GAME MAKERS NEED TO READ HISTORY PLEASE. INDIANS WERE THE PIONEERS OF WAR ELEPHANTS

North INDIANS WERE A ELEPHANT CIVILIZATION AND THEY DONT EVEN HAVE KNIGHTS OR ELEPHANTS IN AOE2. WTF!!!

DEAR DEVELOPERS, … IF YOU READ YOUR HISTORY, PERSIANS NEVER HAD BATTLE ELEPHANTS BEFORE THEY WERE GIFTED TO THEM WHEN ALEXANDER ADVANCED EASTWARDS IN 311 BC… SUBSEQUENLY, THEY WERE GIFTED ELEPHANTS AGAIN DURING DURING MAURYAN EMPIRE MULTIPLE TIMES.

INDIANS INTRODUCED BATTLE ELEPHANTS IN PERSIAN ARMIES.

INDIANS SHOULD HAVE THE STRONGEST ELEPHANTS IN THIS GAME. BUT THEY ARE MADE SUCH A WEAK CIV WITHOUT CAVALRY OR ELEPHANTS. A CIVILIZATION THAT TAUGHT THE WORLD TO USE WAR ELEPHANTS IN BATTLES DONT HAVE WAR ELEPHANTS … AND CAMELS ARE MORE PERSIAN THAN INDIAN.

THE BATTLE OF GUGAMELA THAT PERSIANS LOST TO ALEXANDER HAD ONLY 15 ELEPHANTS ON PERSIAN SIDE, AND ALL OF THEM 15 WERE GIFTED TO PERSIA BY INDIA.
DEVELOPERS, GIVEN THIS IS HISTORICAL GAME, PLEASE FIX IT.

7 Likes

Indians are hardly the only civ in the game that isn’t 100% historically accurate, as Celts, Goths, and others all have issues.

Indians, like Saracens, Slavs, Chinese, etc, are an Umbrella Civilization, they can’t hit everything about the civ they should, so they get the broad strokes
Indians have an Elephant unique unit to represent their use of Elephants
they have Camels to represent their use of Camels.
they have cheaper villagers to represent their huge population
they have one of the best economies in the game to represent the fact that they were a worldwide power
they have excellent gunpowder access which is historically accurate as well.

now tell me op. in order for your beloved Indians to have the strongest Elephants in the game as you put it, what nerf would you’re already very balanced Civilization take to keep them from being overpowered?

just look at how many nerfs Khmer has had in recent history and people still consider them Overpowered.

historically influenced, not historically accurate.
also there is absolutely no need for the complete caps look you have going on.

8 Likes

@ mATcAUTHON.
Indians are picked to play mainly by indian players (there are so many indian players with big indian population). Lot of my indian friends have already stopped picking indians due to how weak they are made as a civ in this game.
elephants archer is worthless. Its should be like persian war elephant (historically accurate should be stronger elephant).
They can take away imperial camel, thats more persian than indian.
cheap vills, ok makes sense but isnt that useful in game once u reach imp or done building eco.
what else makes their eco good? they dont even have third farm tech… other civs have better eco.
exellent gunpower? its average gunpower… only thing they get is one more range… other civs with bombard towers are better… and shieity seige ofcourse.
Overall, they have been downgraded in each and every aspect. very underpowered. Not balanced at all. What BS. There is literally no counter to eagle warriors or gotsh husk/infantry.

1 Like

I think Indians will receive a change the incoming patch, but not an specific one: a HC buff.

Elephant archers are almost fine. With the exceptuon of khmer, a no one use elephants in 1v1.

1 Like

Indians are picked by many people, even those who are not Indian, depending on the situation, and just because you have a huge number of people does not mean that all of them play the game.

weak? Indians? winrates disagree with you.

this game has NEVER claimed to be historically accurate, and even one of the best pros on the planet agrees that the Elephant Archer can be very good in certain situations, it’s just hard to get there. it’s not worthless.

that’s not going to be a big enough nerf to the civ. go look at how much Khmer has been nerfed.

cheaper villagers is always nice and helps more then you are letting on, it makes your gameplay smoother and helps you boom harder and faster.

they have all the other upgrades, they have a better villager boom, and they have sultans.

BBT are almost never seen in the game, but they get HC + range, BBC + Siege Engineers, and ECG for water play, far more then most civs get.

first of all, the win rates disagree with them being under-powered, especially in team games, where they are arguably the best civilization in the game.

second of all, every civ needs a weakness, and frankly i attribute most the weakness of Indians to Infantry civilizations to the fact that hand cannons are not performing well and need a buff.
as you can see others think the same thing about the hand cannon

also here is some mod posts talking about the Indian Elephant situation.

3 Likes

I think the only possible way to add war elephants without breaking the civ would be giving them WE without bonuses and bloodline. Instead of bloodline, they could get a civ bonus like “stable units have (15-20) extra HP from castle age”, so they get camels same or slightly less hp for imperial ones. Same for hussars. That would actually bring more flexibility to Indians that are sooo unidirectional at the moment (just spam camels).

Changing the identity of a civ is always against by players as it is hard to adapt. Unique combos of a civ will disappear. I would rather prefer Devs to introduce another Indian civ branch as an elephant civ with another name while keeping the aoe2 Indians. Indians have a lot of branches in history.

4 Likes

Yeah, Indians are increadibly weak to American civs, Archer civs and Infantry civs.

They are relegated to teamgames.

and who cares about Indians’ civilization identity? It breaks the game 3 ways: They are completely broken in TGs, crap in 1v1s and they are not historical accuracy. Remember Elephants were major theme in India and Northwest Indians had the best Cavalry in India.

2 Likes

WOW THEY ARE ALMOST 50% WIN RATE ON A 1V1 MAP???
WOAAAH

1 Like

Ywah its called balanced. Not weak like the op claims. You know like Koreans or Bulgarians?

1 Like

Indians are supposed to be an Arabia civilization, but Hera put them to the D-tier, because they’re are crap vs everything that is not a Cavalry civ and remember some Cavalry civs clearly have strong counter to Indians with their Infantry.

At least they’re better Arabia civ than Italians, Koreans, Portuguese, Turks and Bulgarians.

1 Like

idc about Hera as many should already know

bruh what did the patch do

1 Like

Look, I’m not a dev but honestly if I were called out so many names and ungrateful things, it would not make me want to look into the requests and changes being suggested here.

Like, I would be fine with some Indian rework, I think it could be interesting. But this type of thread is actively making me want to bin it because honestly, this is not good communication. At all.

9 Likes

Please stay on-topic about elephants for the Indians civilization.

2 Likes

While I would have like Indians to be designed around elephants and not camels, I never expect such a drastic change to a civ will be done. Majority of the multiplayer playerbase is very conservative about changes and FE team has only deal with minor tweaks by now, never commiting to major reworks.So a redesign of indians, a civ so unique in its playstile, seems unlikely to ever happen.

That said, If I had to redesign indians I would keep they vil bonus, give them elite battle elephants (no bonuses) without husbandry, no imperial camel, cavaliers, only scout, bad siege, and little raiding capabilities, so they become a slow push civ reliant on battle elephants to push through the enemy base.

I would like developers added a new indian civ to see the indian architecture set more often, and to fill the blank space in the “choose civ panel”.

The new indian civ could be more elephant focused, and let the old one be focused in camels and eco.

1 Like

I recall reading that the historical research for the games was done by the dev teams members simply reading history books from kids sections of libraries. Also, they’ve said the game was about “the human story”, rather than history, so of course there’s inaccuracies in there. But yes, I would prefer greater historical accuracy/richness from these games!

And it’s the perfect way to get inspiration for a civ’s design.
This game is not compatible with historical accuracy. A civilization should be designed around an oversimplification of the kind you can find in a history book for kids.

I’m sure there’s no book even for kids that states “Indians were great camel herders and másters of camel warfare” as is reflected in the game

1 Like

I’m honestly done with the “AOE2 is historically accurate” argument

The end of William Wallace campaign ends with him winning, but he lost and was executed

Joan of Arc having that Ancient sword is true but no one knows who it really belonged to and the sword was rusty and broke easily

No one knows what actually happened to Bleda, the event in the game is only a theory

Winged Hussars belonged to Poles not Magyars

The cavalry used lance and not a sword

And this is a small list…

1 Like