Eagle Warrior has its own league among infantry units. Aztecs with their only Eagle Warriors is best infantry civ in the game. 50% cheaper tech plus +2 attack is enough to say a civ infantry civ. +2 attack works much more than it seems. For instance:
Halberdier kills Generic Light Cav in 2 hit ← 3 hit.
Halberdier kills Elite Leitis, Konnik, Keshik, Heavy Camel in 4 hit ← 5 hit.
Champion kills Generic Champions in 5 hit ← 6 hit.
Halberdier kills Franks and Teutons Paladin in 5 hit ← 6 hit.
Glad to see that more people have realized this civ is pointless and should have been merged in someway with Bengalis to give an above average civ instead of 2 abysmal civs.
If the armour ignoring damage was a base feature of the Urumi, that might plausibly be the intention. But the effect comes from Wootz Steel, so the explanation is supposed to be that weapons made of higher-quality steel can penetrate armour. That would probably be true for a sword or pike, but not for an urumi.
Teutons: +0 /1 / 2 (armor) for free
Burmese: +1 / 2 / 3 (attack) for free
Aztecs: +4 (attack) for 450 food 750 gold
Vikings: +5 (attack) againist cavalry for 700 food 500 gold (I leave camel case)
If Wootz Steel is free, in Feudal Age it is worst than Burmese because all unit are 0 or 1 armor
In Castle Age it is slight better than Burmese most of the time given that knight is still dominant in Castle Age
In Imperial Age it is absolutely OP especially high armor unit like paladin are there.
In current engine I don’t think they can make it ignore 1 armor in Feudal and ignore 2 armor in Castle and ignore 3 armor in Imperial until UT upgrade you get full armor ignore. Although it will be a bit fair treatment for this civ,
One of the reason I guess why Teutons and Burmese are free not because the bonus value is smaller than Aztecs and Vikings, but the fact that these two civ lack of good Skirmisher and the civ design is that they focus on melee fight with limit option on countering range unit. Dravidians is bad but it has machine gun EA to handle range unit if needed
If Wootz Steel is free I think they may take away the Barracks discount for compensation
I mean I guess developer only give the free melee damage bonus for civ that don’t have enough option to deal with range unit like Teuton and Burmese. So that different civ have diversity.
For Aztecs Dravidians Vikings they are mean to be weak/no calvary with strong but costly melee UT
The exceptional one is Japanese which have strong free melee bonus plus full archery tech tree but its eco bonus after mid game is relatively weak
But why not. I agree to give free Wootz Steel on Dravidians to make it a top tier infantry civ. After that its eco bonus and Barracks technologies discount will be nerf like Burgundians
Because Aztecs lack of whole stable line and Japan lack of good mid game eco bonus.
imho eco bonus is too strong in hybird map so developer must going to nerf it. And removing tech discount is find and I hope that they leave Halberdier and do not take it away like Viking
I just feel it would be a lot better for the game that way. Not dreaming about it happening. Pretty much like most of the changes people wish over here in forums.
The best infantry related bonus is the Malians p.armor and its still not OP. Infantry attack related bonuses are never OP because infantry is always too niche and the civs which get strong bonuses for infantry lack multiple important upgrades in their tech tree. The same is applicable for Dravidians.
the game carries itself from early to late game. if you do well then effect snowballs and affects late game. though balances and different civ bonuses/stats affect how game is played, a bit chunk of it is up to the player themselves as well.
it has been built on this since AOK days and long since core this game so it’ll be hard to change at this point, not saying I don’t agree with you and I would also like ot see some more imp/expensive gold units often.
I think wololo funding the game mode EW for esport has some effect but if majority of players still like RM starting darkage then it obviously wouldn’t help.
perhaps the dev can test around with shortening age up time and lowering cost of age up tech as well.
Wow, I do not expect this kind of agreement on the internet!
If Dravidians were added back in Age of Kings or The Conquerors, there’d be a nice description of Wootz Steel in the manual, explaining exactly why it grants armour-ignoring damage. You know, just like how The Conquerors manual explains exactly how the Celts’ reputation as aggressive and emotional fighters gives their siege weapons extra hit points…
Man, that offhanded little comment got way more mileage than intended, and none of it in a good way. I’m very aware of this. My comment was pushback against people who go out of their way to talk about early game or how the game is balanced around Arabia 1v1s or the like any time any kind of late-game aspects are discussed. We get it, but that doesn’t mean that lategame units/techs aren’t relevant within their sphere, or can’t be significant overall.
And a lot of good changes suggested didn’t happen either. Anyways I just posted what would have been better for the game after the DLC imo. I know some obvious balance changes like Crossbow upgrade nerf, Leitis nerf, Hindustanis nerf did happen as suggested in forums. I’m not making a suggestion to merge the civs which I know wouldn’t happen. Just sharing the sentiment that 2 poorly designed civs are worse than 1 well balanced or slightly strong civ.
you dont need to think too much of it. when offending people its very clear and most of my comment would be an insult.
as i mentioned in previous post that dev could test water with lowering age up time as well as cost of age up. there of course would be push back, imho I think its better than EW where it skips darkage entirely. each to their own.
its just difficult to change something that has been the same for such a long time, it’d change the core gameplay and usually that is met with harsh criticism.