This makes me think that they don’t know how to make a civ.
Delhi was good with this tactic and other players only needed to send some villagers or scouts to defend this , no idea why they just deleted that because they thought all civs need to play in the same way , Delhi was balanced but now? A bad civ.
You know ? I’m always positive and congratulating the devs of this game and defending them but now it’s time to see the true.
Delhi isn’t good now , they could fix this and making them capable of research the technology but making the cost much higher
edit 1 : this is no sense , sorry . delhi has all of its technologys for free lol
At higher level it dragged every single Delhi game into all-in feudal army and there was no other viable strategy. If they other player boomed or did anything else, Delhi had 5-10 feudal units out guarding every sacred site and/or walls/outposts and was still outbooming the opponent with 600 gpm for free. You could not defend with a couple scouts and vills cause they would die to 5+ spears or horseman or archers guarding a sacred site.
Now they kind of suck but at least they can make balance changes instead of designing the civ around 1 strategy.
They tried to make them viable with the faster dark/feudal techs but not only do half those techs cost way more do to bugs, the imp nerf is over the top, and they have 2 landmarks that don’t work.
Tower war elephant changes the train time if you toggle it on off
House of learning honed blades research time is imperially calculated x15 which is a joke by itself. And if you choose this tech then hisar academy hugs out in next age.
Compound of the defender isn’t needed , your infantry can be tricked into building stone walls if you ask them to build a palisade wall first and use a villager to outline the stone wall. Infantry will start building the stone wall automatically after finishing the palisade wall
Again. I am not talking about ANYONE that voices opinions of dissatisfaction. By all means, criticize. Being critical of any medium (ideally) creates healthy communication and progressive changes. I have my own criticisms about the game and decisions that have been made. But, spewing a bunch of hyperbole in text-based tantrums does nothing constructive for the community, the developers or the game and only creates a toxic, bitter-filled environment that does the exact opposite of creating healthy communication or progressive changes.
This I agree with, but neither does opening a post by calling people “karens” (without even getting into all the problems with using that in particular as a slur).
That’s fair and I probably could have specified a bit better in the OP the type of behavior I was referring to, but it was 3 AM, so I wasn’t exactly fully cognizant lol.
I think the solution to mass archers performing well against mass horsemen comes down to addressing the fact that ranged units in RTSs can focus units in a way melee units can’t.
Cavalry should be able to push enemy footsoldiers, or at least ranged infantry (maybe only spears are immune). This way, when a group of cavalry reaches a group of archers they can properly surround and trap the units, and more easily get multiple horsemen into attack range.
(As an aside, maybe Elephants can do this too, but to any unit/any non-siege, letting them push their way around cavalry, spears)
I mean every other civ has a unique and generally powerful feudal age unit while Delhi has nothing but efficient production, which is really just trading out a 150g (or 75g) for 150w and some villager build time to make another military production building. The devs and a lot of players are trying to boil down this sacred site tactic into something that was one dimensional, when in reality it was very diverse in terms of the build orders and strategies used. It promoted scouting from both players and for both players to get out on the map in a variety of ways. I don’t see how that is unhealthy for the game in comparison to just sitting in your base.
And like others have said there are a number of other “one-dimensional” strategies from other civs, like french and english sending longbows/knights to your base, or having to contest Rus by killing hunt. If a civ is given a strength people of course are going to have to respond to it in some way in order to mitigate it. As it stands now Delhi pretty much has nothing. Sure Delhi’s research times were changed and maybe that’s supposed to help them out, but given the number of bugs that have cropped up due to that change it begs the question, why were these changes to Delhi pushed through when they clearly weren’t tested at all. What is healthier for the game; to have Delhi players using sacred sites, or to basically remove 1 out of 8 civs because they now have 0 viable strategies?
The issue was more about only one strategy being viable for opponents and the civ. French can all in knights but they don’t have to. English can Ram push but they don’t have to (and that was also nerfed to not be viable
You can still boom or go feudal military in different ways vs the civs.
Basically, the decision was do we want the entire Delhi design to be balanced around winning feudal age sacred sites. If not, they have to nerf it.
They are supposed to have a strong eco with the free upgrades which is a nice bonus, the issue is half of them are bugged.
Not only you spend 150/75 gold for that scholar which occupies 1 pop space as well. You lose him if your military production building gets attacked and destroyed by your opponent. Unless you can outpace him and get out before he destroys it. So you not just lose wood, you lose the scholar as well. And the time spent to train him and landmark specifically built for him is wasted as well. This whole scholar mechanic asks too much from the player.
Not entirely accurate. Efficient Production ALSO doubles the production speed of your researched Technology in military buildings. With Efficient Production, you can effectively cut the number of monks you need to reach the standard research time in half. So, it does a bit more than just giving you a double barrack.