Dravidians - the only civ with no (good) raiding unit

[Nerathion]

@filtercoffee488

I went on the offensive first, by tower rushing with the extra wood. A mangonel can easily take down towers, as long as a vil repairs it.

That is true for Watch towers, Guard towers (especially when garrisoned) will take down Mangonels through vills repairing (unless there’s like, 4 vills repairing in which case it’s a big resource drain).

@filtercoffee488

This might work tbh. Give elephant archers +1 damage against siege or something.

To be fair, Elephant Archers don’t really struggle with sniping Siege. The point of ranged units is to have a mass, and once you do have a couple of Elephant Archers out on the field, you can pretty reliably snipe Mangonels already. One could also argue that their faster shooting is basically the anti-Siege bonus. Ironically, I’d say their Castle UT is also great against Siege, as you can comfortably tank a couple of Mangonel shots and then have them healed up over time. 11

In these situations I don’t think one should be afraid of Dravidian stable being that barren, as when you’re only against Mangonels, a Scout Cavalry no matter the upgrades will counter the Mangonels. A couple of them and you can still just run in and snipe well enough while your other army tackles whatever else the enemy is making.

[filtercoffee488]

@Nerathion

That is true for Watch towers, Guard towers (especially when garrisoned) will take down Mangonels through vills repairing (unless there’s like, 4 vills repairing in which case it’s a big resource drain).

This might’ve worked against 1 mangonel. Against 3?

The problem with ele archers is the numbers. 1 knight will win against a mangonel. 1 ele archer won’t.

@Nerathion

In these situations I don’t think one should be afraid of Dravidian stable being that barren, as when you’re only against Mangonels, a Scout Cavalry no matter the upgrades will counter the Mangonels.

The issue wasn’t just the sniping, but also the fact that he was attacking from the safety of his TC range, and had it to fall back to. Sure, I could make a few scout cav, but the best I might be able to take down is 1 before he falls back. In a minute, he’ll take 2 pikes, and we are back to the same situation again.

The scouts need at least husbandry to do the job properly.

[SMUM15236]

@filtercoffee488

I don’t think this would work tbh. First, Dravidians would be extremely unfocused with this. They would have a lot of jumbled and random bonuses, with no real focus. Second, this requires too much investment in units which otherwise aren’t really useful.

Change it to infantry then.
Edit: In fact I asked to change their Medical Corps into infantry +5 attack bonus vs siege. Armor ignoring attack doesn’t work against siege. So this UT will be basically the same as their Imperial Age UT. Although now I’d want this to be TB and UT should be something more suitable bonus for elephants.

@filtercoffee488

But also, removing the water bonus would mean dravs have nothing on water except for that one eco bonus.

They will still have fishing ship with extra carry capacity. And full dock tech tree with an UU which no other has.

[Malycos654]

I agree that dravidian arent good on arabia but on nomad they are quite strong. 200 wood per age and +5 pop on dock make them very versatile. You can age up faster for castle age by putting less villager on wood. There is also navy raid with 2 docks + build a mill, blacksmith, market almost at the same time.
If you go for the first option then after getting castle they are able to do a castle drop + one tc just after the castle is up. You can also go for a xbow + mango army comp very fast.

[HestiaAoE]

@filtercoffee488

Siege Onager-Redemption block printing monk-support combo basically shuts down Dravidians completely in imperial age. Think about what dravidians can do to counter this?

You have atonement block printing monks 11

@filtercoffee488

pushing with like 3 mangonels and a scorpion, from near a TC. We had our TCs pretty close to begin with. Literally had no answer to that.

Your own cheap mangos would easily defend?

[SMUM15236]

@Pulikesi25

Medical corps replaced with something that makes urumis a raiding unit.

Why not militia-line? Urumi is busted against Melee units. Making them a raiding unit means they will also be good against ranged units and castles. That will be absolutely broken.

[filtercoffee488]

@SMUM15236

They will still have fishing ship with extra carry capacity. And full dock tech tree with an UU which no other has.

Yeah, but 2 bonuses isn’t a naval civ. Byzantines have a few naval bonuses, so does sicilians. But neither of those are naval civs.

@Malycos654

I agree that dravidian arent good on arabia but on nomad they are quite strong.

I don’t disagree. We aren’t talking about general strength here, but a specific weakness.

@PilgrimHYR

Your own cheap mangos would easily defend?

On paper, yes. In practice, it sucks. When your opponent has 3 mangonels, and your tower push is dead, what you need isn’t siege. You can’t do much after with it, especially with such a disparity. Even in the best case scenario, where I trade 1 mangonel for another, all I save is like 50 wood. However, he had 3 to begin with, so that trade was unlikely.

Also, remember that this is a team game. Another one of the opponents can make like 2 knights, and I’m dead. I was kinda surrounded and in a bad position to begin with.

[SMUM15236]

@filtercoffee488

Yeah, but 2 bonuses isn’t a naval civ.

Bengalis and Berbers have just 1 and they are Naval civ. Koreans had none before DE and was still a naval civ. I don’t take the classification of civs by devs more than a grain of salt. It is the design that matters. And Dravidians will be a pretty much top 3 to 5 naval civ even if they lose their TB.

@filtercoffee488

so does sicilians

Only one naval bonus.

@filtercoffee488

However, he had 3 to begin with, so that trade was unlikely.

Also, remember that this is a team game. Another one of the opponents can make like 2 knights, and I’m dead. I was kinda surrounded and in a bad position to begin with.

So maybe not just the fault of Dravidians?

@vigunsta

It gets all attack upgrades, so increasing the attack bonus wouldn’t help.

Honestly all of Dravidians land army is so much focused on attack and very less on defense and mobility. All mounted units are more on attack side with Imp UT and faster firing EA while very poor on defense due to not having BL, last cav armor and PT.

@vigunsta

Medical Corps affect Light Cav.

Again, why not militia line? 30HP/min for militia line will be pretty solid. Although this will make Celts UT pretty bad.

[Apocalypso4826]

I personally do not like Medical Corps as a technology, because - like the Thirisadai - it’s based entirely on a Wikipedia hoax. The effect itself is not super impactful regardless.

[RatcicleFan]

I’d love for the less historical civs to get some historical flavor, but if the devs didn’t do it for the Dravidians despite those hoaxes being debunked before DoI’s release, I doubt they’ll go back on older civs.

[Apocalypso4826]

Honestly, I’d be fine with the older ahistory remaining intact, since it’s been in the game for so long. Minor things like the Chinese not having Block Printing definitely can change, but I don’t want too much to change about the older civs. If nothing else, the ES mistakes and shoddy research can remain as an example of how to have much better standards of research and accuracy; the very new civs have no excuse. This is the age of the internet.

[RatcicleFan]

@Apocalypso4826

If nothing else, the ES mistakes and shoddy research can remain as an example of how to have much better standards of research and accuracy

I’ll always disagree on this. I still want proper representation of Scots/Irish and Goths.

[filtercoffee488]

@SMUM15236

Bengalis and Berbers have just 1 and they are Naval civ. Koreans had none before DE and was still a naval civ. I don’t take the classification of civs by devs more than a grain of salt. It is the design that matters. And Dravidians will be a pretty much top 3 to 5 naval civ even if they lose their TB.

So, there are innate military bonuses and power spikes. At high ELO, power spikes are pretty good, but outside that, innate bonuses are usually better. I’m also including faster creation times and discounts in the “innate” section. Every archer civ has at least one innate bonus. Britons get extra range, ethiopians fire faster, vietnamese have extra HP, etc.

In my opinion, a civ needs at least one innate military bonus to be part of a group. Now, you could argue that thirisadai is one. However, it kicks in far too late to be useful. The fish bonus will be the only one they have, and that is an eco tech. Water game snowballs far too hard for this to be useful over the long term.

Now, you can disagree and I respect it. But, I think that the team bonus should still be a water-based one.

@SMUM15236

So maybe not just the fault of Dravidians?

It usually never is 100% the fault of just one civ. More like, the complete lack of options is frustrating. Most civs get at least the option of making knights/camels/steppes/monks/something else. With dravs, you have ONE option. If the opponent is familiar with the civ, that’s NO option.

@Apocalypso4826

I personally do not like Medical Corps as a technology, because - like the Thirisadai - it’s based entirely on a Wikipedia hoax. The effect itself is not super impactful regardless.

There are so many inaccuracies in the game for one to be bothered by. Plumed archers never existed, for example.

You either care about history, or you don’t. If you are okay with older civs being historically inaccurate, you don’t actually care about history, and I cannot accept that argument from you.

This is not to say that the game should be historically inaccurate, only tha# ##### historically inaccurate" isn’t a good argument here.

[Apocalypso4826]

@RatcicleFan

I still want proper representation of Scots/Irish

I think the best thing to do here is to reskin the Woad Raider to the Kern instead. All other stats are intact, but it just looks different. That makes it a lot more historically accurate and not anachronistic.

@RatcicleFan

and Goths.

Honestly, the Goths, I feel, are meant to embody a specific type of playstyle rather than any actual historical inspiration. I feel like changing them too much would change their identity.

[RatcicleFan]

@Apocalypso4826

I think the best thing to do here is to reskin the Woad Raider to the Kern instead. All other stats are intact, but it just looks different. That makes it a lot more historically accurate and not anachronistic.

I did say multiple times that it would be enough for me if woad raiders got reskinned to something more appropriate.

@Apocalypso4826

Honestly, the Goths, I feel, are meant to embody a specific type of playstyle rather than any actual historical inspiration. I feel like changing them too much would change their identity.

Then rename them to something that actually fits that playstyle.

[Apocalypso4826]

@filtercoffee488

If you are okay with older civs being historically inaccurate, you don’t actually care about history, and I cannot accept that argument from you.

The original Age of Empires II is part of history. It’s not just a historical game, it is literally history. So yes, I care about history - both medieval history and the history of the game. Preserving the original civs as much as possible preserves history in the same way that keeping an ancient piece of pottery intact and taking it to a museum is preserving history. Maybe think about it that way.

@RatcicleFan

Then rename them to something that actually fits that playstyle.

I’m not sure there are any people groups historically that actually fought the way the Goths do in-game, so there’s nothing that can be done if that’s the case.

[filtercoffee488]

@Apocalypso4826

The original Age of Empires II is part of history. It’s not just a historical game, it is literally history. So yes, I care about history - both medieval history and the history of the game. Preserving the original civs as much as possible preserves history in the same way that keeping an ancient piece of pottery intact and taking it to a museum is preserving history. Maybe think about it that way.

You are conflating the history of the game with the history of the world. If you want to keep the history of the game, fine. ### #### ##### ####### when new civs have ahistorical elements. Otherwise, ask for the game to be more historically accurate in general.

It’s the double standard that I can’t accept.

EDIT: WTF is up with the censoring? Holy fk

[RatcicleFan]

@Apocalypso4826

Preserving the original civs as much as possible preserves history in the same way that keeping an ancient piece of pottery intact and taking it to a museum is preserving history. Maybe think about it that way.

Counterpoint: this is what changelogs are for.

@Apocalypso4826

I’m not sure there are any people groups historically that actually fought the way the Goths do in-game, so there’s nothing that can be done if that’s the case.

Rework time let’s goooooooooo

And as you can see from every single time you say that, not everyone agrees with you on keeping the old inaccuracies in.

[Apocalypso4826]

@filtercoffee488

You are conflating the history of the game with the history of the world. If you want to keep the history of the game, fine. ### #### ##### ####### when new civs have ahistorical elements. Otherwise, ask for the game to be more historically accurate in general.

It’s the double standard that I can’t accept.

It’s not a double standard, really. I want new civs to be historically accurate, because I am a stickler for historical accuracy, but I am also a purist, and want classic civs to remain intact. That may seem like a contradiction, but I want the game to feel the way it’s felt for over 20 years. If classic civs are dramatically reworked, it will no longer be the same game.

@RatcicleFan

Counterpoint: this is what patch notes are for.

I really wish that AoE2 had the ability to play old versions, just like Minecraft has.

@RatcicleFan

Rework time let’s goooooooooo

Nah, I’d like to keep the Huskarl spam intact.

@RatcicleFan

And as you can see from every single time you say that, not everyone agrees with you on keeping the old inaccuracies in.

I know not everyone agrees with me. But I think enough people do that most of the changes people are suggesting will never be implemented, at least, not for a long time.

Ironically, the original game AND The Conquerors are both before my time. I have less history with the game than the majority of people on this forum. But I am heavily resistant to any kind of change, especially the kind that dramatically alters one of my favorite games of all time. Besides, I think the juxtaposition of cartoonishy stereotypically civs with ones that are better reflections of reality is just rather humorous. The fact that the original civs are so historically inaccurate is kind of charming on its own. I am less attached to the newer ones, so I couldn’t care less if they get significantly altered.

[RatcicleFan]

The wiki has kept a list of all changes to civs and even add the pre-rework Indians back after DoI released. If you think this is fine for newer civs but older ones are somehow above that I don’t have any more patience for you.

If Ensemble is allowed to make mistakes I’m allowed to request them to be fixed.

@Apocalypso4826

Ironically, the original game AND The Conquerors are both before my time. I have less history with the game than the majority of people on this forum. But I am heavily resistant to any kind of change, especially the kind that dramatically alters one of my favorite games of all time. Besides, I think the juxtaposition of cartoonishy stereotypically civs with ones that are better reflections of reality is just rather humorous. The fact that the original civs are so historically inaccurate is kind of charming on its own. I am less attached to the newer ones, so I couldn’t care less if they get significantly altered.

Disagree. The inaccuracies are really annoying and people wanting to keep them in are also really annoying.