Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
1. Sepoys are stupid good. Too strong for their cost. Especially because it's an age 2 unit, which leads to the second point.
2. India is the only civ that has all unit types in age 2. How is it balanced when a civ has goons and skirms in the second age?
3. Zambs and sowars are virtually indentical. For someone who uses control groups, this makes it easy to control the units. However, India's opponent must somehow target the skirms on the zambs and goons on the sowars, even though it is nearly impossible to do so when armies are clumped together and the two different unit types look identical.
4. Urumi are broken units with no counter. Aren't skirms supposed to counter infantry? Not if it's Urumi. Aren't musks supposed to to pretty well vs hand infantry? LOL have fun with that!
5. India doesn't have to shell out 800w for plantations. It can spend 400 wood for what is both a mill and a plantation all in one. It's incredibly lame!
6. India artillery elephants are not hard countered by culverins. Siege elephants can fuck up every civ's buildings and artillery and ships, unless those civs have enough goons and skirms to dps the siege ele. Which is incredibly difficult if india has an army to protect their elephants.
7. Like other Asian civs, India has a consulate and can train industrial units in age 2. WHY does india need redcoats in addition to all their other bonuses? Surely having 2 tanky scouts, a big powerful fb, and all the other lame advantages i mentioned would be enough. But no, India is a weak civ, youre right. Calling it top tier is clearly laughable.
hahahahaha
2. India is the only civ that has all unit types in age 2. How is it balanced when a civ has goons and skirms in the second age?
3. Zambs and sowars are virtually indentical. For someone who uses control groups, this makes it easy to control the units. However, India's opponent must somehow target the skirms on the zambs and goons on the sowars, even though it is nearly impossible to do so when armies are clumped together and the two different unit types look identical.
4. Urumi are broken units with no counter. Aren't skirms supposed to counter infantry? Not if it's Urumi. Aren't musks supposed to to pretty well vs hand infantry? LOL have fun with that!
5. India doesn't have to shell out 800w for plantations. It can spend 400 wood for what is both a mill and a plantation all in one. It's incredibly lame!
6. India artillery elephants are not hard countered by culverins. Siege elephants can fuck up every civ's buildings and artillery and ships, unless those civs have enough goons and skirms to dps the siege ele. Which is incredibly difficult if india has an army to protect their elephants.
7. Like other Asian civs, India has a consulate and can train industrial units in age 2. WHY does india need redcoats in addition to all their other bonuses? Surely having 2 tanky scouts, a big powerful fb, and all the other lame advantages i mentioned would be enough. But no, India is a weak civ, youre right. Calling it top tier is clearly laughable.
hahahahaha
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
reasons @Zhanson10 is future pr50
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
tedere12 wrote:reasons @Zhanson10 is future pr50
Go home, troll
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Hi, can you please teach me to play the game? You seem to be a great player.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
yurashic wrote:Hi, can you please teach me to play the game? You seem to be a great player.
Oh hey it's Aizamk's punching bag xD
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
seems like someone got bashed by India alot
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
gh0st wrote:seems like someone got bashed by India alot
Correct
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Zhanson10 wrote:gh0st wrote:seems like someone got bashed by India alot
Correct
Why are you so worried about sepoys, the elephants are the real threat! (especially in age 2!)
Also, consulate redcoats arent age 4 units, they upgrade in stats with each age.
Error 404: Signature not found
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
noissance wrote:Zhanson10 wrote:gh0st wrote:seems like someone got bashed by India alot
Correct
Why are you so worried about sepoys, the elephants are the real threat! (especially in age 2!)
Age 2 eles aren't particularly scary and age 3 eles take a bit too long to pay off. Those aren't what i consider lame about India.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
All very valid points....I completely agree! France is also bad and re port is top tier!
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23506
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Gustav once claimed that India was OP in treaty because of siege elephants
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Zhanson10 wrote:Age 2 eles aren't particularly scary and age 3 eles take a bit too long to pay off. Those aren't what i consider lame about India.
Falielephants are OP on RE.
Error 404: Signature not found
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
gibson wrote:All very valid points....I completely agree! France is also bad and re port is top tier!
France isn't bad lol. And RE Ports are pretty damn good on re thanks to multiple tcs, for map control. On a map with shit hunts I'd say ports is one of the few counters to a civ like India.
-
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
There is a huge disconnect between how India is experienced by your average player relative to a top player. I'm talking mostly about shitty quicksearch/RE maps where the agra can dominate the map and force other civs to not gather effectively from resources at such early points in the game through use of a relatively skill-less sepoy rush. On ESOC maps though where resources for the most part allow you do to whatever strategy you want for the first 10-15 mins (think ATP builds Spain/Port, semi-FF Fre/Ger) the strategy becomes very different.
Download ESOC Taunt Package : http://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7250
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Zhanson10 wrote:1. Sepoys are stupid good. Too strong for their cost. Especially because it's an age 2 unit, which leads to the second point. Did you never see a Janissary? too much HP and too strong for their cost
2. India is the only civ that has all unit types in age 2. How is it balanced when a civ has goons and skirms in the second age? So?
it doesn't mean that their goons and skirms are as strongs as european units.
3. Zambs and sowars are virtually indentical. For someone who uses control groups, this makes it easy to control the units. However, India's opponent must somehow target the skirms on the zambs and goons on the sowars, even though it is nearly impossible to do so when armies are clumped together and the two different unit types look identical. Get used to of them or go to the eye doctor.
4. Urumi are broken units with no counter. Aren't skirms supposed to counter infantry? Not if it's Urumi. Aren't musks supposed to to pretty well vs hand infantry? LOL have fun with that! Your micro skills are only press "attack move" all the time right? did you never heard about manual micro?
5. India doesn't have to shell out 800w for plantations. It can spend 400 wood for what is both a mill and a plantation all in one. It's incredibly lame! They have to make a lot of upgrates in the rice paddy tho' and European civs can make plantations and mills really cheap with a single card
6. India artillery elephants are not hard countered by culverins. Siege elephants can fuck up every civ's buildings and artillery and ships, unless those civs have enough goons and skirms to dps the siege ele. Which is incredibly difficult if india has an army to protect their elephants. They can fall so easy against cav, even they have negative bonus of 0.5x against them
7. Like other Asian civs, India has a consulate and can train industrial units in age 2. WHY does india need redcoats in addition to all their other bonuses? Surely having 2 tanky scouts, a big powerful fb, and all the other lame advantages i mentioned would be enough. But no, India is a weak civ, youre right. Calling it top tier is clearly laughable. They only ship 6 redcoats with like 27 attack lol, it's like a british musketeer with 2 colonial upgrades, and you can kill two monks only using your explorer with 400hp when they only have 6 melee attack and 200hp
hahahahaha
Is this a big joke or are you talking seriously? did you test the civ like 40 times by yourself and did you recopilate info or are you an ignorant?
"That's why we sing for these kids who don't have a thing
Except for a dream and a fuckin' rap magazine " - Eminem
"And we hate po-po
Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho' " - Kendrick Lamar
Except for a dream and a fuckin' rap magazine " - Eminem
"And we hate po-po
Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho' " - Kendrick Lamar
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
WickedCossack wrote:There is a huge disconnect between how India is experienced by your average player relative to a top player. I'm talking mostly about shitty quicksearch/RE maps where the agra can dominate the map and force other civs to not gather effectively from resources at such early points in the game through use of a relatively skill-less sepoy rush. On ESOC maps though where resources for the most part allow you do to whatever strategy you want for the first 10-15 mins (think ATP builds Spain/Port, semi-FF Fre/Ger) the strategy becomes very different.
Well yes, you are right. Whrn o talk about meta, I'm talking about the base game, not as much the additional maps that aren't available when you buy the game. Unfortunately people are only concerned about balance on EP maps, even though the new meta is largely defined by the maps themselves rather than by any changes made to civilizations.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Well to be fair to him the point about 400w plantations is valid
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
I mean even on RE maps you should be usually beating India. EP didnt change india and they are very hard to win with at a high level. The experience is very different for sure. Top players can take advantage of how slow India is.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Ya India on re under pr ~35 is pretty lame. Or just on re huntless maps in general.
Also, urami are melee skirms essentially. They are direct counters to muskets. Cav neutralize them well.
Also, urami are melee skirms essentially. They are direct counters to muskets. Cav neutralize them well.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Really? I always thought India was one of the better civs. Great units, great eco (maybe slow?), free map control.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
NekoBerk wrote:Zhanson10 wrote:1. Sepoys are stupid good. Too strong for their cost. Especially because it's an age 2 unit, which leads to the second point. Did you never see a Janissary? too much HP and too strong for their cost
2. India is the only civ that has all unit types in age 2. How is it balanced when a civ has goons and skirms in the second age? So?
it doesn't mean that their goons and skirms are as strongs as european units.
3. Zambs and sowars are virtually indentical. For someone who uses control groups, this makes it easy to control the units. However, India's opponent must somehow target the skirms on the zambs and goons on the sowars, even though it is nearly impossible to do so when armies are clumped together and the two different unit types look identical. Get used to of them or go to the eye doctor.
4. Urumi are broken units with no counter. Aren't skirms supposed to counter infantry? Not if it's Urumi. Aren't musks supposed to to pretty well vs hand infantry? LOL have fun with that! Your micro skills are only press "attack move" all the time right? did you never heard about manual micro?
5. India doesn't have to shell out 800w for plantations. It can spend 400 wood for what is both a mill and a plantation all in one. It's incredibly lame! They have to make a lot of upgrates in the rice paddy tho' and European civs can make plantations and mills really cheap with a single card
6. India artillery elephants are not hard countered by culverins. Siege elephants can fuck up every civ's buildings and artillery and ships, unless those civs have enough goons and skirms to dps the siege ele. Which is incredibly difficult if india has an army to protect their elephants. They can fall so easy against cav, even they have negative bonus of 0.5x against them
7. Like other Asian civs, India has a consulate and can train industrial units in age 2. WHY does india need redcoats in addition to all their other bonuses? Surely having 2 tanky scouts, a big powerful fb, and all the other lame advantages i mentioned would be enough. But no, India is a weak civ, youre right. Calling it top tier is clearly laughable. They only ship 6 redcoats with like 27 attack lol, it's like a british musketeer with 2 colonial upgrades, and you can kill two monks only using your explorer with 400hp when they only have 6 melee attack and 200hp
1. Sepoys are indeed one of the best musketeer-type units in the game
2. It's definitely pretty strong, I guess in team games it's more significant, though still you have other civs like Dutch, Ports with early goons, France with early skirms, Sioux etc. Not to mention you can acquire goon-type cavalry through native posts
3.
4. Rifle Riders? Jaguar Prowl Knights? Why don't you whine about them? Although you have a point, I — as a European-civs player — don't like them either!
5. True, though it's a characteristic of all Asian nations
6. Can you imagine your artillery being sniped by skirms, or even longbowmen with 26 range? Cause this is basically what happens with siege elephants.
7. From the design point of view this seem a bit unfair to me, too. A consulate basically functions as a second home city, which on paper is vastly superior to nilla & TWC civs. About the monks: you surely don't know the power of native war chiefs or the Chinese kung-fu mutta-phukka
To sum up, you seem to have a point here and there, though you certainly lack greater perspective. Your claims are too radical for someone who is barely a captain I'd imagine, and I'm sure you haven't really played India. I used to complain a lot about civs I hadn't been playing as well, though it's certainly not a way to go. You miss a lot of drawbacks of the Indian nation, too — for instance, their vills cost wood, which is by all means the slowest resource to gather, they have shipments of only 600 resource each, they have to put vills on a wonder in order to age in a reasonable time, which hurts their economy even more. Additionally, if you can defend their early aggression, India is in a pretty awkward spot as their FF is rather slow, whereas standard European strategies of such a kind beat it.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
India is one of the civs with best assets for like 90% of the game. But they just struggle BOwise vs a number of civs. They are kinda slow at the beginning which is quite important in 1v1.
- lemmings121
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Mar 15, 2015
- ESO: lemmings121
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
@Zhanson10 think of urumi as meele skirms. they will rape musks, but hand cav kills them.
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
pecelot wrote:NekoBerk wrote:Zhanson10 wrote:1. Sepoys are stupid good. Too strong for their cost. Especially because it's an age 2 unit, which leads to the second point. Did you never see a Janissary? too much HP and too strong for their cost
2. India is the only civ that has all unit types in age 2. How is it balanced when a civ has goons and skirms in the second age? So?
it doesn't mean that their goons and skirms are as strongs as european units.
3. Zambs and sowars are virtually indentical. For someone who uses control groups, this makes it easy to control the units. However, India's opponent must somehow target the skirms on the zambs and goons on the sowars, even though it is nearly impossible to do so when armies are clumped together and the two different unit types look identical. Get used to of them or go to the eye doctor.
4. Urumi are broken units with no counter. Aren't skirms supposed to counter infantry? Not if it's Urumi. Aren't musks supposed to to pretty well vs hand infantry? LOL have fun with that! Your micro skills are only press "attack move" all the time right? did you never heard about manual micro?
5. India doesn't have to shell out 800w for plantations. It can spend 400 wood for what is both a mill and a plantation all in one. It's incredibly lame! They have to make a lot of upgrates in the rice paddy tho' and European civs can make plantations and mills really cheap with a single card
6. India artillery elephants are not hard countered by culverins. Siege elephants can fuck up every civ's buildings and artillery and ships, unless those civs have enough goons and skirms to dps the siege ele. Which is incredibly difficult if india has an army to protect their elephants. They can fall so easy against cav, even they have negative bonus of 0.5x against them
7. Like other Asian civs, India has a consulate and can train industrial units in age 2. WHY does india need redcoats in addition to all their other bonuses? Surely having 2 tanky scouts, a big powerful fb, and all the other lame advantages i mentioned would be enough. But no, India is a weak civ, youre right. Calling it top tier is clearly laughable. They only ship 6 redcoats with like 27 attack lol, it's like a british musketeer with 2 colonial upgrades, and you can kill two monks only using your explorer with 400hp when they only have 6 melee attack and 200hp
1. Sepoys are indeed one of the best musketeer-type units in the game
2. It's definitely pretty strong, I guess in team games it's more significant, though still you have other civs like Dutch, Ports with early goons, France with early skirms, Sioux etc. Not to mention you can acquire goon-type cavalry through native posts
3.
4. Rifle Riders? Jaguar Prowl Knights? Why don't you whine about them? Although you have a point, I — as a European-civs player — don't like them either!
5. True, though it's a characteristic of all Asian nations
6. Can you imagine your artillery being sniped by skirms, or even longbowmen with 26 range? Cause this is basically what happens with siege elephants.
7. From the design point of view this seem a bit unfair to me, too. A consulate basically functions as a second home city, which on paper is vastly superior to nilla & TWC civs. About the monks: you surely don't know the power of native war chiefs or the Chinese kung-fu mutta-phukka
To sum up, you seem to have a point here and there, though you certainly lack greater perspective. Your claims are too radical for someone who is barely a captain I'd imagine, and I'm sure you haven't really played India. I used to complain a lot about civs I hadn't been playing as well, though it's certainly not a way to go. You miss a lot of drawbacks of the Indian nation, too — for instance, their vills cost wood, which is by all means the slowest resource to gather, they have shipments of only 600 resource each, they have to put vills on a wonder in order to age in a reasonable time, which hurts their economy even more. Additionally, if you can defend their early aggression, India is in a pretty awkward spot as their FF is rather slow, whereas standard European strategies of such a kind beat it.
i've played a lot of games with India, and that's the info that i got by playing with them, by the way, why are you talking about other units that aren't indian units?
"That's why we sing for these kids who don't have a thing
Except for a dream and a fuckin' rap magazine " - Eminem
"And we hate po-po
Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho' " - Kendrick Lamar
Except for a dream and a fuckin' rap magazine " - Eminem
"And we hate po-po
Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho' " - Kendrick Lamar
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux
Zhanson10 wrote:1. Sepoys are stupid good. Too strong for their cost. Especially because it's an age 2 unit, which leads to the second point.
They're musketeers so it's normal that you get them in age 2. But yeah ok, they're too strong
2. India is the only civ that has all unit types in age 2. How is it balanced when a civ has goons and skirms in the second age?
Well india can be fast with sepoys only, so if they want to go skirms/goons they will do it kind of late, while some other civs can just age up and get those units as well. I feel like colo zambs are broken in team only.
3. Zambs and sowars are virtually indentical. For someone who uses control groups, this makes it easy to control the units. However, India's opponent must somehow target the skirms on the zambs and goons on the sowars, even though it is nearly impossible to do so when armies are clumped together and the two different unit types look identical.
Well this is just a really bad reason tbh, just open your eyes idk, it's not so hard to differenciate them
4. Urumi are broken units with no counter. Aren't skirms supposed to counter infantry? Not if it's Urumi. Aren't musks supposed to to pretty well vs hand infantry? LOL have fun with that!
Urumis are not hand infantry, they're ranged infantry... Just they have awfully short range. So skirms shouldn't counter them since urumis are the same kind of units as them, and musks obviously even less. And in fact skirms still kind of counter urumis just because they can kite them... But if you want a hard counter, just use cav or falcs, like against other ranged infantry units...
5. India doesn't have to shell out 800w for plantations. It can spend 400 wood for what is both a mill and a plantation all in one. It's incredibly lame!
Just like all other asian civs, it's a feature, and yeah it's good but asian civs got other drawbacks
6. India artillery elephants are not hard countered by culverins. Siege elephants can fuck up every civ's buildings and artillery and ships, unless those civs have enough goons and skirms to dps the siege ele. Which is incredibly difficult if india has an army to protect their elephants.
Siege elephants are super expensive and they also have the ranged cavalry tag (so skirms have *1.5 multiplier against them) as well as super low range resist (30%). They also have close to no dps against infantry. So if your opponent gets those guys you don't need culvs since you don't even need to kill them, they do nothing. If he tries to push your buildings with that it's worth 1400 res invested in just sieging, so it's bad. It's only ok against falcs, but even then not insane
7. Like other Asian civs, India has a consulate and can train industrial units in age 2. WHY does india need redcoats in addition to all their other bonuses? Surely having 2 tanky scouts, a big powerful fb, and all the other lame advantages i mentioned would be enough. But no, India is a weak civ, youre right. Calling it top tier is clearly laughable.
hahahahaha
Lol age 4 units... They only have age 4 skin and name. They actually just have age 2 stats +10% hp and attack lol.
I hope you're trolling
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests