You win every TG with Imperial Camels.
0 civ should have Imperial Camel.
1 Like
That has many people disagreeing with it?
I don’t call that popular…
I’m sorry, but you are trolling with spamming his quote…
@anon63664082 once said something very wise:
1 Like
Elephant Archer is actually decent now…
3 Likes
you don’t know the context/background of why I said that.
I was referring to a discussion on a similar topic that was active during the same time when this thread was created and this same guy was in the other topic as well and the same words were repeated in both places. same arguments.
That is only theory man, in real games with skilled players the imperial camel with archers on the back is dominating the TG scene, paladin is better yeah but it can’t do any damage if there are camels around, also the indian player can just wipe out the paladin pkt by himself.
Something theoretical players don’t understand is how easy is to mass camels, indian economy allows them to mass them fast, get nice imp timing and once they have imp camel it is quite over, heavy camel already beats all paladin line, but imperial camel is beyond that, they obliterate paladins, camel is faster, indian camel actually destroys buildings faster than paladins, they can take archers out, beat champ line like flies, so you tell me how would you counter imp camel+arbalest? it was already proven in 1x1 when indians had arbalest how in experts hands camel+arbalest was unstoppable in that level, just for you to give an idea that stopping that combo ain’t easy even for pros.
Like i said in other tread, imp camel has bonus vs all cavalry line, cav archer line, mounted UU, buildings, its HP and pierce armor kills ranged units and also militia line, IMP camel is only weak vs halb, but they can avoid them forever and no other mobile unit is going to stop them or catch them.
All camel civs are in disadvantage, saracens vs indians is the worse match up, the true camel civ that was one of the most powerful civs during aoe times can’t do nothing vs imp camel, their expensive zealotry mamelukes and camels just die vs imp camel despite having more hp, the reason is not only the camel but the HUGE economy lead.
Having said that, i hope you understand how paladin has no room when an indian player is in the same game, paladin players can only win if there is a different dimension on skills, back at aoc even byzantine camels was enough to kills paladins, now imagine having +40 HP more and +2 attack on unit and +2 attack of blast furnace lol.
1 Like
Then again, are we gonna witch hunt someone here just because of what they did before?
Byzantine camels aren’t generic, they have a discount
Cheaper yeah, but in combat worse than generic camel, even ethiopian camel hits harder vs cavalry.
i bet you 25% more camels does better then having BF + BL camels.
1 Like
In imp their options are indeed fine but the issue is in castle age. Neither having knights nor any bonuses for archery range units (besides not being able to upgrade to arb in early imp) really is a drawback if you are not up against a cav civ.
Their eco is pretty good but it’s not like they’d have the best one. The nerf was only about vils gathering fish which is rather irrelevant on most maps.
But I agree with you that this doesn’t amount to a bad civ design. I mean they are great for tgs and they are very good against cav/ca civs like huns, tartars or magyars. So it’s not too bad if they aren’t the greatest 1v1 arabia allrounder civ.
Saying that it would be over powered is not a good answer at all. I think Indians should have battle elephants too because a whole species of elephants is originally from India. If that leaves the civ in some kind of op spot, then all you need to do is to put nerfs somwhere else for balancing.
I also think chineese should get acces to all gunpowder units, since they invented it. Same thing, nerf other stuff if that’s to op, that’s all.
It’s a historical game, you can’t act has if historical accuracy isn’t important at all.
Good Job necroing a 2 years old thread, and no, Indians won’t get battle elephants because it will be too OP for TGs, better make the elephant archer worth to use.
4 Likes
Just for a moment I thought we got details about the “Porto” DLC and it is an Indian expansion and therefore this thread is necroed.
Its a game based in history not a historical game.
2 Likes
First of all this thread is 2 years old.
Second of all, if historical accuracy is important explain
Mamelukes. (Throwing swords)
Throwing axeman. (Throwing dbl headed axes)
Camels units on wrong camels.
Chinese without gunpowder.
Meso civs with wheels, steel, and xbows among other things.
Mayans as an archer civ.
Spanish without crossbows.
Genitours being a berber unit.
Vikings with an insane economy.
Among many others.
Furthermore the historical accuracy for indians having elephants is already met by their unique unit.
Furthermore this game has never considered historical accuracy important at all. It has always been historically influenced but not accurate.
3 Likes
Why would you bring this up? Even I have almost forgotten about this thread
1 Like
This week, our reminder that I pushed to have extremely outdated threads locked and archived so people would make new threads instead of pinging people from literally two years ago, and a clear and present, vocal minority, actually argued that this would be a bad idea because they want to come back to a thread a year later and retort “no u.” I’m certain this hasn’t proved my point yet but I’m further convinced that nothing will.
Welcome to the Necroverse.
1 Like