India
- Thread starter bc1
- Start date
I would say that it depends a lot on your play style. I consider them a horrible civ because of the -8 happiness for each city. This means that they can't really take over the world, every city you take must be razed or you will take a massive happiness hit.
Their elephants are a very good unit but again, even if you win the war you can't really take the cities. Kind of pointless unless you want to have just a few cities that are absolutely massive.
Their elephants are a very good unit but again, even if you win the war you can't really take the cities. Kind of pointless unless you want to have just a few cities that are absolutely massive.
I consider them one of the worst factions for multiplayer as their happiness modifier basically is meaningless or a disadvantage and they got nothing else going.
Elephants are not bad but in the Era that they are relevant its not possible to rush any good player because defense is very easy at that time, even with composite bowmen alone. But more importantly, the unit comes so early that if you try to Rush someone that even if you win the War, you lose the game because you are hopelessly behind (in FFA Games).
Elephants are not bad but in the Era that they are relevant its not possible to rush any good player because defense is very easy at that time, even with composite bowmen alone. But more importantly, the unit comes so early that if you try to Rush someone that even if you win the War, you lose the game because you are hopelessly behind (in FFA Games).
Silverfuturist
King
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 684
I had a good experience with them... I was always happy, and ended up with 6 huge cities.. I was able to settle my first few cities on luxes and people were willing to trade my spare lux for their spare lux. The culture bonus for their castle was decent, but of course India wouldn't come close to being my first pick.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,281
Don't elephants come quite a bit earlier than composite bowmen ? and they "feel" much stronger than composite bowmen - they seem to be more resistant to melee attack. And they move faster, which is also a big thing
Interesting consideration - doesnt the game snowball as you get more cities & production ? And if your neighbors were busy developing and building improvements, hello elephants !
If you take very good cities that contribute to your empire and/or get free wonders from the conquered then an early war can be very beneficial and leave you ahead instead of behind. It is really more about your target and how easily it falls.
If that target is a skilled player that is resilient for many turns then of course it will not be worth it.
This is an absurd idea, every city that you take is going to have a -8 happiness hit on top of the population hit and captured city hit. The only way being Gandhi would help is if the city you took was HUUUGE. Since they decrease in size by roughly 1/2 on capture, the odds of them being big enough for Gandhi's UA to help are slim to none. The city you capture would need to be bigger than population 20 to start seeing a positive effect from Gandhi.
BlackWizard
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 673
Size 6 city has same effect to happines if you are gandhi or somebody else. If it's bigger than 6 after capture Gandhi wins.
Besides until that time Ghandi's advantage in happiness will be more than enough to cover expanse. Than captured city will grow. Ghandi wins again.
His bonus is not instant but later it game it becomes very, very efficient
Thank you... About time some one had a level head around here
Those who fail miserably at arithmetics might think so.
As far as I know the math goes like this: On a pop 9 city the regular civ has a -4 hit for founding a city plus -8 for population = -12 (Population 1 is free). For Gandhi a 9 pop city would have -8 for founding a city plus -4 for population = -12. This makes a pop 9 city the break even point on prince. This means the city taken would have to be pop 18 or higher before capture. I am not sure where you got pop 6 being the break even point from.
regular civ: -4 founding + -5 for pop = -9 on a pop 6 city
Gandhi: -8 founding + -3 for pop = -11 on a pop 6 city.
If my numbers are wrong it's due to a game concept being wrong and definitely not math.
Population 1 isn't free. Unhappiness per city is 3 (see GlobalDefines.xml - <Row Name="UNHAPPINESS_PER_CITY">), plus 1 for each unit of population, including the first citizen. So, yes, when you found a city, unhappiness rises by 4, but it's 3+1, not 4+0.
That is an important distinction when you are managing global vs. local happiness, or when you are trying to figure out India's UA. In your workup, the right math is:
regular civ: -3 city + -6 for pop = -9 on a pop 6 city
Gandhi: -6 city + -3 for pop = -9 on a pop 6 city
That is an important distinction when you are managing global vs. local happiness, or when you are trying to figure out India's UA. In your workup, the right math is:
regular civ: -3 city + -6 for pop = -9 on a pop 6 city
Gandhi: -6 city + -3 for pop = -9 on a pop 6 city
Thanks for that distinction. My figures were of course from game experience alone without looking up actual game coding. He is not as bad as I had originally thought but still very difficult to rule the world with since most captured cities are around 2 -3 pop after capture in a relatively early war.
India domination is really best late game, when you're taking down 20+ pop cities.
