@RatcicleFan @Apocalypso4826 Guys, the conversation is getting off-topic here. This is about one civ, and its issue, please keep it to that.
Historical accuracies/inaccuracies is a separate issue, and should be discussed in a different thread.
1 Like
Yes, but they aren’t playable in their old state. That’s my point. Unless you go back to comparatively primitive versions of the game, like AoC and HD, you literally can’t get the experience of the old civs again. It’s literally lost forever. I don’t like the idea of something being lost forever.
You certainly are, and I’m not gonna stop you; I’m even gonna ask that other people do the same. I respect your position and understand it, even if I don’t agree with it for the most part.
Now, @filtercoffee488 has asked us to get back on topic. I cannot agree more. If we want to discuss this further, it should be in a separate topic.
1 Like
So, back to the actual topic, I never liked the Indian civs not having knights since I’ve known about it (which was before DoI’s release but after DE’s release). The “they didn’t have European style knights” excuse doesn’t fly when 90% of the non-unique units are based on generic European armies. I’m 100% sure it’s a reference to AoE3 Indians not having any horse-mounted units (which as I said multiple times before, makes no sense either).
As for fixing the problem the topic brings up, they could either be given a better stable, or have Medical Corps replaced with a tech that gives elephants and light cav (or at least light cav) more pierce armor.
3 Likes
I just made a topic about the historical accuracy issue, so we can discuss that there. No need to discuss it here anymore.
1 Like
Why is this the best scenario? Maybe when their mangos are on a hill. But if not, you have the defender’s vision advantage. They can’t see when and where your mango is coming. You can even kill 2 mangos in a shot if they are close.
Mango micro is very fun.
1 Like
sicilians in a 1?year old sotl vid had like the 2nd highest wr i think in water maps (wher e u arent connected to the enemy by land), although admittably it was a low sample size. But last i checked they are quite good on water maps due to their seargants inside transports into donjons and etc.
Byzantines have one bonus for water, and its like 1/5 bonuses. Although i guess they have 1 ut. But doesnt mean they are bad at water. They in fact are considered pretty strong on water maps too
The reason dravidains is a naval civ is
- unique ship that is actually good (unlike the port ship and turtle ship)
-
- 200 per age. While not a naval bonus, does help most in water maps.
- Dock team bonus
4
No one plays infantry anyways so people think of civs like ### as a archer civ instead so their infantry is often forgotten.
there was a game with Yo vs. someone else recently? where he converted a mago and killed 3 magonels (in 1 shot) from someone else in a tourn? (although might not be recent as i was watching through some old recs).
Okay, and with your next paragraph taken into account, 1 knight wouldn’t win either. Enemy player can safely repair and take down your knight, whereas Ele Archers can safely snipe the villagers and Mangonels. You’ll need more Knights just as much as you’ll need more Ele Archers. Especially when enemy adds Monks that Ele Archers will get to snipe whereas Knights won’t.
And yes, Guard Tower will work against multiple Mangonels. If you can safely collect stone (which you might be able to, considering you’re already trushing), you can take down the Mangonels. It’ll also stop any monks in case you do make Ele Archers. This could also let you Castle Drop the enemy at some point.
IMO whenever you are trushing, you’ll want to get Guard Tower, the only problem will be if you’ve put yourself more behind than the opponent you’re trushing who got to Castle Age first and is already taking down your towers with Mangonels, while you’re still on the way to Castle Age. But as you said, it’s a teamgame. Your own teammates can’t produce Knights/Eagles to help you out?
I said 3 knights. And 3 knights will do the job, as long as he doesn’t see them coming. 3 EAs won’t. This is not to mention that 3 knights are cheaper than 3 EAs.
It won’t. I tested it. 3 mangonels will eat guard towers, with just 1 vil repairing. This was with bodkin arrow and 5 vils garrisoned in the tower.
A teammate made jannies, as he was playing turks. But, he was dealing with another player close to my position. The other one didn’t do anything IIRC. But at that moment, I was doing a 1v1 player. It shouldn’t have been that frustrating.
Faster firishing ships and dromons, and the UT which gives fire ships +1 range. That’s 2 direct ones. Indirectly, extra building HP, and free town watch and town patrol.
As for sicilians, transport ship bonus is the direct one. But they have 4 indirect ones. Dojons, extra stone at the beginning, First crusade (to defend if opponent lands) and faster building castles.
You forgot the fish bonus. But also, addressed all of this in a previous comment. Here.
He has his TC nearby, remember. That’s the whole issue. IIRC, he even made an outpost nearby first.
But also, you are focusing on the wrong part of the issue. I am, and was not, saying that there was literally nothing I could do at that moment. I am saying that is sucked and there were no options (other than mangonels). But, mangonels aren’t great as the game goes on, in a nomad team game, and in the position I was in.
1 Like
Maybe not. But having +1 or +2 PA won’t hurt. We’re talking about the least mobile civ in the game.
This is by a lot of people is considered a bad design. A unit that lacks so many upgrades shouldn’t have a bonus. If one or two tech, it would be okay. Also stable and Dravidians just don’t go well. Even with this bonus, that won’t change.
Then so be it. 11
A back track from your initial argument. Anyway, I don’t know if removal of TB means they no longer a “Naval” civ according to your definition or not. They will still be top tier water civ for me.
My final thoughts
TB: Dock gives +5 pop space → Infantry +3 attack bonus vs siege
Medical Corps:
- Also affects militia line.
or - Militia line +30 HP (I asked this in May 2022, 1 year after DOI and most people said it will be OP). Remove Champion if necessary although I don’t think it is necessary. Same arrow resistance as Malians in Castle Age. In Imperial Age survives 25 arbalester shot compared to 35 from Malians. Have BF and Wootz Steel though.
or - Militia line +15% speed and +1 PA. Again almost same situation as previous. Same arrow resistance as Malians in Castle Age. In Imperial Age survives 24 arbalester shot compared to 35 from Malians. Have BF and Wootz Steel and extra speed to compensate. Maybe this one is better than previous because +30 HP with Wootz Steel basically means they will shred any melee units and Urumi will be unemployed.
I personally believe Dravidians should have the most multi-dimensional and maybe one of the best militia line to address their weakness. I’m throwing a lot of bonuses on them just like Romans scorpions. But considering both militia line and scorpions are out of meta units, a lot of bonuses are necessary to make them viable.
yes and i did include the ut in my post but u just kinda cut it out of the quote? But sure extra hp and free vision tech counts i guess. But frankly its not that big of a bonus to water.
indirect bonuses is really hard to pinpoint, things like faster building tcs could even be a indirect bonus (ie. war galleys atking wood vills near a woodline by the water, vills rush up a tc to protect).
yes mb. I assumed that u were implying that dravidians wasnt a naval civ. (although i have looked at the comment and see evidence of it being addressed)
1 Like
Some day out of nowhere they’ll get the necessary buff, like how Portugese did after 6 yrs.
Changing he team bonus to suit something for the land might be good but not this one. Someone else mentioned Dravidians getting redemption, that might be better. Another way is if barrack techs had double the effect or if barrack techs benefitted other units.
Exactly its one of the worst UT.
Infantry regeneration, infantry hp after UT - all of these are imperial age situations where you have enough defenses, nearly fully upgraded infantry. So its practically buffing them in the very small number of situations where they’re good. Doesn’t address much wrt mobility crisis or the lack of a good raiding unit. Somehow urumis should be reworked as a raiding unit. Or they should get some building unlocked to them from castle age which speeds up ally units within its radius, should not be convertible.
More of an addendum, really. I’ve been thinking a bit more about what makes a civ infantry/cavalry/naval/etc. The answer is, they get better than FU units (in some way, even if they lack an upgrade), they get cheaper units, they get units an age early, and/or they get discounts on upgrades/blacksmith techs. The only exception to this I can think of is malay, who get a lot of buffs specifically to docks.
As with byzantines and sicilians, just because good in water doesn’t make you a “water civ” by aoe2 standards.
Because you were stating it on uncertain terms. Byzantines have 2 civ specific things to water.
Free vision is huge, what do you mean? Extra HP is whatever, but that vision will let you see when someone lands much sooner, and will let you take better water fights.
There is a spectrum, sure. However, those bonuses are useful on water in an explainable way. This is not just a general bonus like 200 extra wood. Sicilian bonuses are useful for quickly defending when you don’t have an army, which is especially good for water, and not so much for closed maps.
No, even with the bonus removed, they’d still be a water civ. But I think they’d have to remove the “naval” part on the title of the civ. That’s my opinion, of course.
Same can be said for Pavise and Silk Armor. Both cost wood (from upcoming patch) instead of food. Medical corps UT can also be changed into that if 3rd option is picked. And 3rd option also address the mobility issue a bit. And costing wood also means I might not have nearly FU unit either as I’m low on food to get the blacksmith or barracks (Not an issue for Dravidians though) upgrade.
It’s been more than one year already. You need to get over this hope.
Medical Corps UT changed instead of adding another new building?
There is literally no pattern. Byzantines have more than FU fire ship with full dock tech tree. But still not a naval civ. Turks, Huns and Magyars are not CA civs. Berbers is not a camel civ but somehow a naval civ! Chinese is an archer civ only bcz of UU and an UT that affect their UU. All tech discount bonus applies to their FU Camel as well so that bonus is not an argument to bring imo. Celts is infantry civ for 5% more speed and UU, same with Sicilians. However Italians is not a gunpowder civ or Dravidians a siege civ.
I think the in-game civ descriptor should just largely be ignored. It’s meant to be an idea of the civ so that if you didn’t know any of the civs, you could decide for yourself ‘oh I wanna play an Archer civ’ you could pick one quickly. But all of the civs have multiple angles they can be played at, and I don’t think the devs are necessarily constrained by the civ description when making changes either.
Dravidians can be changed without losing the Naval description. Besides, they’re described as Infantry and Naval, which… is fairly accurate anyway. Perhaps they’re too close to Malay in identity now, as both have terrible stables (but Malay ironically have the only playable Elephants in 1v1), both have an Infantry focus (Malay free armor, trash militia line), and both typically get played as Archer civs. Both have a fishing ship bonus and a unique unit/building - though Dravidians have the better one, I think.
Perhaps Dravidians could have a heavier Siege focus and get Siege Engineers (and Redemption). One could argue they’re too close to Slavs then, who also have a powerful UT affecting infantry units and cheaper Siege units, but I’d disagree - Dravidians have usable Archers (and Elephant Archers) whereas Slavs get a better Stable, monks, and Boyars.
2 Likes
A possible answer was given millions of hours ago. When we first pointed out that there’s too much overlap between urumi and drav champs. And by turning urumi into a slightly more realistic version , it partly solved the dravidians problem, turn it into a low damage, high attack speed raider.
Just because other civs have badly designed overlap between UU and generic units, doesn’t mean drav should as well.
Or we can do it the same boring way the (sicilians) balance team seems to enjoy, and simply make drav more generic by slowly adding all the things they lack. Next up redemption. And then siege engineers and finally Knights
Berbers aren’t a camel civ, they are a cavalry civ, which is a superset of camel civs. So that’s fine. I would also consider cav archers as part of cavalry, and it makes sense for huns and magyars both of whom focus on cavalry as well. Italians makes sense as well, given archers and navy are two of their main focus points (gunpowder the third).
If any civ has 3 focus points, 2 of the more important ones are usually the ones included, and that makes sense. Dravidians aren’t a siege civ because they lack siege engineers, but have full naval and infantry techs, on top of Wootz steel and unique ship.
So, I have to disagree with you that there is no pattern. Most of these makes perfect sense.
Now, that being said, I have to concede to you and @Nerathion that this doesn’t matter a lot. Maybe I am being a bit too pedantic here, and there is no real point in arguing over this.
I agree with you, there’s no comparison between slavs and dravs. Slavs have a strong focus on cavalry which is the opposite of dravs. A comparison with malay would be much more apt, both in terms of tech tree and civ focus.
You make it sound like generic is always bad, when that’s not true. Different is not always good, and generic is not always bad. It really depends on the specifics. I would be against Dravidians getting knights, but they should absolutely get redemption imo.
Giving Sicilians Siege Onagers is definitely not making them more generic, rather the opposite. Do you mean Sicilians getting Hauberk? That’s also the opposite, since their bonus damage resistance and resistance to Arrows… makes them not generic. Confused by what you mean.
Dravidians having holes in their tech tree is fine, and in my opinions Dravidians have options and are playable. Them getting Redemption isn’t problematic at all, rather them having usable monks would be more in line with their identity than them not even having viable monk options. Equating this to them getting Knights is a weird slippery slope argument. Their initial design identity was terrible stable and I’m against any proposition that changes that identity. I’m also against propositions that give Dravidians any unit that is knights-but-not-really, a la Eagles or some variant.
Them getting Redemption or Siege Engineers… is not breaking any of that.
1 Like
- Gurjaras is both.
So what pattern you’re getting to see Sicilians as infantry civ but Malay and Burmese not? What pattern you found for Berbers as naval but Japanese and Byzantines are not? What about Romans being Infantry only civ while their navy, siege and cavalry all are stronger than their infantry?
Tbh, your statement of “Dravidians losing TB will mean they are not a navala civ anymore” is really out of place. If you don’t want to compromise their naval bonus for a land buff, you could just say so.
We could argue over this, but I already admitted that this is pointless. We could argue out the details of the text, but I don’t think the people who wrote and classified that have paid as much attention to it as we are doing now 11
I already said that my dude. I don’t want this civ to be that good on arabia. That doesn’t even make sense historically. However, I think they should be pretty good on closed maps and especially on water maps.
No idea about history. Since other EA civ (Bengalis) is very good in Arena and absolute garbage in Arabia, I’d want opposite for Dravidians.