balancing TR is good, but giving all unit types to all civs is not.(why do Dutch and Germans not have musketeers?) Balance can come in many ways, and each should be worked with what the civ has, except in extreme circumstances like Lakota needing mortars. But that does not mean they should get falconets too, they have ways to kill infantry (teepee spam) but no way to kill ships and walls effectively.
The problem with the historical thing is that the units are far stronger and diverse. If we went that route then all muskets should pretty much be the same, Infact, all unit HP should pretty much be the same, and the difference being rifle type for range and attack, but not very much, being shot by a musket or other rifle is going to do about the same damage, it would then be about accuracy and where it hit on the unit.
It would greatly change the game.
So India what very high population value and two major units with AOE damage (actually 5) make up for its lack of cannon with AOE damage. (So by your last sentence it does this, makes the units better and handles this function in a different role)
The civ was designed without heavy usage of artillery in mind. Thatâs the point. They have many other ways to work just fine without artillery, like the Lakota, Haudenosaunee, or Aztecs all do.
The design has been in place for well over a decade. Changing the entire playstyle of a civ just because a few people want to play them like a European civ isnât going to happen, and would be a poor way to approach the diverse playstyles the civs in AoE3 present.
This isnât AoE2. India has weaknesses that differ from a lot of other civs in AoE3, but they have strengths that are equally interesting. Learn to play them the way they were designed, not by forcing them to function in the same way as another faction entirely.
Soldatos are basically 2 musketeers combined with a tad more hp but less ranged damage. The grenade attack works at high range and it deals ranged damage which is blocked by ranged resistance. Off the top of my head, zumbaraks would be the easiest counter india has. They are fast so they can close the gap and force the soldatos into the inefficient ranged attack, and they can soak the grenades well due to spacing and resist.
Theory-crafting here, since I havenât actually played against Mexico, but would using Rajput + Gurkha mix against Soldatos work? It sounds like Soldatos are weaker in melee, same as any grenadier, and Iâve often used Rajput to as a decent meat shield to force the grenadiers into melee while Gurkha deal with them from a range.
That can still be worked in. At the risk of repeating myself. Access to a unit doesnât mean it can be spammed. just like technically India has access to a grenadier type unit. But spamming any decent number at a time is impossible.
But clearly the design is showing itâs limits now. Again why is access to artillery now supposed to be an European civ specialty?
India doesnât have any strength what are you talking about. Every civ has something they excel in not India and minus artillery on top of that. jack of all trades(except artillery) master of none.
Hmm⊠Yeah, Rajput are too expensive to bother wasting like that. It seems that Soldado have a fairly high melee resist and a large health pool, using Rajput against them would just be wasting resources. Not good enough of a meatshield to save the Gurkhas from getting focused.
Iâm aware that access to something doesnât mean it can be spammed, but sometimes disallowing access to something at all is the way to go. India has enough large-population units, and they have a fighting style that fits them, is unique, and is fun for those who have grown accustomed to it.
If you really want to buff India, buff Flail Elephants and remove the Light Cavalry tag from Siege Elephants. Siege Elephants are really quite strong, considering their massive health pool and their high movement speed. India has more than enough ways to counter heavy infantry en mass - Technically they have access to Jat Lancers if need be (which could really use a -1 population buff), and Urumi will decimate any heavy infantry they come across at a far more population-efficient rate than any artillery could ever hope to, as well as Gurkha being quite strong skirmishers on top of that.
Designs should have limits, itâs what makes the game function. Lakota have no artillery, but I donât see you advocating to give them cannon. Nor do the Aztecs, and the African civs donât have artillery (iirc. Could be wrong.)
Civs have design limits intentionally. India can have some trouble with cannons⊠if you donât know what youâre doing. They have five cavalry units, which is more than the average civ has. Cavalry are the main counter to artillery - Culverin only exist because a lot of civs donât have strong cavalry units, which is absolutely not the case with India.
Indiaâs strength is in the earlier game. Their units are strong, but their economy will lag behind in treaty games. This is intentional. They are absolutely strong in the late game⊠when in the hands of someone who can play them extraordinarily well, but they have a weaker late-game economy and military than treaty powerhouses like France, Japan, Russia, and China. This is intentional. Not every civ needs to be S tier in treaty games - India is a solid B+/A- tier.
And honestly? Indiaâs military is far more varied than most civs. They have a strong skirmisher, a strong musket, 5 cavalry units, most of which are pretty damn strong, and the fastest and most versatile artillery unit in the game, as it can effectively be used against artillery, buildlings, ships, and isnât terrible against infantry masses, although youâre better off using other units for that. On top of all that, they have Urumi, which is an absolute monster and easily the best âskirmisherâ type unit in the game, despite being melee. This is because they deal 89.25 ranged damage (in an AoE attack) to melee units in the same amount of time it takes for a Gurkha to get off one shot - With Royal Green Jackets, the Gurkha will do 48 damage, and only to a single target.
They should have. At the same time appropriately debuffing their melee heavy infantry.
Creating artificial limitations where it doesnât make sense isnât sound game design. It was another reason why aoe3 was so woefully received by the wider community.
Creating artificial limitations(which donât have any context) is never the way to go. Itâs like an open world RPG game which has the entire map locked away and only unlocks more pieces of the map when you complete the next quest.
I didnât know Lakota and Aztecs used to build canons. Again good to know.
So itâs intentional that you can only play certain civs in certain game modes?? Ok then.
But they donât excel in anything either. And before you try hyping up urumi I am pretty sure equal number urumi lose to equal number soldaro when being buffed by generals
Using DPS per 3 seconds, since thatâs the lowest common denominator between the DPS of Urumi and Soldado:
Soldado will deal 48 damage to Urumi every 3 seconds.
Urumi will deal 89.25 damage to Soldado every 3 seconds.
Soldado have 300 base health. Urumi have 160. Soldado can target 1 unit at a time. Urumi deal damage in an AoE of 1, with a damage cap of 114 to nearby units.
Frankly, I donât think Soldado stand much of a chance. It takes 3.4 seconds for an Urumi to kill a Soldado, but it takes 6.6 seconds for a Soldado to kill an Urumi. It can be assumed itâll be slightly faster for the Urumi, as nearby Urumi will deal additional damage while a Soldado can only target 1 Urumi at a time.
ADD: These are base stats, but Iâm going to assume it doesnât change a whole lot when upgrades are applied. Stats donât usually hugely differentiate, ratio wise, from base stats to upgraded stats.
What are you talking about the urumi have to reach the soldado first. So they take aoe damage then they take muzzle fire then melee. Which when buffed by generals is hang on a minute let me confirm.
Disregard this. I just realized I misread Urumiâs base health - itâs 260, not 160.
Urumi have 30% ranged resist. Soldado will deal 25.2 ranged damage to Urumi, which is literally 1.2 more damage than they in melee.
But once DPS is considered, this falls by a lot. Soldado deal 25.2 damage to Urumi per 3 seconds from a range, which is basically negligible when Urumi are dealing 89.25 damage to Soldado per 3 seconds.
Adding all available Indian improvements onto the Urumi results in their health being 260(2.15) while their attack is 17(2.30), which results in 559 health and 205.275/3 seconds to Soldados, with an area cap of 262.2/3 seconds.
Thatâs 205 of the Soldadoâs health every 3 seconds, while the Soldado does 134 to the Urumi every 3 seconds. It wouldnât be particularly close, as the health difference is fairly small (<100). Granted, Soldado from a range would be backing them up, but unless the Soldado are using their mortar attack, theyâre not gonna be doing as much as the Urumi will do with their AoE attacks, as Urumi have a 30% range resist.
EDIT: Math notation is not supported by markdown, so using asterisk just resulted in weird italics.
Unless youâre absolutely trash at maneuvering your Urumi, that isnât going to happen. You donât just throw Urumi across an open field at a heavy infantry.
Is that what youâve been doing???
that would explain why you think Urumi are so bad.
You have to protect Urumi and give them cover fire, drawing attention away from them before you send them in, or send them in heavily protected by other units. If you just send Urumi across an open field at heavy infantry, theyâll be obliterated before they ever get close, but if you get them into the heavy infantry, theyâll obliterate heavy infantry.