i play, and i watch others play both. the fact is that the M@A line frequently loses to both archers and knights. its not meant to be the mainstay of your army and is a trash unit counter more then anything.
no offense but that means nothing. you literally didn’t even know that Aztecs and Incas frequently field archers.
what you and your friends do has no bearing on how good a unit actually is.
Not everyone got the time to watch the games. You do guard duty so you get ample time for that.
and how do you know what i do?
We paid for this game so we have an opinion and a right to have a say in it.
You yourself revealed on offtopic section.
i agree you do have a right to express your opinion and provide input, but that doesn’t mean you’re right that the M@A line sees common use and that many civs had to be re-balanced around supplies being added to the game. i can’t think of a single civ that got nerfed for gaining supplies. i do know that a small handful had it taken away, but it didn’t really change the gameplay of those civs at all.
doesn’t mean i can watch videos at work though.
CombinedMouse why are you still avoiding the point that you ONLY seem to care about the historical accuracy of one faction?
You seem dead set on pushing for this. There’s obviously no changing your mind (despite NUMEROUS strong arguments against you) so why keep pressing here? If the community was as committed as you to getting BE for this faction (or sails) there would have already been an outcry. The topic has come up, and most agree that Indians should have BE, but were given Ele archers before BE existed so it would necessitate too much reworking.
This is a game. Based…somewhat, on historical societies and warfare. At this point, accuracy has been abandoned for the sake of balance. That isn’t changing anytime soon.
he is hardly the only one who has brought up accuracy, it isn’t an uncommon complaint, but this game has literally never put accuracy over game play/balance.
Exactly. If you want an accurate (or, more accurate) historical strategy game, try the Total War series or something from Paradox like Europa Universalis/Crusader Kings.
Just like to point out the following from wikipedia under the section on Mayan Warfare:
Although the Maya had projectile technology, such as the atlatl and spear, much of the actual fighting was done at close range with “thrusting, stabbing, and crushing”.
Although bows and arrows were used, spears and Macuahuitl remained much more common.[4]
Wikipedia isnt the best source of information but it does seem from there at least that the Mayans weren’t really an archer specialised civilisation, so they’re not historically accurate either as an archer civ.
and that was exactly my point. there are many civs that aren’t historically accurate, but for some reason Indians seems to be the one that is a focal point.
Maya get the chance to recruit melee units as well as skirmishers as support unit.
Indians don’t get the chance to recruit their melee elephants as support unit.
Mayans get their regional ship sails.
Indians don’t get their ship sails.
Apart from that I don’t want to argue about other civilizations accuracy. It is not my piece of cake. I am not very knowledgeable on Native Americans.
I paid for this game, I like it’s gameplay, I will demand for fix in this game. Other games are a different topic.
I will check the games you recommended. Thanks.
Because it is my favourite faction and I have the right to speak on it.
but they do get elephants as support units. which means representation has been met. by your own logic.
so basically “i’ll use the accuracy argument about the one civ that matters to me, but screw all other accuracy”. thanks for confirming that you don’t care about accuracy, you just want what you want, and will use any argument to get it.
but it means your argument lacks authenticity. you don’t care about accuracy at all. you care about the accuracy of your civ and that is it.
I already said I am not very knowledgeable about other civs. Please don’t abuse.
Yes.
and yet we have presented you with plenty of civs that aren’t historically accurate, but do we see you complaining about them not being accurate?
no. you’re literally washing it away because “well at least they have infantry units”, well i can use that logic too “Indians have an elephant unit”.
which just proves that your argument is false. you don’t care about the accuracy of the game at all.
why? because i’m pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument? just because you don’t like my point of view or my arguments is not grounds for me to leave.
Of course. Its the same way the Huns have Paladins to represent their heavy cavalry. Maybe they should have been restricted to THSwordsmen or something. But some regional skins would have gone a long way. Though the old timers likely will oppose this for the vanilla game.
The same way the Byzantines get Paladins which is a decision that is not clear to me at all when they already have cataphracts? Could someone explain why?