Vote - Dravidians civ design analysis

[benithisrael]

@DemiserofD

They already had a stable from feudal age scout rush, and already had a castle, because they needed it for defense.

Maybe Dravidians should have a civ bonus like, “Start with a Stable and Castle for free”. Since the stable and castle units of Dravidians are very weak, the game will be balanced.

@DemiserofD

Nah, not really. Trying to build a monastery and make monks might be ideal if you had the time, but you dont often have time to do everything in the most efficient way possible.

Making stable is the most in-efficient way to play Dravidians. Elephant are useful most against Buildings not units. They are for all practical purposes pseudo-siege. But they don’t have range like mangonels. They move shit slow and don’t have the damage output to turn around a game wither. Get converted almost instantly due to no-resistance like Bengalis. Their tech-tree is also not designed to make use of Battle elephants. Dravidians don’t have any good unique tech or bonus to do any surprise strategies either.

@benithisrael

Dravidians lacking Heresy is not proper design. Elephant civs don’t get heresy because then Opponent can’t counter ROR civs like Malay, Vietnamese or Khmer who can spam them. So Monks are decisive counters. But these Civs have the options of switching to light cavalry or heavy cavalry. Dravidians don’t. So the design itself without Heresy is wrong. The only way to fix this no Heresy is to give an even better tech as unique tech.

Dravidian battle elephants have the worst stats in terms of HP, attack, speed and bonuses. The poll shows that nobody makes battle elephants as Dravidians. If Siege and Elephants had a 20% speed boost and charge attack as Dravidians civ bonus, then it makes sense to make Elephants not otherwise.