Indians Discussion Thread

[Garja]

Only crates based on civ-specific necessity are the base ones. All the extra ones are like a map condition.

[drsingh]

Both are saying the same thing. Only a little misunderstanding.

Goodspeed - random crates are inherently unbalanced. Argued for fixed crates before.

Umeu- random crates are silly.
(eg on a 100 wood/ coin start, where the civ differ in their utilization of it) consistent not equal to fairness.

Goodspeed gave an example to emphasize issue with china. I'll modify it - lets say there's a japan mirror - on a 100 wood + food start. Now remove 100 wood + 100 food from one of them and give it 100 coin. Now the coin civ is unplayable at competitive level because of a slight handicap.
This was an extreme example. If these japan civs were each playing against china. The difference in power will be half of that of mirror. But still their would be imbalance.

Discussing about extra or less crate of china is pointless, if you already agree that china has a balance issue.

Now getting back to topic -
Fixed crates for India.
I think it's safe to assume that all 3(+jerom) are against it unless crates for all civ are fixed. Talking about the second extra food crate is no more needed.

Now if everyone is on same page. Lets move forward with suggestions of changes...
(only trying to help, don't flame me)

[momuuu]

My suggestion is to not change anything.

[deleted_user0]

It equally makes their civ strength depend on chance if they have random crates.

No. Not equally.

I know random crates are inherently unbalanced, but at least every player in a game gets the same one(s). It's not necessarily a problem. The China case is an issue in that their opponent can either have a shit start or a very good one where China's start will be the same. Where do you disagree? About it being an issue, or about it being true in the first place?

Its not necessarily a problem now either, unless youre too autistic to handle inconsistency.

I dont disagree with the shit or good start, im just saying that it wont make much of a difference if the china fixed crates dont make the civ unbalanced. In a mu civs will always prefer certain crate starts. For example spain might prefer 200w start vs dutch, but 100c start vs japan. And 100f start vs fre. Simply cause the other crate start favors the other civ more than them. China has this too, except it always favors the same crates, it doesnt want the extra food crate to happen, specially not with wood (or coin if dutch). But because the crates are random, the crates favoring china will happen roughly as much as the crates not favoring china, and the rates wouldnt be much different if china had random crates.

See the fixed crate as a civ bonus if u will, but just dont try to fix (or in this case randomize) whats not broken in the first place.

[Garja]

Your point about Spain and other civs doesnt really stand. 100g for Spain is just as bad as for Japan and same thing is for 100f with Fre (especially because French can always market while Spain only with 200w or 100g). 200w is great for Dutch too. In general the extra crate always move in the same direction and with comparable effects most of times. China current situation is not necessarily allarming but it is not fair as it doesnt match other civ's crate. While in the long run it compensates to some extent statistically, in the short term it makes every single game unfair (except for the extra 100w only), for one side or the other. Not to mention that having fixed +100w isnt exactly the average outcome but rather a positive one (basically better than all other crate spawns except for +100w +100f).
And that's something latent but perceptible in basically any MU.

[deleted_user0]

You are wrong, its not just as bad or just as good for every civ. The 100c has a clear and immediate use for spain, they can market or fast ff with it. The 100c does nothing for japan. Its true that random crates generally move in the same direction, they dont shift the same distance equally. Like germany with 100w start or 200w start is simply a world of difference, so much that really any civ except maybe india and japan would prefer to have a non 200w start vs germany even though in other mus they might prefer 200w cause its obv good for them too.

And again, you say china gets +100w. I say china gets +100f, suddenly your argument fails. The only thing that matters is that chinas crates cause no issues in balance. While random crates do actually...

[Garja]

Japan can rush Spain FF and actually it does decent vs almost every build Spain has (even vs 2rax can be good with cat n mice play). 100g is just as bad for both.
200w is incredibly good for India too as it means faster age up. VS Germans is basically the most borderline case and yet I'd say the point still stands.
China extra crate can only be the 100w. 200f is the base for all civs except French (enough for 2 vills).

[momuuu]

It equally makes their civ strength depend on chance if they have random crates.

No. Not equally.

I know random crates are inherently unbalanced, but at least every player in a game gets the same one(s). It's not necessarily a problem. The China case is an issue in that their opponent can either have a shit start or a very good one where China's start will be the same. Where do you disagree? About it being an issue, or about it being true in the first place?

Its not necessarily a problem now either, unless youre too autistic to handle inconsistency.

I dont disagree with the shit or good start, im just saying that it wont make much of a difference if the china fixed crates dont make the civ unbalanced. In a mu civs will always prefer certain crate starts. For example spain might prefer 200w start vs dutch, but 100c start vs japan. And 100f start vs fre. Simply cause the other crate start favors the other civ more than them. China has this too, except it always favors the same crates, it doesnt want the extra food crate to happen, specially not with wood (or coin if dutch). But because the crates are random, the crates favoring china will happen roughly as much as the crates not favoring china, and the rates wouldnt be much different if china had random crates.

See the fixed crate as a civ bonus if u will, but just dont try to fix (or in this case randomize) whats not broken in the first place.

I dont think the difference between the different random crate starts for spain is comparable to the fact that china's different crate starts can create a net 100 resource difference. That being said, wood starts make some civs way stronger due to TP balance.

[deleted_user0]

it creates it in favor of the civ china opposes though, never in favor of china. Random crates will create way more unbalance due to crates which won't favor china. it will make them even harder to balance. its simply undesirable imo. all fixed crates is best but meh...

[Goodspeed]

It equally makes their civ strength depend on chance if they have random crates.

No. Not equally.

I know random crates are inherently unbalanced, but at least every player in a game gets the same one(s). It's not necessarily a problem. The China case is an issue in that their opponent can either have a shit start or a very good one where China's start will be the same. Where do you disagree? About it being an issue, or about it being true in the first place?

Its not necessarily a problem now either, unless youre too autistic to handle inconsistency.

I dont disagree with the shit or good start, im just saying that it wont make much of a difference...

Okay then. I think it does, but of course the significance is relative and subjective.

[Darwin_]

India and Japan are effected by the crate start more than any other civs.

[momuuu]

it creates it in favor of the civ china opposes though, never in favor of china. Random crates will create way more unbalance due to crates which won't favor china. it will make them even harder to balance. its simply undesirable imo. all fixed crates is best but meh...

Well it kinda depends on how you look at it, it can also create scenarios in favor of china if you consider the 2 random crates the balanced scenario. Regardless, it wouldn't really work out to unfix china's crates atm due to how inherently inconsistent they are, but I think that doesn't mean fixed crates for india is a desirable solution.

That being said, all fixed crates (or removal of the wood + food and coin + food start so that random crates always are 1 random crate) would be ideal balance wise.

[deleted_user0]

it creates it in favor of the civ china opposes though, never in favor of china. Random crates will create way more unbalance due to crates which won't favor china. it will make them even harder to balance. its simply undesirable imo. all fixed crates is best but meh...

Well it kinda depends on how you look at it, it can also create scenarios in favor of china if you consider the 2 random crates the balanced scenario. Regardless, it wouldn't really work out to unfix china's crates atm due to how inherently inconsistent they are, but I think that doesn't mean fixed crates for india is a desirable solution.

That being said, all fixed crates (or removal of the wood + food and coin + food start so that random crates always are 1 random crate) would be ideal balance wise.

even if 2 random crates is the balanced scenario (for which there really is no evidence, considering as garja said, the base crates are for civ needs and the extra crates are map requirements) then china doesnt have an extra crate. They either have the same, or arguably, a little bit better crate cause they have wood instead of coin or food (which isn't as big an issue for some civs as it is for others)

you are right that china's fixed crates doesnt mean its desirable for india. imo all civs should have fixed crates, but thats another discussion

[Darwin_]

I think what the ideal scenario for crates would be for each civ to have 2 or 3 fixed crate starts assigned a number 1-3 according to their power relative to the other starts. Instead of a random crate and a random food crate being generated, a random number 1-3 would be, and then that would be the crate start for each civ.

So lets say that Dutch has 3 possible crate starts of 400c-100w, 400c-100w-100f, and 400c-200w, being ranked 1-2-3 respectively, and India has 300w-200f, 300w-300f and 400w-200f, again ranked 1-2-3. The rng generates, say, 2, which means that dutch gets the 400c-100w-100f start and India the 300w-300f one. (These crate options are just for example sake, so dont over analyze them). This is more balanced due to the fact that these two civs are effected differently by the same random crate, but this method ignores the random crate, and instead choses from one of three balanced starts. This is honestly one of the worst case matchups when it comes to crate balance, but I am sure that this method of crate spawning is far more balanced and tweakable than the current system, and offers randomness while not being very imbalanced.

In my opinion, the current system of random crates makes a lot of sense on Vanilla, and maybe even TWC, where there are few balance concerns as most civs can do similar starts with the same crates, i.e with a coin crate start most civs can just do a market. However, with the introduction of the TAD civs, with their very different age 1 agendas and options, the random crate system became a real cause for balance concerns. I think that a degree of randomness should still be kept, whether it is through my method or really any other, but it should not be as hit-or-miss balance-wise as it seems to be now.

[momuuu]

Well random crates also create balance problems for iro, otto, france and germany.

[Darwin_]

Well random crates also create balance problems for iro, otto, france and germany.

Yeah, this system could totally be applied to them too.

[Hazza54321]

India and Japan are effected by the crate start more than any other civs.

And china EleGiggle

[drsingh]

Can specific maps be edited to fix crates?
Eg
Instead of having fixed crates for all civ. We make them predictable.
So that for competitive esoc maps- tp maps always have wood start. (extra food still randomly present or absent). Non tp maps always have food start.

There will be variability in 2 different types of maps, while being predictable enough to ease balancing.
Non esoc maps will still work same as now with random crates. So non competetive, for fun games remain unaffected..

[momuuu]

It might be better to move away from this subject. While wood starts are better for india for sure, I do not think india is anywhere near inconsistent enough with regards to crate starts that fixed crates is worth discussing. Fixed crates as a whole is not a bad idea and might deserve a topic.

As to india, I am still not convinced they are so bad that they need a buff. If they do, itd be a small buff I think.

[Darwin_]

I think that India, and all of the TAD civs for that matter, are hard to talk about in terms of balance. It is extremely easy to talk about balance within the confines of the euro civs, or even euro+TWC civs, as most of them are extremely similar in base design and mechanics, and most of the balance concerns are regarding timings and relative power level of certain units/shipments. However, once you get into the realm of the TAD civs, balance is extremely touchy and difficult. The three civs operate on completely different mechanics from the euro civs, and they are just so different in so many ways. Especially difficult to talk about are the timings. As a whole, all of the TAD civs have extremely late colonial times, and with the exception of china, also quite late fortress times. This, coupled with the wonder mechanic and how much more undefined the age-up bonus is, makes adjusting almost any value, whether it be unit statistic or whatever, extremely difficult. The TAD civs are held in this very odd and difficult internal balance, and once you change one component of the civ, the whole civ is changed.

Frankly, this is the exact reason why I hold Vanilla higher in my mind. The balance is so much more clear-cut, and arguments like Jerom's would be hogwash. However, with how complex the TAD civs are, making the argument of "they don't seem so bad," is actually quite legitimate. I don't know how anyone could balance the TAD civs, when there are still the euro and the TWC ones. It is just so hard to really judge the relative power of these civs. I think I am not alone in feeling that when you lose a game as India, it almost always feels like you made the mistake, not that the civ is inherently weak. And to be clear, I don't necessarily think that India is inherently weak. I think that on paper India is probably one of the strongest civs in the game. Think about it: full 4 unit composition in age 2, extremely powerful age 3 shipments, the best musketeer unit in the game, a free villager with each shipment, less food use and higher viability on low-resource maps, some of the strongest wonders of the TAD civs, etc... However, they are not that stellar in practise. They feel slow, and always just barely missing the mark. And frankly, I don't really know how you could fix them. Sure, fixed crates speed them up and offer greater consistency, and sure, artillery multiplier for zambs makes their late colonial more resistant to early age 3 timings. The suggestions go on and on, and many of them sound quite good, but I think there would always be left something to change.

So why write all of this? Why do I even care? Frankly, I don't quite know why. I guess I wrote it to express my complex opinions of the TAD civs: they are quite fun and unique, though their complexity makes them a balancing nightmare and makes their timings and matchups weird and kind of annoying to play. But, when it comes to the topic of balance, I think that I have become fed up with my own obsession towards it. The TAD civs are super complex, and inherently imperfect, same goes for the TWC civs. I would say, that, coming from a balance perspective, the euro civs are really the only ones that you can really fully consider and talk about in an objective way. I guess I am essentially saying that all thirty some-aught pages of this thread are kind of useless in a way, and that no matter how much we discuss these civs, we won't really ever balance them.

[Garja]

TWC and TAD civs are also somewhat balanced within their own expansion. Similar features obviously lead to closer balance.
TWC expansion is more similar to Nilla than TAD expansion, that's true.

[rsy]

I want to see flails being a legit unit. Maybe reduce their cost to something like 100f 100c?

[_RDX_]

Does anybody have some good India vs Japan MU recs?

[lemmings121]

Does anybody have some good India vs Japan MU recs?

You should rush the fuck out of japan, unless you are h20, then you can contain and boom.

[_RDX_]

Does anybody have some good India vs Japan MU recs?

You should rush the fuck out of japan, unless you are h20, then you can contain and boom.

The India vs Japan MU seems to me like a unpredictable match. I rushed so hard and still japan booms. As sieging shrines with sepoys and gurks gives him some time to boom and a smooth attempt to FF, I directly get to his base, and start killing his rax, TC etc., I win 40% of matches against japan just like this. 60% of matches are becoming so hard for me to just rush against players who are well defensive. Even some times i tried 10/10, karni boom lol. Japan can't be just easily outboomed. The situation is like if i keep destroying his shrines, I'll let him do FF or if i siege his base and try killing villies, he just booms on with his shrines and defends with some minutemen etc., That's the reason i asked for some recs on this.