Indeed. For whatever reason though, people sometimes fixate on the part of the post I consider least important, or take things of context to create some unproductive tangent. Not really a surprise on a forum where people necro 2 year old threads to add some boring comment, but it is what it is.
Eh, I don’t really care for this as a global change. Not that it wouldn’t be viable, but it’s a very disruptive change for…I’m not even sure what upside (apart from its presence in the form of civ bonuses - and I would keep experimentation at the civ level). Not only is there already lots of flexibility with regard to settings, but there are also a lot of closed maps with a high chance of reaching lategame baked into them.
It seems to be yes but you can have a raiding unit with no gold, not to mention the situational elephant in castle age. People use scout to raid as Teutons in imp too. If Aztecs have this option it will be very good for them
In terms of stat only better than Teutons and Vikings. But whether light cav is useful or not depending on the civ. Say Britons light cav is weak but very useful to act like the meatshield for their archer
I think when you are encountering monk rush, Dravidians and Aztecs will make a huge different here
No way. It’d seem that historically these were used more like whips, and that they lack any leverage the find or enter an armor gap.
These are anime weapons and not practical at all.
Indian cultures developed numerous useful and practical weapons; none of them are the urumi.
As gameplay goes, the game really didn’t need another Uber anti infantry unit, it needs units that kill anything else in order to allow for more use of standard infantry. If that happens, THEN good anti infantry can make sense.