Even if you view it as unimportant, the fact is that imp camels were nerfed for a reason and still retain advantages over other camels, even jf its not across the board.
1 Like
Devs sought same approach on Indians what they did to Franks and Vikings. These 3 civs were OP because they had too good eco, however, Devs didn’t touch their eco, instead, they nerfed their Imperial Age strength (thumb ring removal, Chivalry sended to Imperial Age, Imperial Camel nerf).
Actually, this bonus intended to help camels replace knight line for Indians. +1 PA together with +4 atk vs buildings makes them oppressive in team games. But removing the last cavalry armor makes them weak against arbalest in late game. Though it is understandable, this change shows how poorly Indians was designed.
1 Like
Old +1 PA Heavy Camel took 28 shots to kill. FU cavalier takes 35. New +0 PA Heavy Camel takes 23.
Heavy Camel base atk = 7
7+4 = 11
Cavalier base atk = 12
So Cavalier soak more shots than camels and still do more damage vs buildings, making two of Indian’s bonuses just making up for the fact they lack knights.
Imp camel upgrade gives +2 atk and +20 HP (3 more shots).
Normally civ bonuses gives better version of lacking generic upgrades like Celts, Cumans (+15% speed in exchange of +10% speed upgrades). Armor bonus can be +1/+1 in Castle Age and +2/+2 in Imperial Age.
Except the change was made because imp camels were too strong in team games all around, so making them +2/2 contradicts the point of the change…
2 Likes
But many civs like Saracens got the Knight line replaced by something else, often weaker than Imperial Camels.
It is really problematic that Sicilians can research Hauberk for its knight-line instead of Indian light cav-line. I think the second UT can be moved to civ bonus and Indians light cav line gain Hauberk-like UT.
Saracens still has knight and full blacksmith. They can do solid knight rush. Their archers is beyond average plus FU hussars. Saracens are not weak to archer like Indians.
In Castle Age Indians have FU light cav with 1 more pierce armour than generic ones. In Imperial they aren’t weaker vs Archers than generic Hussars.
On top they have Onagers with SE and FU Elite Skirms.
Not to mention saracens have fu cav archers
1 Like
Saracens FU knight>>>Indian light cav +1 PA to fight archers. Knight-line have way more HP and atk.
Generic Hussar actually have 1 more MA and PA than Indians one. Indians Hussar is strong in Early Imperial but fall off quickly.
But that doesn’t matter vs Archers. Are you sure their Hussars have less PA than generic ones?
Not every civ can be a knight rush civ.
Suddenly mix with Indians Imperial camel. 
Eh no. Guys like it or not indian light cav in castle age are better than any civs knights vs archers. More pierce armor means they tank the exact same amount of shots like a knight (making up for the less hp) while costing a lot less. You just need some more farms that’s it. And atk doesn’t really matter vs xbows.
Indian camels also don’t have less pa than regular camels. Cmon the maths behind Indian pierce armor isn’t that difficult is it? 11
agreed, especially since LC start massing from feudal already, and their speed allows them to close the gap sooner, all for the sacrifice of needing 1 more hit to kill an archer (and the atk speed hardly makes a difference in this case)
i think the issue is when you start to factor pikes, eagles or monks (LC are vastly superior v monks) and LC are terrible at busting down walls (unlike knights)
it is very funny how we’ve almost come full circle from people complaining that “turks with +1PA will be OP” to
“i would rather have the most generic knight than +1PA”