Be it the AI or some human players that I played with, they make Light Cav to go with their Urumi or halbs, despite the Light Cavs being the worst.
Why do some people choose to make Light Cavs as Dravidians if they are going full offensive, rather than EA? I mean, light cavs are good for raiding, but when it comes to all-out attack, especially Dravidian ones, then this option should never be considered. EA’s may be slow, but they are pop efficient!
Because the AI and some players play poorly.
Glad to be of service.
Dravidians have a wood bonus. And in the early game wood bonusses synergize very well with scout openings, whilst food bonusses with archer openings.
The main reason for that is the initial wood cost of farms, so the agressive archer builds tend to like to delay farm placement to get more agression out and the scout openings want to add as many farms asap to get a better food economy loffing, especially to get better castle age timings.
Even so, they still spam light cavs in the Imperial Age even after they made so many trade carts and farmers. With this much food and gold, wouldn’t you transition to EA?
Because thats the meta and standard way to play the game.
Besides that, Light cav are faster than Elephant archers and cost no gold. In terms of range units, skirms are faster and have better dps for Dravidians in terms of resources spent in late game compared to EAs who need gold.
If I get gold, I’m better-off building Siege which forces opponent to react rather than just run away. The wood discount on Siege is also one of the culprits there. If Medical corps was made into a civ bonus, there was a chance people would have tried playing them in castle age. For now, EAs just cost too much and don’t help the civ overcome its mobility problems.
If EAs have 20% faster movement, then there is a value proposition over skirms. For now, other than some niche maps like Black forest where mobility is a non-factor. They are practically useless.