How would you rework the Indians?

Yeah they didnt have Turks in Age of Empires II LUL

And when Indians were middle east LUL

And not Sarracens either

Making more Indian civs is a bad idea. There should be only one Indian civ.

I wany more civs with indian architecture set. I dont mind if they are not tagged as “indians”.
I.e: tamils?

Maybe take a look at the AoE3 Indians. They are clearly a civ with focus on elephants which they are not much in AoE2 because you pretty much always build camels. Maybe start with that. For example, Indian elephants tend to be smaller than their African counterpart. Make the elephant archer unit a smaller but cheaper unit. Instead of a unit with high HP and slow speed, make them faster and give them less HP. Make them more attractive to build. Kinda like a better version of cav archers.

Of course don’t make them as fast as Mangudai or cav archers. Their HP and speed should be between the current version of the elephant archers and cav archers.

2 Likes

african elephants were not tamable. indian elephants were the biggest elephants fielded in war.

Not true. African forest elephants and also the bush elephants have been tamed and used.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221345708983130?journalCode=rjog20#:~:text=African%20elephants%20have%20been%20trained,with%20its%20Asian%20rela-%20tive.

Why? Suggest you don’t make statements you can’t justify.

There are two variants of the african elephants, forest elephant and bush elephant.

The shorter variant was the one which was trainable and now it is extinct.

The larger variant is not trainable.

Read the article you yourself have posted.

2 Likes

It’s Ganga, not Ganges. Both G are pronounced same, dissimilar to J.

Also at that time Burma was part of the Indian subcontinent. Technically all South East Asian Civilizations except Vietnamese were part of Bharat. So calling 1 faction Indians while another Burmese or Khmer isn’t justified.

Now what I am going to suggest may not be liked by everyone, but that’s okay. In view of complete rework of the Civilization:

Name the Civilization more specifically Rajputs, Tamils, Ahoms, etc. Mughals and Delhi Sultanate (Mamluks, Khilji, Lodis, Tuglaqs) aren’t “Indian”. They were invaders. Marathas do not suit in the AoE2 timeline.

Exchange the present Indian and Persian Castle unique units and Imperial Age UT. Give Persians Battle Elephants also. Elephant archers +1 range. Elite Elephant Archers +2 range, +1 attack, +50 HP.

Stable units extra pierce armor bonus removed. Plate Barding and Plate Mail added. Blast Furnace and Ring Archer Armor lost.

Civ bonuses added - 1. Focus on Infantry. Man-at-Arms and above ignore armor while attacking (Leitis affect). 2. Focus on Cavalry Archers. Cavalry Archers have 0 frame delay.

Cheaper villagers and faster fishermen and fisherwoman bonus remains.

Stable - Same as present Magyars.
Archery range - Same as present Magyars. Maybe lose Arbalester.
Siege Workshop - same as present Incas. (Remember, no Gunpowder on land until 1526).
Economy side - Remove 2 man saw. Add Crop Rotation. Gold shaft mining is compulsory. Stone shaft mining optional.

Because adding more civs will mess up the balance. There are already a lot of threads asking for buffs and nerfs. Adding more civs will bring out more issues.

2 Likes

Are Ahoms not Invaders?

Oh yes, my bad. Thanks for correcting.

I am not sure about the civilization names. Should it named according to dyanasty (Rajpoots, Marathas, Cholas, Vardhans, Guptas, etc) or place (Tamil, Rajpootana, Avadh, Bundelkhand, Sindh, Delhi, etc)?

In my opinion it should be in AoE 2 logic that is in culture/language encompassing all the different dynasties and kings they cover.

At what time? The whole North East of India was a completely different Civilization with different religious beliefs and ethnical background then the western parts of India up until the British arrived and found them to be not submissive enough as workers in the Tea Gardens so they shipped tons of North Indians there, and so was and still is Burma.

For Indian “rework” Either just give them back Arbalest, or give the Imperial Camel upgrade another pierce armor, so they are still worse in melee combat than before, but perform the same against archers.
Right now Indian Camels are worse in melee fight than Malian camels and worse against everything than Saracen camels. With this change they will be worse in melee fight than those, but better against archers.

Aryavart, Hindus, Bharat (not Hindustanis), Dravid, Braj etc

Isn’t kind of anyone? How do you dinstinguish between invader and native if you go back all the time in history?

1 Like

Invader = anyone with a different culture coming to a land to loot, oppress the natives and spread their culture forcibly like the word loot itself

Sure, but in that way almost everyone is an invader if you go back far enough in history.
I mean look at places like Britain, invaded by the Saxons, invaded by the Norseman, invaded by the Normans. How do we call them? Just British, because its the current term (although English would have made more sense).
Even if we find a country where the indigenous population never was replaced/vastly changed by invaders if we go back even further in history we can say at least for all of Europe the civilizations are invaders because before the ■■■■ Sapiens the ■■■■ Neanderthalensis was living there.

But yeah, nobody would think of British people when they here Danes, Norseman, or Normans. However Angle Saxons are synonymous with the British these days. Finding a truly native people is very difficult.

Edit: The ridiculousness of the chat filter never seizes to amaze me…

1 Like

Wrong. Bush elephants can also be trained.