Firstly, because a civ has been renamed.
That sets a precedent that that could happen to other civs too.
As a minor corollary, this opens up a path to add Tibet to the game without making a strong political statement; if a later DLC ‘splits’ Chinese into 3 or 4 kingdoms.
Secondly because the Elephant Archer is being removed as a UU.
In my eyes the EA failed as a UU, and I’m really happy to see the devs not only admit as much, but actually replace it
And I look forward to seeing how HC perform with +2 range
That’s the kind of bold design I enjoy.
hardly the first umbrella to be split, slavs, teutons/franks, and to a degree italians already got a split, so yeah that path was already laid. still don’t think Tibet happens, as much as i want it too.
I don’t see how it failed as a UU, clearly based on the price and upgrades it was designed to be a UU that is great in the late game team game situations, and gasp, it does that. furthermore this isn’t them admitting it failed, they just turned it to a regional unit is all, giving all of India the regional UU they alwas wanted.
go through the campaigns. now tell me ever time you see a civ used to stand in for another civ.
it happens all the time. Do i like that Dracula is represented by the magyars, slavs, and turks? no.
Do i think the Romanians were strong enough to warrant there own civ? also no.
Do i think that Dracula makes a fun campaign and am okay with its inclusion in the game? yes.
There is strong potential that their is only 6 slots left in the game for new civs (either by engine limitations, or design choice to prevent overwhelming players), and i don’t think we should spend those 6 on minor civs. I’d rather see the likes of Georgia/Armenia/Africa get included, as well as a potential china split before we go back to Europe proper.
well for example - in the first Barbarossa campaign we have Austria represented by the goths, the saxons represented by the Teutons, and that’s just the first mission. The riverguard is reprsented by the Franks.
and in various campaigns frequently Italian cities are represented with Franks, Britons, and others as well. (not to mention all the various meso civs using Aztecs, Mayans, or Incas as a stand in for each other).
I’m not even gonna bother going over every single one, but we it’s quite common for enemies to use whatever is close to represent them.
im really excited as well, getting so many new things will spice up game play a lot, im really exited to try all the different civs, and i cant decide which one i like more with the various unique mechanics and ideas
i liked indians before, i dont mind the changes, its new stuff so should be fun either way, and if anything allows them to play a little differently to other civs
they can rename slavs when this garbage from russia ends.
any new civs in future will be cool, especially considering they’re less likely to be generic knight civs
and finally im always surprised at how cheap these DLCs are. i only hope its sustainable for the devs
It was a lucky haoppenstance that Indians were one of those semi-problematic civs where most people didn’t quite know what to make of them.
For a civ like Chinese it would be a different matter, but for Indians I think most people would have welcomed a rework without knowing anything about what was being reworked. It was a good choice to tackle that as part of this DLC effort.
