Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Zhanson10 »

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
No Flag tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3449
Joined: Jun 8, 2015

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

  • Quote

Post by tedere12 »

reasons @Zhanson10 is future pr50
No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Zhanson10 »

tedere12 wrote:reasons @Zhanson10 is future pr50

Go home, troll
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1303
Joined: Feb 28, 2015
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

  • Quote

Post by yurashic »

Hi, can you please teach me to play the game? You seem to be a great player.
No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

  • Quote

Post by Zhanson10 »

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
User avatar
India gh0st
Lancer
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 27, 2015
ESO: gh0st007
Location: India

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

  • Quote

Post by gh0st »

seems like someone got bashed by India alot
No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Zhanson10 »

gh0st wrote:seems like someone got bashed by India alot

Correct
User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by noissance »

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
No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Zhanson10 »

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.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

  • Quote

Post by gibson »

All very valid points....I completely agree! France is also bad and re port is top tier!
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Gustav once claimed that India was OP in treaty because of siege elephants
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

  • Quote

Post by noissance »

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
No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Zhanson10 »

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.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by WickedCossack »

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.
Spain NekoBerk
Lancer
Posts: 804
Joined: Oct 4, 2015
ESO: Nirket
Location: Barcelona

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by NekoBerk »

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
No Flag Zhanson10
Dragoon
Donator 01
Posts: 450
Joined: Feb 7, 2016

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Zhanson10 »

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.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by gibson »

Well to be fair to him the point about 400w plantations is valid
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3409
Joined: Aug 20, 2016
ESO: _H2O

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by _H2O »

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.
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by SoldieR »

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.
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by kami_ryu »

Really? I always thought India was one of the better civs. Great units, great eco (maybe slow?), free map control.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by pecelot »

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. :maniac:
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 :chinese:

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. :ear:
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Garja »

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.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Brazil 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

Post by lemmings121 »

@Zhanson10 think of urumi as meele skirms. they will rape musks, but hand cav kills them.
Image
Spain NekoBerk
Lancer
Posts: 804
Joined: Oct 4, 2015
ESO: Nirket
Location: Barcelona

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by NekoBerk »

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. :maniac:
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 :chinese:

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. :ear:


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
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Reasons why India is the lamest civ in the game, even worse than Sioux

Post by Kaiserklein »

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
Image
Image
Image
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 19 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