elephant units, with a Dravidian flavor, as a reference to the Divine Beast Vah Ruta from Breath of the Wild. A faster-attacking elephant unit bonus made up for the missing BF, and made Elephant Archers and Armored Elephants even stronger. I had taken away Bloodlines and the last armor previously to give them a rather weak Stable, like the Dravidians, so while they have Knights, theyāre discouraged from making cavalry, also quite similar to the Vikings. I ended up giving them Medical Corps to make up for the missing Bloodlines and final armor.
The main difference between my Zora civ and the Dravidians is that the Zora have access to Elite Battle Elephants and Husbandry as well as Knights, so while their cavalry have similar limitations, the Zora are better overall because they have better mobility in addition to elephant units attacking faster. Perhaps whenever I complete the mod and get it to work and the Zora turn out quite viable, that can be a way of helping to improve the Dravidians.
They have the best OG all around eco bonus. Having wheelborrow and handcart free means that you only need to think about keeping villager production up. You will automatically transition faster than any OG civ to castle age and have handcart villagers to stretch that lead even further. They can just spam archers to harrass opponent eco or skirms to protect against opponent archers. Their gameplay is simple. Despite lacking cavalry, Beserker has been considerably buffed since DE was released and they serve the role of raiding units. They benefit from the meta except the archer pathing bug. Long boats are available in castle age and are easier to micro compared to Thirisadai.
Dravidians have a similar tech tree. But need to research all economy technologies. So there is lot of work and multi-tasking involved when playing them. Dravidian units are pretty generic for the most part of the game. There is nothing special about their regional units or unique units which bring an element of unpredictability to gameplay.
But I doubt light cav will be viable against even skirms without bloodlines. it is better to give a 50% discount on blacksmith attack upgrades. The Barracks discount can be extended to the blacksmith which will help extend the M@A play a bit more.
Barracks technolgies and blacksmith melee attack upgrades are 50% cheaper
OR
Remove - āSiege 33% wood discountā
ADD - "Blacksmith attack upgrades 50% cheaper"
Forging line and fletching line are 50% cheaper. It will help either keep up the M@A aggression or open with upgraded archers with Archery range + Blacksmith in feudal age. Castle age too will give timing advantage to cross-bows with +1 range. Then there could be a enough of a window to switch to quentionable elephant archers or drop a castle to secure map control. And go to imp first.
Blacksmith techs donāt need to be cheaper.
Even without Bloodlines, light cavalry is still good against skirmishers, not to mention having +2 attack.
Itās a neat balance to have light cavalry kill skirmishers and siege weapons faster due to their +2 attack and still to have limited power against other units like crossbowmen due to the lack of Bloodlines.
Making the Forging line twice effective is pretty enough, and it is also totally helpful if the player is willing to use infantry such as M@A and Longswords in the early games.
I think you are still just looking at Imperial Age. All civs can raid with archers as well as mobile and tanky melee units (Knight, Camel, Eagle, Ratha). A small group of knight without a single upgrade from Koreans/Vikings can do more than Dravidians can offer when it comes to raid.
Ever since Devotion was introduced, it is a common suggestion. 1st tech make converted unit lose 50% HP. And 2nd tech make it kill itself instead of joining the enemy.
Iād make same suggestion. Bring Mahouts | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom back but for Battle Elephant and Armored Elephant line replacing Medical Corps. Iām throwing Armored Elephant line because currently Dravidians donāt even use them as other siege units have a massive discount.
Run around? With AoE2 elephants?
Elephants are so slow in this game that I hate using them. Not to mention they take bonus damage from almost everything, which makes their higher health pointless (at least in the case of BAs).
My point exactly.
Yup! Without any speed boost, you canāt expect Dravidian elephants to play any role in their gameplay. It will be a serious waste of resources to make elephants, make a castle and research medical corps. Thats is why I made āMahoutsā benefit Urumi as well. So even if you donāt make elephants researching the unique tech in a castle is useful for gameplay. We can change the name from āMahoutsā to āStrike Corpsā.
Vikings get such a massive eco lead in early game. They should not have late game power spikes which is a good design. Korean have amazing towers and siege with range for late game. For all practical purposes, Dravidian late game comp with āwootz steelā is still restricted to halbs and champions. Garland wars is a better tech which benefits the Eagle warrior line too. Eagle warriors can raid under castle fire or under TCs. Dravidian light cav canāt do that.
I just have one question for you. If you played as Viki### or Koreans, will you not use āskirm + Knightā combo to abuse Dravidian gameplay weakness. But if you played against any other civ, will you be able to use viking or Korean Knight?
I think cheaper melee attack upgrades can also accomplish the same goal and it can be part of the barracks bonus. It gives a timing advantage for Dravidian men-at-arms before archer groups can just neutralize infantry in feudal age. Go up faster to castle age with Gamersons, itāll be like a +1 advantage against skirms + knights combo as well as buildings. You can back them up with your own skirmishers as well. When Dravidian weakness starts to show, you will have a much stable economy which should allow Dravidian player to overcome the raiding weakness.
I agree the stone bonus will push the civ towards tower rush. But I donāt agree the current bonus is good enough. It is a bit too much in feudal age and too little afterwards. The bonus only pushes the civ towards unnecessary aggression in feudal age and castle age despite not having any dark age bonuses. Either the bonus should be early game bonus which will help relative low elo players to plan easy strategies or it should be resources which give clear spike when arriving in different ages. It should be either
"Start the game with 150 or 200 more wood"
OR
"Receive 200 wood, 200 stone and 200 gold when reaching feudal, castle and imperial ages respectively"
This is a very uncreative bonus. Other civs already have cheaper blacksmith technologies. The Spanish do not need to spend gold, the Bulgarians only need to spend half the food. If just focus on the Forging line, the Magyars get it for free.
This is also an underwhelming bonus. The Bulgariansā Forging is exactly half price, and their M@A upgrade is even free, but they donāt feel particularly powerful at all. The effect of your this idea is even weaker than the Bulgarians and cannot really help the Dravidians much in my opinion.
In the Feudal and Castle Ages, the problem is not that upgrades are too expensive for the Dravidians, but that even after upgraded the Dravidians are still underpowered. You could stick to the double-effective Forging line, a bonus inspired by your idea, as it would give just the right amount of strength buff to infantry with cheap upgrades and Light Cavalry without Bloodlines.
The former will bring their water to the most OP. The latter brings too much as one bonus especially in the early games and it will be OP too.
IMHO, the quality of the ideas you provide in this aspect is getting worse and worse.
I agree that 200 wood is not important in the later games. A long time ago I had suggested having them receive 10 wood x the number of villagers when hitting a new age. Usually people have about 20, 40, and 120 villagers when advancing the ages so in that way there would be 200, 400 and 1200 additional wood. If you want to get more, you have to stay in the previous age longer, which would also echo the aggressive style they want to emphasize.
No, the changes together will make the civ balanced on both land and water. I think these small changes will definitely fix the civ and keep the civ from getting worse.
CHANGE 1:
Primary Bonus -Start the game with 150 more woodCHANGE 2:
Modify - Team Bonus -Buildings except walls and gates provide +1 pop spaceCHANGE 3:
REMOVE - Medical corps
REPLACMENT -"Mahouts or strike corps" Elephants and Urumi move 30% fasterCHANGE 4:
CHANGE -Urumi does not benefit from 'woots steel'And fix the bug reported - Dravidian Cannon Galleon not affected by siege discount