Indian Treaty Guide

User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

If you make india inf train faster that would be a bad idea. Sepoys are too good and can build rax so should be slower training like ottos. I could see the gurka card making gurka train a little faster. but since the cav is not as effective would be better to at least have them on demand rather than wait while a mortar picks your stable off and thousands of res in units in que. in essence they do need at least 1 fast train unit

The mahout buff I proposed would be good because artillery are too big to be damaged much in splash. and it takes a mahout way too long to kill art, but cav is supposed to be an effective counter, but its not. you can try putting howdas in melee in a pinch but its just bad to do that.

urumis are already good. I think it is you that underestimate how good they could be. 750 food for 9 of them makes them indias cheapest unit (not counting card value) and one of most potent killers. if you are opposed to the use of the card why not make them trainable and add a coin cost to them. like 90f, 90 coin.

are you talking about changing the consulate bonuses as they are? or adding a new secondary bonus? Cause changing ports building cost is really going to change indias boom a lot. and then is 2= range to art worth trading 10% hp for brit? i dont think so. Chalemagen says you yous want to keep the uniqueness of the civ but I see these proposed changes as doing the opposite of that. While incorporating the urumi would seek to keep that uniqueness. I would keep consulate changes simple. like remove cav, reduce cost 30%. faster switching is cool, but its still cost 100 export to change civs so its not like its going to be economical to change to brits and back to other nations for better cannon a whole lot. I think trying to buff india with better euro units from consulate is not making india unique but gimmicky.


Gichtenlord wrote:
howlingwolfpaw wrote:yep exactly. thats why I have advocated for faster train time for elephants and possibly tiger.
[bi think the issue is for infantry. Not cav nor tigers. With perfect macro you would always queue one tiger on each explorer.[/b]

not sure what can be done with mahout pathing. I would suggest giving them a 1 range to siege to see if that helps with the glitch of them not besieging when too close to other units. Elephants can either be really good or really bad so I am ok where the rest of the stats are. i think mahouts are inefficient at killing art though as fast as 5-6 pop of cav go . they just require a lot of micro.
mahouts are not really supposed to to much damage vs single units, but be useful vs a group of units due to splash.

urumi help mahouts synergistically creating a very deadly melee wall when tigers are added too. some of the best out there. they are good units and very unique to the civ as a light infantry that actually counters what is supposed to counter it. in large groups they can actually kill armies faster than artillery can and are indias method of dealing with infantry. to make up or their awful artillery.
Im afraid that urumis will not be as good as you might think. First, dont forget that you will skip a 1,3k wood card, have to pay for urumis and block some pop of you until they arrive. They have to be super eficient to compensate it


maybe change consulate armies so they are cheaper but only train cannons instead of adding cav
I had this idea to change consulate to something similar like firepit. You can cancel a fraction and join a new fraction in a second and each of these fractions (ger, port, russia,...etc.) have a new bonus.
Lets say port gives you +0.5x multiplier vs heavy inf for your skirms and brit 2 more range for your cannons (just out of my mind now).
Each fraction also gets stronger more unique shipments which are also cheaper or easier than now to acquire. Like long range morts from port, lbs/rockets from brits.
This is judt an idea and mostly just brainstormed, but Id really like it for tad civs, since they lack a solid gameplay mechanic


I dunno what else could we do? put a gatlin gun on top of the flail elephant? lol j/k
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by charlemagen »

I don't know if I have been clear, We are not buffing urami. We appreciate your ideas but maybe try another route. The patch team has decided we will not go this way with india.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

what direction are you looking then?

you say you want new and exciting ways to keep india unique but have shared no suggestions how to do this.

changing urumi ship time means nothing to you. you dont have to play that way, but it helps broaden the appeal of the patch to others that might. To not want to make that card an option to me is just inconceivable. There is NO good reason you have for it.
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by charlemagen »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:what direction are you looking then?

you say you want new and exciting ways to keep india unique but have shared no suggestions how to do this.

changing urumi ship time means nothing to you. you dont have to play that way, but it helps broaden the appeal of the patch to others that might. To not want to make that card an option to me is just inconceivable. There is NO good reason you have for it.

You'll see the proposed changes we have for India when we release the patch notes. As for my reasoning for not adding urami, I have already told you. India has 3 strong infinite shipments already, yes chakram are only good in certain cases, but still 3 very viable infinite cards. So there is no reason to add urami at this time. Another reason is that India already has an incredibly strong melle composition with mahout, tigers and war elephant adding urami into that comp, or replacing war elephant would be overkill. India already is a much stronger civ than it was on re. We have India in a spot we are comfortable with, when we see/make a change we like we will add it in. So I am sorry if you want India done your way, buffed according to your standards and level of play. But we will not be forced into adding something that we are not fans of. Please keep posting ideas for changes as they are greatly appreciated.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

Why do you have to make this seem so confrontational like I have to get my way? its not that big of a deal and opens up options. no one is going to use 4 inf shipments. it opened up strategic diversity to play the game. to Do otherwise is actually forcing others to play the civ YOUR way. Also creating a strong melee civ adds some unique game play to a heavily ranged dominated game. its not like its unbeatable.

not listening to fan suggestions is why aoeo failed (in part they just were not as excited over it, also due to lacking content. or look at castle seige which I dont think many aoe3 fans are playing), if you want to alienate fans and not listen to good simple small changes then you get people disinterested in it. then that person tells others why patch is bad etc... and all you have done is made something for your clique of players and not something that can be enjoyed across a broad spectrum.

I will be interested in what changes you make, I find it rather odd you say you are happy with where india is, but others think it is lacking.
You say you greatly appreciate my suggestions but I find that kind of patronizing as you seem to think I have to have my way, but it is a result of adding ideas, getting them shut down, but then you hiding behind what changes you are planning to make, keeping people guessing, and not feeling like part of the process.
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by martinspjuth »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:Why do you have to make this seem so confrontational like I have to get my way?
IMO posting the same thing multiple times, just because you don't like the answers do seem like you wont accept a no.

its not that big of a deal and opens up options. no one is going to use 4 inf shipments. it opened up strategic diversity to play the game. to Do otherwise is actually forcing others to play the civ YOUR way. Also creating a strong melee civ adds some unique game play to a heavily ranged dominated game. its not like its unbeatable.
I can agree to a point that this is true, making urumi viable could create more diversity for india. However, Gichtenlord has already explained why making urumi viable isn't a good way to balance india:
Gichtenlord wrote:How does urumi help india? It wont fix any of their problems. With urumis they will still lose vs the same civs as before and only make them stronger in the mus in which they were already good at.
Doesnt seem like a good/necessary buff for me.

Also i don't think patch team becomes more eager to implement urumi change just because you suggest it mulitple times.


not listening to fan suggestions is why aoeo failed (in part they just were not as excited over it, also due to lacking content. or look at castle seige which I dont think many aoe3 fans are playing), if you want to alienate fans and not listen to good simple small changes then you get people disinterested in it. then that person tells others why patch is bad etc... and all you have done is made something for your clique of players and not something that can be enjoyed across a broad spectrum.
As far as i have noticed, they have been quite good at listening to the community. That they don't agree with your specific idea doesn't mean that they don't take up other suggestions they like.

I will be interested in what changes you make, I find it rather odd you say you are happy with where india is, but others think it is lacking.
You say you greatly appreciate my suggestions but I find that kind of patronizing as you seem to think I have to have my way, but it is a result of adding ideas, getting them shut down, but then you hiding behind what changes you are planning to make, keeping people guessing, and not feeling like part of the process.
I'm just guessing here, but i think it is kinda hard to tell what changes will be made before they are decided. Discusing every suggestion openly within the whole community does also seem way to complicated to work.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

your right I will not accept your NO. there is no good reason not to do something for them other than we don't want too they already have other shipments.... thats bogus and not a GOOD reason.

And urumi can fix some of indias problem because they are efficient killers and allow them to play with an aggressive play style. Your idea of giving them port long range mortars, superior cannon, long bows etc....from the consulate does exactly the opposite of keeping india intact. and then will have many more units to choose from.

from some of the bizarre changes you need a perspective like mine to be part of it. Most of the things were done right but how could u not forsee changing cav archers to range resist not cause problems? or hugely buffing jag knights while leaving coyotes weak would be a good thing?
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by martinspjuth »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:your right I will not accept your NO.
It's not my NO, i'm not on the patch team. I just happen to see it in a similar way as them in this point atm.

there is no good reason not to do something for them other than we don't want too they already have other shipments.... thats bogus and not a GOOD reason.
Imo Gichtenlord explained quite well why buffing urumi isnt a good way to fix india. But since you seem to not have understood what he wrote i'll refrase it:
The way i see it, urumi could be good vs small armies consisting of mainly musk. Atm india is quite fine when fighting armies of normal size, i.e. 100pop, especially when facing lots of musk since their gurkhas are quite good. India strugles vs large pop armies, and those tend to be more skirm heavy with less musk. So an urumi buff would make the mu's india are already good in, even better, without fixing their mu where they are weaker.
One thing tho, japan is quite good vs india. They have a large army and use alot of musk. I guess this is the only mu where an urumi buff would actually help the balance. I dont think buffing a civ for just one certain mu is the way to go though.


And urumi can fix some of indias problem because they are efficient killers and allow them to play with an aggressive play style. Your idea of giving them port long range mortars, superior cannon, long bows etc....from the consulate does exactly the opposite of keeping india intact. and then will have many more units to choose from.
This is, as i understood, just a lose idea from Gichten, not something that's been decided to be included. Even though it would be interesting, it would imo, change how india is played way to much. So i guess we agree here.

from some of the bizarre changes you need a perspective like mine to be part of it. Most of the things were done right but how could u not forsee changing cav archers to range resist not cause problems? or hugely buffing jag knights while leaving coyotes weak would be a good thing?
Even tho CA are a bit tanky now, it isn't like civs with them suddenly have become OP or anything, CA isn't even used much anyway. Actually, Russia is quite fine right now, and have CA's. Otto is also fine/on the weak side but also have CA. Still neither of them uses much CA in a normal game. So it isn't like CA is causing a lot of problems even if they maybe became to tanky. Jaguar Prowler Knights was changed, HP buffed, attack nerfed, dont see what problem there is with that. And ye, azzi might need a rework, but that is not only or simply because coyotes are weak.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

i disagree, for instance india has a problem with chinas old han army, because pikemen seek out mahouts and kill them before they can get to the chuknuknu, with urumi the mahouts can survive long enough to do that. india suffers for large pop armies because mahouts are easily countered by HI melee and arent effecitve enough to get to those skim masses.

urumi are great for germans, dutch, aztec, ports, china, japan. of the large scale armies thats 3/4 and will probobaly always stuggle vs france but thats ok.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

Also about the aztec, yes the problem is with the coyote. Without cannon mass skirm is the biggest trouble they have because coyotes do not kill them fast enough. have low Hp, low resist and are easily countered by muskets or halbs. Jag knights are to counter the halbs. I believe in the original patch iteration both coyotes and jags got big buffs, but then was found to be OP. So they nerfed coyotes. You should have left the coyotes buffed and reverted jags to normal stats. there was nothing wrong with them to begin with. And their attack nerf to HI does not equal out to the HP boost as they now stay alive much longer dealing out more damage. If one uses jags creatively with cloak they can sneak an army out and with high siege and hp do a lot of damage. its kinda hard to stop if that happens.
in one game i used my andes nats to flank and break a hole in the wall and had 30 jag knights in cloak that walked in. After he thought he won that battle I got in and took out his wonders and houses and then was able to break through again for the final kill. Trying to balance by overcompensating one unit too much is not balance, it throws it out of balance. So I hope you keep that in mind while reworking aztecs. They have all a civ needs to have, a sustainable eco anti art, best anti cav, good anti HI, just lack in anti skirm and weakness needing wood to constantly chop.

as with russia and ottos. I think most players are used to not using them and fighting with different methods. I myself am not a big user of light cav but its another example of trying to overcompensate and settling while not figuring out why they are on the weaker side.
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by martinspjuth »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:i disagree, for instance india has a problem with chinas old han army, because pikemen seek out mahouts and kill them before they can get to the chuknuknu, with urumi the mahouts can survive long enough to do that. india suffers for large pop armies because mahouts are easily countered by HI melee and arent effecitve enough to get to those skim masses.

urumi are great for germans, dutch, aztec, ports, china, japan. of the large scale armies thats 3/4 and will probobaly always stuggle vs france but thats ok.

How is urumi good vs ger, dutch, aztec? they would just get shot to pieces by the skirms without having any real HI mass to be valuable against.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by Gichtenlord »

You are turning in circles for a quite a while now. It goes urumi -> jags -> urumi -> jags -> urumi ->....
r]
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by charlemagen »

@howlingwolfpaw , as well it is hard to take in your opinion when your main game mode is ffa which you mainly fight 2nd luts and lower. We can not balance the patch to your standards of play, there is too many varieties of treaty to balance them all. That's why we mainly balance for our level of play, in which your opinions about why to buff urami and nerf jags are not viable.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

martinspjuth wrote:
howlingwolfpaw wrote:i disagree, for instance india has a problem with chinas old han army, because pikemen seek out mahouts and kill them before they can get to the chuknuknu, with urumi the mahouts can survive long enough to do that. india suffers for large pop armies because mahouts are easily countered by HI melee and arent effecitve enough to get to those skim masses.

urumi are great for germans, dutch, aztec, ports, china, japan. of the large scale armies thats 3/4 and will probobaly always stuggle vs france but thats ok.

How is urumi good vs ger, dutch, aztec? they would just get shot to pieces by the skirms without having any real HI mass to be valuable against.



because when germans use dopples urumi match them. they are about even but urumi are cheaper. they range resist so skirm fire is not that bad for them, they actually do a decent job of killing skirms.

Urumi decimate dutch. they cant use halbs, and large groups of ryuters go down fast allowing mahouts to kill skirms.

prepatch before jags were OP. urumi killed jags. I have not tested enough to see i this is still true or not. aztec had bad chances vs india because of the urumi and inadequate coyotes to do their job.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

charlemagen wrote:@howlingwolfpaw , as well it is hard to take in your opinion when your main game mode is ffa which you mainly fight 2nd luts and lower. We can not balance the patch to your standards of play, there is too many varieties of treaty to balance them all. That's why we mainly balance for our level of play, in which your opinions about why to buff urami and nerf jags are not viable.



Yeah I play a lot of FFA, because I play india, and on RE india is a gamble to play. I would like to play more TR and why I am happy there is a patch but some of the things on patch just dont make sense to me. And I think the urumi is one of the best units in the game. Its stats are fine. but would just be more useable if did not take 40 secs to arrive.

First off all manner of ranks play FFA. both from TR and SUP games. I do train a lot of noobs there its true. The slowness of the urumi card works mainly because in FFA there is not incessant wall spam, another reason I like the game. most of the time people have a few base walls and the middle is open to move around and have battles in. So in FFa I can pull my troops back a sec while my army regroups and then attack in a wave like fashion.

I used to have decks with chakrams and War ele. But after hundreds if not thousands of games I realized that the urumi is the key ingredient in the india composition. (even more so now that tigers got their needed classification) chakrams though cool, just were not nessessary.
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by martinspjuth »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:because when germans use dopples urumi match them. they are about even but urumi are cheaper. they range resist so skirm fire is not that bad for them, they actually do a decent job of killing skirms.

Urumi strenght vs HI is that they deal range damage (even it they use a sword) and the area effect. Vs germany the area effect rarely makes much of a difference since the doppels are few in numbers and spread out in most cases. The Urumi also have to be shipped, so when they arrive there might not even be any doppels for them to kill. Urumi doesn't do that well vs skirms, since they do range damage, which skirms have resist against, but still have to get close to attack. So most will die before they deal any real damage

howlingwolfpaw wrote:Urumi decimate dutch. they cant use halbs, and large groups of ryuters go down fast allowing mahouts to kill skirms.

Dutch don't need halbs vs india (other than the infinite halb card), and urumi should rarely reach the Ryuters before getting killed by a 50+ mass of skirms.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

wow learned something new.... urumi does range damage?? where does it say that. i never noticed if HI used the melee resist. I thought it was melee. does the metor or iron flail do range damage as well? well regardless yeah sending 9 urumi into 50 skirms is not what you want to do just that they are not totally ineffective either, try using 25 urumi vs 50 skirms and see how that goes to make an argument about effectiveness, you want to micro your mahouts to that mass and then the urumi and other inf to kill ryuters or halbs or whatever.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by Gichtenlord »

How do you wanna mass 25 urumis in a serious gane lol.
r]
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

you dont. but your analogy assumes 18 pop vs 50. which doesnt go well no matter what you are up against.
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by martinspjuth »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:wow learned something new.... urumi does range damage?? where does it say that. i never noticed if HI used the melee resist. I thought it was melee. does the metor or iron flail do range damage as well? well regardless yeah sending 9 urumi into 50 skirms is not what you want to do just that they are not totally ineffective either, try using 25 urumi vs 50 skirms and see how that goes to make an argument about effectiveness, you want to micro your mahouts to that mass and then the urumi and other inf to kill ryuters or halbs or whatever.

Ye Urumi does range damage, select the unit and you can see what kind of damage it does on the same place where you see its attack, range, multipliers etc (marked with a crossed rifle and arrow for range damage, a sword for hand damage and a cannon for siege damage)
No, Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers does not do range damage.

howlingwolfpaw wrote:you dont. but your analogy assumes 18 pop vs 50. which doesnt go well no matter what you are up against.

No, i do ofc asume that both have full pop, but since Urumi have to get close to do damage, they will be the one to get shot, and therefor die before doing anything except soaking up some damage.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

martinspjuth wrote:
howlingwolfpaw wrote:wow learned something new.... urumi does range damage?? where does it say that. i never noticed if HI used the melee resist. I thought it was melee. does the metor or iron flail do range damage as well? well regardless yeah sending 9 urumi into 50 skirms is not what you want to do just that they are not totally ineffective either, try using 25 urumi vs 50 skirms and see how that goes to make an argument about effectiveness, you want to micro your mahouts to that mass and then the urumi and other inf to kill ryuters or halbs or whatever.

Ye Urumi does range damage, select the unit and you can see what kind of damage it does on the same place where you see its attack, range, multipliers etc (marked with a crossed rifle and arrow for range damage, a sword for hand damage and a cannon for siege damage)
No, Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers does not do range damage.

howlingwolfpaw wrote:you dont. but your analogy assumes 18 pop vs 50. which doesnt go well no matter what you are up against.

No, i do ofc asume that both have full pop, but since Urumi have to get close to do damage, they will be the one to get shot, and therefor die before doing anything except soaking up some damage.


thats neat about urumi, i understand now how they are more powerful to HI.

as to the other part, why would you send urumi into a mass of skirms? now we just get into hypothetical battles that make no sense. cause if I have 9 urumi to protect my 5 mahouts with them, then the skirms get rekt. stats for stats urumi in even numbers test very well vs skirms. skirms do about 36 dmg per 3 sec, or 18 damage ever 1.5 in melee. urumi would do 37 every 1 sec in a 1 area. they both resist each other. and urumi have 2x hp.

so even if you did it 32 gurka, 9 urumi, vs 50 skirms, the indian army should win because the urumi will tank so much damage and deal it out while the gurka get their shots off as well.
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Dragoon
Posts: 205
Joined: Aug 5, 2015
ESO: Motch | Milky__

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by ocemilky »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:
martinspjuth wrote:
howlingwolfpaw wrote:wow learned something new.... urumi does range damage?? where does it say that. i never noticed if HI used the melee resist. I thought it was melee. does the metor or iron flail do range damage as well? well regardless yeah sending 9 urumi into 50 skirms is not what you want to do just that they are not totally ineffective either, try using 25 urumi vs 50 skirms and see how that goes to make an argument about effectiveness, you want to micro your mahouts to that mass and then the urumi and other inf to kill ryuters or halbs or whatever.

Ye Urumi does range damage, select the unit and you can see what kind of damage it does on the same place where you see its attack, range, multipliers etc (marked with a crossed rifle and arrow for range damage, a sword for hand damage and a cannon for siege damage)
No, Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers does not do range damage.

howlingwolfpaw wrote:you dont. but your analogy assumes 18 pop vs 50. which doesnt go well no matter what you are up against.

No, i do ofc asume that both have full pop, but since Urumi have to get close to do damage, they will be the one to get shot, and therefor die before doing anything except soaking up some damage.


thats neat about urumi, i understand now how they are more powerful to HI.

as to the other part, why would you send urumi into a mass of skirms? now we just get into hypothetical battles that make no sense. cause if I have 9 urumi to protect my 5 mahouts with them, then the skirms get rekt. stats for stats urumi in even numbers test very well vs skirms. skirms do about 36 dmg per 3 sec, or 18 damage ever 1.5 in melee. urumi would do 37 every 1 sec in a 1 area. they both resist each other. and urumi have 2x hp.

so even if you did it 32 gurka, 9 urumi, vs 50 skirms, the indian army should win because the urumi will tank so much damage and deal it out while the gurka get their shots off as well.


Because a skirm unit is the most common centre-unit of a composition. It's either a skirm type or a musk type. So in most MUs you'll be fighting vs a mass of skirms. Vs brit they would be ok but tbh chakrams do ok because they have just about the same range as musks. Urumi need to get a little closer, and a musk huss art comp would mean urumi would die to the huss in theory.

Urumi would simply take the place of chakram shipment but be even more situational as it'll be difficult to use them vs melee comps. They'll end up being your meatshield instead of sepoy.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me
howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

yes huss counter urumi, all units have a counter. urumi are a good counter that is proven in SUP games where they go for urumi timings, I dont hear many talk about the awesomness of a chakram timing in SUP.

urumi are great in melee combos, thats what their job is to cancel out melee HI. and DPS is more than a chakram as well.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by Gichtenlord »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:yes huss counter urumi, all units have a counter. urumi are a good counter that is proven in SUP games where they go for urumi timings, I dont hear many talk about the awesomness of a chakram timing in SUP.

urumi are great in melee combos, thats what their job is to cancel out melee HI. and DPS is more than a chakram as well.

You always mention how much urumis are used in sup and that is simply not true. Urumi sare just good when you can keep on trading vs your opponent and he is not able to mass units. Once, when he gets a critical mass of goons, urumis are pretty much useless
r]
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: Indian Treaty Guide

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

you really want me to believe urumi are NOT used in sup? i wonder what percentage of decks they are in. the games they are not used in are the ones that don't make it out of colonial.

I find that not to be true about goons in my battles they are death to large masses of goons unless they kite them back giving you control over the battlefield (mind you have some gurka in back to pressure goons from kiting.and late game FFA is more like TR than sup. urumi have a place. their DPS is awesome, and make your enemy retreat allowing you to push forward.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV