AoE2.net is running again. I think he is busy.
1 Like
E-skirms only does +2 bonus damage to cav archer. But does +6 to Ratha now. Hence at 25% its only 1 less damage and at 50% is 3 less bonus damage.
Obviously this needs to be balanced by removing conversion resistance of Bengali elephants to make monks a hard counter to Battle Ele and Ele Archer. Elephant rams will take 4 less damage which is okay.
Aoe2 supports fractional hit point even if they arenât properly displayed
1 Like
Those ratios still need to be tested. Iâm not sure itâs acceptable for Crossbowmen and Arbalesters to be the same or even faster than infantry with Squires.
Also, Iâm not sure if this bonus should benefit EA as well. Their EA already has a bonus.
Simply giving Husbandry maybe a better way, then this speed bonus may become to benfit only the Archer line.
If we still want EA to have both this speed bonus and Husbandry, then EA maybe should not have the rate of fire bonus.
The fishing bonus is fine, I would like to let it alone.
1 Like
CA and Ratha are in the same armor class with the same armor values. E skirms do 4 attack vs all archers and an additional 2 vs mounted archers. So they both take the same damage.
The advantage Rathas have against skirms over CA is their almost double HP, which kinda feels like half damage anyways (they cost almost 20% more but can switch into melee mode to kill them quickly).
Ooh! Yes. I calculated for Ratha. But just took the value on armour for Cav archer. But Ratha has a huge hit box. E skirms barely miss. When my friend and I try to scenario and play âRatha vs E skirmsâ then compare to âCav archer vs skirmsâ. Ratha comes out very poor. The speed advantage multiples the hit box problem.
From a resource perspective, Ratha is not just 20% costlier. It also requires a castle which makes it harder to mass and very hard on economy. So if Ratha have to work like conqs they need better bonus damage reduction.
The melee mode change sounds good in theory. But generally I never get the timing right. Iâm sure its the same for most players too.
It would be a newbie mistake to go infantry vs Dravidians who can ignore amour. Dravidian weakness is siege and cavalry. Unfortunately meso civs can completely overwhelm Dravidians due to Eagle speed and cheap cost of creation early in the game. Dravidian fast moving Archers can counter raid to even this disadvantage.
EA should have this bonus as well. If anything, we can see in practice whether speed is the only problem of elephant archers since they can disengage from fights taking minimal damage from skirms. Devs have not given husbandry even after 2 patches which means this design might stay. The faster firing skirms and EA bonus can be switched with this. The gameplay will definitely be up a notch and unique.
The hitbox shouldnât be a problem. Neither skirms have poor accuracy nor they are dealing blast damage. So if the opponent has Ballistics, both of them are equally likely to get hurt.
Itâs okay. 1 civ can be an exception.
1 Like
Iâm still not sure about that much of a speed boost to generic units. 5% or 10% is ok and the counter units can still manage to surround and kill. But at 1.15, theyâre nearly the speed of plumed archers and its extremely difficult to catch up and surround them. Theyâll just easily run back under their castles or closer to their halbs. Iâd prefer to start out this way at 5% feudal and 10% castle age and maybe just maybe if its still seems weak, extend it to 15% in imp.
These stats donât imply anything other than the fact that Bengalis are overall a weak civ. Weakness against skirms doesnât mean if a civ has strong skirms its going to be very powerful against Bengalis, it rather means if a civ has good eco and generic skirmishers, Bengalis have almost no options against it.
This is what I advocated for as well in the older Bengalis thread, and still think itâs the best place to start. Lacking knights, either BE or Ratha ought to be made more viable early on, and BE is kind of a long shot for 1v1.
I donât think giving Dravidians faster archers is a good fit though. Sure, itâll bump up their win rates, and itâs less bland than just giving them knights. But itâs literally just running away from the civâs weakness to knights/skirms/siege (and lack of a good raiding unit). It also seems pretty odd thematically given the design focus on infantry and eles - IMO it would fit much better on a new American or African civ, which will have fewer available unit lines to make them strong. Start with making EA, Urumis, and possibly BEs viable for Dravidians before fully turning them into just another archer civ.
Donât agree. Cavalry serve a very different purpose from even very fast ranged units (CA). Faster archers are better at running away, but will still have more or less the same problems vs. siege, knights, and even skirms when they take a fight.
This is very true. IIRC Rathas have the same size hit box as a knight, but it seems much larger due to their lower speed and how much they bump into each other. Among other things I think decreasing their hit box size would be a small but useful buff.
Eh, just give them Husbandry. Will also (slightly) help address their useless Battle Eles and make their scoutline ~ okay in lategame.
Yup! Elephant conversion resistance does not seem to be practical in games. Its best to bump bonus damage resistnce to at least 33% if not 50% and include Rathas as a beneficiary too.
Vikings and Japanese too are an infantry civ. But they play like an archer civ for the most part. Only in late game they switch to infantry. The only infantry civ that plays like infantry civ and an archer civ that can play like an infantry civ are the aztecs and mayans respectively. The design is simple. They donât have cavalry and make up for it with eagles. Yet both civs get options in the form of military creation speed for aztecs and plume archers to tech switch when needed. They get defensive skirmishers bonuses like Atlatl and Hulche to be able to exercise options when needed. I donât see a problem with Dravidians getting similar options.
Sure, which I donât think is ideal from a design or variety standpoint, but at this point letâs consider it a necessary evil. Their playing out as archer civs manifests merely as having most (Vikings) or all (Japanese) of the generic Archer upgrades, and the eco to make it work, not by having a special bonus for archers. Which is already more or less the case with Dravidians - their archer play is very similar to Japanese, with a wood bonus that provides a similar effect (varied by timing and longevity). Whatâs lacking is their complimentary options, specifically mobile melee. IMO it would be as weird thematically to give Dravidians a specific archer bonus as it would be to give one to Japanese or Vikings, and I donât think itâs a robust solution to their previously discussed weaknesses. Nor to the overly niche elephants in the room, which (along with the Urumi), ought to be repurposed into more viable units. Otherwise they would just be totally ignored in favor of these archers with exceptional micro potential. Which again, would be great on another civ that doesnât have to deal with all this baggage of being an âinfantry/ele/navalâ civ.
Dravidians get a skirmisher bonus for free that improves DPS, as those UTs do. Maybe it could be buffed to 30% or something, but I donât see what this has to do with them needing to also get fast archers. In any case, I surely canât convince you to abandon this idea (not that it would matter to the devs), but why not work with the existing units before coming up with a new bonus for a unit line thatâs not intended as part of the civâs identity? (beyond getting the generic techs, as previously discussed). If youâre doing it in the interest of ele viability, just give them Husbandry, or even something like 5/10/15% speed for ele units without husbandry would be helpful to their Siege eles as well as EAs and BEs.
Iâm not doing this in the interest of elephant viability. Elephants require a high food production bonus which dravidians donât have. Even to spam urumis they need to transition their whole economy to farming. So Elephants are not worth the effort.
Yup! A risk averse defensive buff would be to buff the attack speed to 33% for skirms and ele archers. But the gameplay will remain the same with zero options for a tech switch. They will still play archers. So without bread and butter units like knights, devs do need to innovate when they want a civ to play in a completely unique manner.
Which is why I gave examples of meso civs. They make up for lack of heavy cavalry with strong offensive archer and infantry options despite being one or the other types infantry or archer civilizations. Even Incas follow the same design philosophy. So its a proven design based on meso civs.
Well within the theme of infantry there are radical solutions for Dravidian options. In place of +15 fishing and 50% discount barrack tech, Dravidians could use a different barracks based technology buff.
âBarrack techs affect all land based military unitsâ
It means supplies, squires and arson affect all land based military units. There will be no need for husbandry for elephants and light cav. Dravidian siege will get a type of anti-building bonus despite not having siege engineers. Woots already considers infantry and cavalry as same type. We can have a glass cannon cheaper light cav for raiding and anti-building attacks. Archers and skirms will get a speed bump as well which is really needed in castle age. They do a little bit of building damage by destroying palasides which have no place in castle age. Siege will gain a little bit of speed as well without any corresponding attack buffs. A side benefit will be elephants will not be slow and supplies will make it a bit more affordable. All the while the theme firmly stays on the barracks based techs. If required, even the skirm and elephant archer bonus can be removed. It will be a good overhaul for the civ and puts their gameplay in an interesting new light.
Iâm eagerly waiting for Nubians with faster moving foot archers.
A smaller version of Khsatriya is probably a good choice for them. 15% food discount on military units except scout line. Lose Supplies.
Add Malay. Even Incas sometimes used to do back in voobly days. And now Dravidians.
I donât like another Infantry civ which is a Foot Archer civ on practice. Just make their EA more viable. Extra speed/less cost. Another option is give Medical Corps free. New UT will reduce all Elephant units cost by 20%. Maybe remove EA firing speed.
1 Like
IMO the most obvious aspect of the American civs is the Eagle Warrior serving as a knight alternate. Dravidians also lack knight, so a lot of people have been drawn to the idea of making the Urumi serve a similar role for Dravidians that Eagles serve for American civs. Higher PA, Speed, and or gold-to-food ratios would all be helpful in that regard (with toned down damage/gimmicks).
This is too expansive. Paying 100F for Squires basically gives you free Husbandry, Top-tier archer line, the Lithuanian Skirm Bonus, and Wagenburg Tactics-Lite for Gunpowder units. Similar idea with Supplies giving you Kshatriyas-lite despite having some of the best lategame Halbs/Skirms, unlike Gurjaras.
However, I like the idea of Barracks techs applying to other units, and have suggested it myself as part of a civ design. But I think Barracks techs applying to elephant units would be sufficient, and fit the infantry and elephant theme very well. EAs, BEs, and AE/SEs being discounted by 15 food, moving 10% faster, and getting +2 vs. buildings would be a very solid viability buff. That and a Urumi rework might be enough to make Dravidians decent.
Exactly, I think that would be a much better fit. The tl;dr of my comments in this thread is: work with what you already have before you resort to bonusing units the civ isnât designed around/would be better for other civs.
Or Supplies applies to ele units as well. That way you donât have to worry about buffing their already strong halbs/skirms or carving out exceptions for units like scouts.
1 Like
Hey,
Thankfully yes it is although they havenât restored the main endpoint I use so need to rework a non-insignificant part of the code. Also need to do some quality checks about the data before and after the blackout. But yer bigger limitation atm is the new baby girl 
hoping once I get some spare time again Iâll get around to restoring the site. Apologies for the downtime
7 Likes
Congrats daddy!
Take you as much time as you like, there are things in life that are more important than others.
1 Like
Congrats Buddy! Have a good time with family!
I had already stated before that Dravidians donât have the economy bonuses to keep elephant production. It is not for Dravidians to carry the responsibility of making elephants a viable unit. In fact, Medical corps is currently probably the most unused/useless tech in the game. In its place, a infantry buff will serve Dravidians well.
Begnalis are an elephant civ. Lets buff their elephant bonus reduction bonus. Let us see if it helps.
To make infantry a viable alternative to cavalry and archers, Dravidians should have infantry that outdoes heavy cavalry in castle age and not in late imperial age after âWootsâ.
âBarrack techs will have double the effectâ
will be a very good replacement for medical corps. It means supplies, squires and arson will have double the effect when researched by Dravidian player.