Less OP Mauryans

[60and80]

The Mauryans can literally have a completely mobile civilisation. A worker elephant, a Kauntika (Bamboo Spearman) and Maurya can gather resources (Spearman), Deposit resources (Elephant) and train units (Maurya). Doesn't this seem OP to anyone else? I think that being able to train units from another mobile unit is a cool idea, but it should be balanced, by having 1.5x build time and resources for units, or something like that.

BUT DON'T REMOVE WORKER ELEPHANTS!

They are too awesome.

[Pedro Falcão]

IMO, a mobile dropsite is already too big a bonus. In fact, it makes that tech to increase carry capacity a bit useless. More carry capacity decreases the number of turn ins and so, the time to gather the same amount of resources. But with a dropsite as close as possible, that tech isn't really needed.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Pedro Falcão

[Pureon]

It's true that worker elephants give the Mauryans a big advantage, however generally in multiplayer Mauryans are still regarded as slightly under-powered because of their weak units.

[sanderd17]

I don't think we should bind in with the overpowered factions, but rather give the underpowered more power. This is because I like diverse factions, and every diversion is extra power to a faction.

Just my opinion though.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Maybe workers could have a gather penalty when the elephant is outside of friendly territory.

[Lion.Kanzen]

they dont have efficent siege weapons, don't penalize the Elephant.

[Enrique]

Mauryans OP?

I play SVN in a regular basis (against what I think are good players) and I find it much easier to beat them when they pick mauryans.

I tried to play mauryans sometimes and in the 1vs1 it's really hard to obtain a victory. (personal opinion)

[av93]

Two posible solutions for the two problems:

*Change the elephant role, instead of a dropsite, make them a worker. Just attach two dudes as workers with the elephants for the graphics. The purpose of this unit would be:

- A worker unit that doesn't need a dropsite

- Also can work in neutral territory

- Economic production like 2 citizien soldiers.

- Good HP

*And for the maiden guards, maybe limit to 15-20 units

[Pureon]

A week ago I played as the Mauryans against Feneur who had the Romans. I controlled 3/4 of the map but Feneur had built a very strong fortress in the corner of the map where my Mauryan units were unable to penetrate. My weak siege units and infantry couldn't inflict any significant damage. Mauryans are not OP, especially not now that heroes are considerably weaker

[alpha123]

As someone who used to play the Mauryans almost all the time against decent players (and still do from time-to-time), they definitely aren't OP. In fact, I'd actually say they're somewhat underpowered. Mostly the lack of siege and melee cavalry kills them. Elephants are very efficient siege engines when massed and well covered, but a handful of skirmishers and swordsmen takes out quite a few elephants easily. Regular siege is much harder to kill. Also, they have no melee cavalry to counter enemy siege, and elephants are too expensive and slow to be particularly useful against enemy siege (and again, are taken out pretty easily). The lack of melee cavalry also means they don't have anything to counter slingers, which destroy an army of archers (slingers are bonused 2x vs all ranged units). Slingers are only effectively counterable with melee cavalry. Ranged cav is utterly useless.

[lilstewie]

They're one of the easiest factions to steam roll actually.

Edited February 26, 2013 by lilstewie

[Mythos_Ruler]

Perhaps a cavalry swordsman for them. Just use the swordsman textures and props. It'll help them in early/mid game with raiding and then help them in late game against enemy siege.

[60and80]

Mauryans are op because they don't even have to stay in the same place when they reach city phase.

[Pureon]

Mauryans are op because they don't even have to stay in the same place when they reach city phase.

This clearly isn't giving them a big advantage. Some of the guys who have posted above play multiplayer almost every day, so are most suited to tell us what factions are OP. I agree with the others, Mauryans are slightly UP at present.

[quantumstate]

Yes, the mobility doesn't help very much. You cannot build an army from one training facility so you need a solid base somewhere, and the economy advantage mainly applies in mid game where you can gather without placing a lot of CC's. By late game you need structures to protect your eco from the enemy.

[alpha123]

Mauryans are op because they don't even have to stay in the same place when they reach city phase.

Meh, that doesn't really make a difference. How does that make them overpowered? A little mobile economy using the worker elephant is pretty nice in the early game, but in the middle and late game you need buildings for defense.

Perhaps a cavalry swordsman for them. Just use the swordsman textures and props. It'll help them in early/mid game with raiding and then help them in late game against enemy siege.

That alone would help quite a lot with their underpoweredness. Another interesting thing would be making elephants bonused against siege equipment, and make them less vulnerable to skirmishers. I think simply adding a cavalry swordsman would go a long way (and is still pretty historically accurate, right?).

You might want to consider something similar for the Spartans, although their champion? swordsman can fulfill most of the roles of cavalry (despite not being bonused against siege).

Edited February 26, 2013 by alpha123

[Lion.Kanzen]

Mauryans OP?

it's really hard to obtain a victory. (personal opinion)

i quoted this, try with a Faction that good Defences, like Carthage, or Macedonia, its hard to go for Victory. i agree with Enrique.

each Civilization in game have a Civilization that can do very hard to Win. Example Persian Vrs Atenians, in many Games against Aegis, i never see a Faction destroying a Civic Centre, i Never lost a Civc Center, in Many Alphas.

[Enrique]

i quoted this, try with a Faction that good Defences, like Carthage, or Macedonia, its hard to go for Victory. i agree with Enrique.

each Civilization in game have a Civilization that can do very hard to Win. Example Persian Vrs Atenians, in many Games against Aegis, i never see a Faction destroying a Civic Centre, i Never lost a Civc Center, in Many Alphas.

I'm speaking here of results in experienced player vs player matches. There's no point in judging the strength of a civ based on a match against AIs, they're not even close as challenging as a human player (yet).

[Mythos_Ruler]

That alone would help quite a lot with their underpoweredness. Another interesting thing would be making elephants bonused against siege equipment, and make them less vulnerable to skirmishers. I think simply adding a cavalry swordsman would go a long way (and is still pretty historically accurate, right?).

Just need a Sanskrit/Indian name for it.

You might want to consider something similar for the Spartans, although their champion? swordsman can fulfill most of the roles of cavalry (despite not being bonused against siege).

I think their swordsman could definitely be tweaked a bit, specifically a bonus vs. siege would be good, or give Spartan women a bonus vs. siege.

[alpha123]

Just need a Sanskrit/Indian name for it.

Ashkhadaga? I don't speak Sanskrit, but I think that means something along the lines of "sword-horse." (Using some online translators; may not be accurate. Where'd the existing names come from?)

I think their swordsman could definitely be tweaked a bit, specifically a bonus vs. siege would be good, or give Spartan women a bonus vs. siege.

Their swordsman is so versatile already I'm a little hesitant to give him a bonus vs siege, so I'd prefer women have the bonus.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Ashkhadaga? I don't speak Sanskrit, but I think that means something along the lines of "sword-horse." (Using some online translators; may not be accurate. Where'd the existing names come from?)

Need some confirmation from someone who is in the know. They're called "Laghu Aśvānīka" here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?466774-Preview-Taksashila-(Mauryan-Satrapy)

Their swordsman is so versatile already I'm a little hesitant to give him a bonus vs siege, so I'd prefer women have the bonus.

Right. The Spartan player tends to make tons of swordsmen already, so probably better to give the bonus to their women, which also makes a little historical sense as the women were the "last line of defense" for the Spartans many times.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I'm speaking here of results in experienced player vs player matches. There's no point in judging the strength of a civ based on a match against AIs, they're not even close as challenging as a human player (yet).

not all human players

[alpha123]

not all human players

For human players weaker than the AI, civ balance doesn't really matter much.

Need some confirmation from someone who is in the know. They're called "Laghu Aśvānīka" here: http://www.twcenter....Mauryan-Satrapy)

I'd go with that then. Ashkhadaga does seem consistent with current ranged cavalry (Ashwarohi) and swordsmen (Khadagdhari). They probably didn't call their cavalry swordsmen simply "sword horse" though.

I'll see if I can find some sources or something. Currently though, Laghu Aśvānīka is probably our best bet.

Edited February 28, 2013 by alpha123

[Lion.Kanzen]

now are a tech about siege bolt shooter, but is possibly the one missile kill many soldier or give some damage a bounch of they in the trajectory ?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Fockatar]

I hope I'm not reviving a dead thread...it seems little older than a week or so.

Anyway, I'm a Classical Philologist/Ancient Historian (whichever handle you prefer) and though a specialist in archaic Greece obviously Sanskrit is one of the languages I know. I'm really, really, impressed by this project, I've no modding skills but I'll try to help in other ways.

Now for cavalry, I guess you can have Laghu Asvanika for light/swift horse but there are some other close matches, if you want variety. The skill of horsemanship was largely called aśvavidyā, cavalry as a collective was called aśvārohagaṇaḥ (as in a singular word, "cavalry) amongst other things, aśvārohagaṇaḥ (as a singular, last vowel is long for plural) is the most stand out name for "horseman" in general.

So , obviously not a big deal, and I've no idea if these Classical Sanskrit words were used in Mauryan times (nor indeed do I know much about them!) but just to give you some variety.