No, 95% of India’s problems in treaty games are train times. But, to avoid giving them a boring train time boost, giving them a tech to train in batches of 10 would solve the problem and lean into their playstyle heavier.
1 Like
Are you trying to suggest the pros haven’t figured out how to make multiple barracks for treaty?
com certeza ter 3 de dano de área seria equilibrado
1 Like
It did not seem like you did, sorry If I offended you. It seems odd for someone though who uses urumi to not advocate for them very much, most of your reasoning dismiss the unit. You should have enough wood saved up that you do not need to rely on wood crates right away, that argument is why I al
so think you do not use them very much as you seem to be lacking resources since you forgo the fur trade.
Also should not really need to be making mahouts anymore… you will get better value out of spamming flail eles until they are reverted back to normal stats. Flail ele may look weak but have a very high damage cap, so are more cost efficient. and with 50% resist are pretty tanky.
Urumi are not trainable because in great numbers are too OP. Its a hard unit to balance stat wise. I have been in FFA’s where I have had been able to store up a couple shipments of them and make a start army with them and its almost a troll strat.
it is because of arguments like this that I think you do not use Urumi… If you did you would know, no one should use halbs, samurai and to an extent even fully upgraded dopples (they are about an even trade but much cheaper) vs india using sepoy and urumi. (and of course siege eles)
This is why indias fur trade is so benefical because once the fighting starts one does not need 100 vils for food, so one can delete down and keep a strong mass or add in some extra Siege ele to counter the cannon better.
here I agree with you, that India can easily make a FB large enough that 10 batch training is not needed.
However infantry should not train any fast than it does (except maybe royal green jackets could add like 15% for gurka only) sepoy need to be slower because India can build barracks with them. They would be too strong if they trained at near equal to euro civs.
2 Likes
Because they play right into India’s other very glaring and obvious weakness of lack of artillery. Treating the urumi like some holy grail is very absurd also.
I don’t know what level you play at but it obviously isn’t high enough. Any decent player knows how to pretty much two unit counter all of India’s units.
I used mostly India in Legacy to attain a major ranking in TR. Rank then was in the top 100 for TR. and I do not even use that many hot keys, and drag box everything, with a moderate APM, I just have good game knowledge and knew how to use my troops and keep a balanced army. I got to that point and it became very hard to find games to play so I went back to FFA. I am primarily a FFA player and understand the civ early and late. What rank do you play at?
I made them work then and DE has only made them better. Cannon won’t really help as much because you will soon be complaining that the Siege elephant does not protect them well enough vs culvs,
Urumi mahout kill infantry faster than cannon, so yeah it kinda is a very viable situation… if you made them you would know that. India gets cannons, just make the best of them
India should not get trainable cannons. Their weakness should not be made a strength, or they would have no weaknesses. That is how asymmetric balance works.
A 100 ranking is ok but still nothing spectacular in AoE 3 as the player base is so small. I mean a doofus like me can manage 300 in de so that gives a frame of reference.
Canons will help. Having more options is always better than having none at all and it will force the opponent from overly relying on heavy infantry spam to also make cavs. The one area India sort of excels at. The urumi don’t do that as the opponent pretty much take care of them in 2 canon volleys.
Again what bizzarre logic is this. Just because a civ has access to a unit doesn’t mean they excell at it. Make them slow, population inefficient and expensive just like they did for eles.
You being bad at the civ and wanting to change their entire design to match every other civ is not grounds for an argument.
4 Likes
Are the pros also then bad at the civ or is that not a valid argument??
What the top few percent can do is largely irrelevant, as their strategies hinge on things like Jannisaries having 5 less attack than Sepoy. They play a game of numbers that the vast majority of players will never encounter.
1 Like
Tip top players get above the rest with insane APM and use of hotkeys. if I could do that I would have been much higher, but I actually was clicking on my barracks, and clicking on the unit type I wanted, were as pros i would play were pressing 2 keys to get to highlighted barracks and pressing a key to make what they want.
That is one asinine argument. They know the strengths and weaknesses of civs like the back of their hands. They obviously know India has large gaping easily exploitable weaknesses and don’t find it worth bothering with.
Do you play India in treaty??
India is a niche civ, its good for pros who want to level down a little to play with mediocre players. I do not want to see it a top tier OP civ that everyone wants to play in TR. It has its good and bad matchups. What should be changed should already exist within the civ. Not adding or taking away from it.
Its a good civ and can be made better with a few adjustments, as stated eco fix= revert karni mata
military, needs faster train camels, and urumi shipments, and mahout pathing fixed.
1 Like
Even I do that. This is much easier in aoe 3 as you can train batches of units in 2 you have to do it one at a time.
So you advocate wanting to reduce player choice then and not increase it. Meaning you want matches to mostly consist of the same handful of civs. I mean that is a tactic. Not a very good one but sure that is one way to go for killing the player base.
I said not taking away… you have a choice… if you want more cannons, turn it up at the consulate. will get 60% more.
This game is build upon asymetric design. Not every civ should have it all. and those that do become ridiculed with no respect for the players that play them.
India is special, because it is a lot like Ottos, but more melee focused where as Ottos are artillery focused.
I think the civ you really want to play is Ottos. I dont want India to become too much like Ottos. I want India to be India, so the buffs should center around the dynamic of urumi and mahouts which is what India was designed to use. they work so much better together than alone.
What kills player base is when things are either too much alike or too imbalanced. Adding cannon just complicated the balance. India does not need more than the cannon it can get from the consulate (which are a free thing BTW!)
1 Like
Not every civ can be a top tier civ, that’s literally impossible. India will probably never be up there.
Well if you don’t actually play India then what you want should have very little bearing on the discussion now shouldn’t it. As though India has some spectacularly powerful and accessible melee units to make it classify as a melee civ.