India changes?

[stealth_nsk]

My experience is based on NQ FFA multiplayer only, I never play singleplayer. In the hands of good players India has a great potential, weak players seems to do relatively worse with them then with other civs.

The thing about the Indian UA is that it doesen't tell you how to play.

Against high-level AI the whole territory becomes settled quite fast. India can't counter this. They have to go extremely tall early in the game. Later (after the cities are closer to the point there India is equal with other civs) it could start expanding, but there's no space for this. The only option is to start offensive war and it's a difficult thing as Elephants are already not so killer unit by this time and will quickly obsolete during the war.

So, in these conditions India UA actually forces them very strict to follow a defined early path. And the forcing comes not from bonuses provided, but from penalties to other strategies.

Again, that's against high-level AI. Against low-level AI or humans you usually have space for second wave expansion, which is an absolute game changer for India.

 

[Ajay Sabharwal]

India has always been treated shabbily by the Civ series—Gandhi as a perpetual joke of a leader, totally uninspired UUs and UBs (as bad as India is in Civ 5, it can't compare to the horror that was the Fast Worker). They have seemingly no interest in anything about the civ other than elephants, the Mughals, and racist stereotypes.

So don't get your hopes up.

I agree with you. Even in Civ Rev, relative to other Civs, the Indian Era Bonuses were pathetic. Since Civ III at least (that is when I started playing) I have not seen anything that would make me want to play as Gandhi. Other Civs has better Camels and Elephants if the unique units matter to anyone.

As an Indian, I don't think Gandhi should be the only leader to represent India. If other civs do get changes in their leaders why not India? I remember their was Asoka in Civ IV and he can be brought back. You can have Akbar too. It was during his reign that India was the largest Economy in the world. The empire spanned from Kabul to Burma and Southern Tibet to the southern tip. He could have religious (he founded din-eh-ilahi to get peace between the hindus and the muslims ) bonuses, militaristic ones (he was winning wars in his teens and ripped almost everyone apart in the later years) and economic and cultural ones as the Mughal Empire was in a Golden age during his reign.

The Rajputs would be great too (if you can have Venice and Rome, you can have them too.)
They were entirely the opposite of the Mughals and could be considered for a Japan type UA. Honor. Strength. Sacrifice. These are the words that describe them.

Breaking the Civilization down to Mughal, Rajputs and maybe Cholas (a lot of people seem to want them) along with smaller empires and city states would make an excellent scenario. Another good option could be to go further in time and get the European Civs to being the Race for Imperialism in South Asia.

Yes, I will remain disappointed with the Indian Unique Ability/Building/anything else till it does not get what it deserves. A culture/tourism bonus from wonders could also work fine but it doesn't look like it is going to happen in the near future.

 

[Antarion]

Which difficulty level you're playing on? Even on Emperor India is a trouble, even though I like playing tall and it was one of my favs in vanilla.

And yes, it's quite boring as just going tall isn't a new strategy. But that's a problem of many vanilla civs.

i bet i beat every emperor game vs the AI with india. i even have good chances to play them in Multiplayer.

india is the best vertical growth civ outwhere, why do u try to play them as ICS? and if u struggle to play them vertical then u should ask yourself if you are doing something wrong.

for social picks i normally start with a mixture of tradition/liberty and later on often piety.

 

[Antarion]

Strategy is about making sacrifices to prioritize one thing over others. For India, the proper strategy may be to prioritize food DTRs over production DTRs or gold ITRs. They really want India to have those big cities, and using food DTRs is the way to make that happen.

absolutly thats the most important thing for india: FOOD! after that is positive happiness count and then everything else.

 

[stealth_nsk]

i bet i beat every emperor game vs the AI with india. i even have good chances to play them in Multiplayer.

india is the best vertical growth civ outwhere, why do u try to play them as ICS? and if u struggle to play them vertical then u should ask yourself if you are doing something wrong.

If you play India with 4 cities, you doesn't use it's benefits, because India doesn't have any bonuses to growth, just happiness. Any Civ could grow tall with 4 cities and a lot of them could do it much better, like Siam with additional food, Egypt with more wonders, etc. Yes, India will have more excess happiness, but it's nothing. In the best case they'll have 1 more Golden Age, but quite unlikely.

The advantage of India comes later when you could grow both tall and wide, but in higher difficulty levels it's a pain.

 

[Antarion]

just TEST it before u write something...FOOD is the most important factor for india. go for the growth bonus (tradition finisher, swords into ploughs and so on) and your eyes will be opened...

in my games i normally set up between 4-8 cities myself vs emperor AI as india. noone forces you to stay with 4 cities, even if legalism/free aqueducts just work for 4 cities.

ics btw means going really WIDE, like i do with incas or arabs atm (damn they nerf my arabs in BNW)

 

[Luckystrike77]

I'm with Antarion here.

Tradition is the way to go for India, even if going wide. You should never rush going wide with India, that's better done with mid-game conquest. Meanwhile you should focus on growing 3-4 cities until they reach the sky. Granary, Watermill, Hanging Gardens if possible, should be priorities before getting too many cities.

Never get obsessed by using those elephants for early Conquest (just in very special cases), think of them as good defensive units when your focus is improving your few cities to a Maximum as fast as possible. No other civ is so perfectly fit for the tradition SP as India, use it to the outmost advantage.

I think the most of the India UA haters are thypical "going wide asap players", most of them most likely most used to liberalism SP strategies.

 

[stealth_nsk]

just TEST it before u write something...FOOD is the most important factor for india. go for the growth bonus (tradition finisher, swords into ploughs and so on) and your eyes will be opened...

Yes. And all these points are available for other civs as well.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Yes. And all these points are available for other civs as well.

Nope, other Civs don't have the great happiness bonus that keeps getting more and more benefitial the huger your population in a city is. Other civs can't grow non-stop, they need to take a break here and there early game.

Another thing not mentioned is that a tall India can be the king of constant Golden Ages. 100+ happiness per turn is not impossible at all with the correct policies (example from me playing all human multiplayer, immortal setting).

 

[DemonMaster]

Yes. And all these points are available for other civs as well.

But other civs will grow unhappiness twice as fast when they grow, India doesn't. India isn't any worse getting happiness sources than any other civ. Sure if you play against a bunch of religious civs, getting a religion of your own can be hard, but religion will come to you anyway. But happiness comes in variety of ways.

In BNW, you can get (as already mentioned) additional food from local trade routes. All will get a pantheon (later a religion, yours or somebody else).
The difference between India and any other civ is that as time goes by, India will not "suffer" as much as the others.

Every civ is unique and all civ isn't for everybody. When I play Attila, I don't go tall, cultural and peaceful. Just saying.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Yep, India has a long term benefitial UA. I guess that makes it harder for some to spot it's benefits. They are not so obviously seen as getting a free scientist at writing or getting great generals faster etc.

The great benefit of this is that India is very flexible too, and very fun to play. You don't feel that you need to rush for writing or other techs, you can focus on what's benefitial to grow as fast as possible based on your start location and the area surrounding it. That alone will help faster growth from start then the civ rushing writing or a special unit somewhere etc because you feel you have too to exploit your civs special abilities asap.

India is for the patient player, you need to focus on very long term goals to succeed.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

As India, you should also focus on settling near horses/elephants ! That's a real killer man !

 

[Gali]

Luckystrike, its not that people are incompetent and stupid. The basic fact that in GK happiness becomes easier to obtain as you go through the game. If you go tall you never need all that much happiness. India's UA hinders you at the most critical part of the game, early expansion. Be late in expansion and the Ai will steal your territory. Later game if tall you can easily obtain all the happiness you need. What is the role of India then. In Vanilla happiness was harder to come by and India could go far taller. In GK you don't run out of happiness when tall unless incompetent, the positive impact is far less than the negative. Add in a weak UB and a limited UU and India offers very little. Yes it can provide global happiness from local but that is just not enough.

To go tall I would far prefer Egypts Burial tomb happiness, Ethiopia's easy religion, Siam's city-state bonuses, Aztec growth, Dutch Polder, etc. They all provide far more of a varied Gameplay too. I can never go wide as India before the AI steals the good land, I can as all those civs.

Why don't you actually look at people's arguments and not just call them stupid. India may get a boost in BNW if they rebalance happiness. With slower expansion due to not being able to buy settlers and reduced happiness India may regain a role. In GK though it is obviously weak. It weakens you at the crucial early stage and offers nothing other civs can't do better.

 

[wigwam]

I think the most of the India UA haters are thypical "going wide asap players", most of them most likely most used to liberalism SP strategies.

As you should know for reading this thread, many of the "India UA haters" think it's poorly-conceived conceptually and mechanically. It's called "Population Growth," but it doesn't give any bonuses to growth; instead, it rewards you, quite arbitrarily, for having cities with more than six citizens. As you've noted, it plays best with a late-game warmonger strategy, which doesn't make sense in light of the UA name and really doesn't make sense in light of the leader (not that a warmongering India would be a bad thing; like Ajay Sabharwal said, it's about time they gave Akbar a try).

Beyond that, it's a lousy representation of one of the world's most important civilizations. India was one of the first cradles of civilization, home to great empires, birthplace of four major religions, renowned for diverse, magnificent architecture, a melting pot of zillions of cultures, one of the great success stories of decolonization, and today the world's largest democracy. And what does it get? "Well, they've got some really big cities, huh? Lots of slums and whatnot? Let's go with that."

And it's wrong on top of everything. Even today, India is one of the least urbanized countries in the entire world. Two-thirds of the population still live in rural villages.

 

[Scaramanga]

Tradition only has one policy that helps city growth and that just for the capital. And then the finisher. I will probably try India with Piety and use beliefs that support city growth. With social policies being less important for culture win I find even Meritocracy attractive. India and Tradition is too much of a forced marriage .

 

[Luckystrike77]

As you should know for reading this thread, many of the "India UA haters" think it's poorly-conceived conceptually and mechanically. It's called "Population Growth," but it doesn't give any bonuses to growth; instead, it rewards you, quite arbitrarily, for having cities with more than six citizens. As you've noted, it plays best with a late-game warmonger strategy, which doesn't make sense in light of the UA name and really doesn't make sense in light of the leader (not that a warmongering India would be a bad thing; like Ajay Sabharwal said, it's about time they gave Akbar a try).

We agree India can be a great mid-later game warmonger, that's good, but I fail to see why it's a problem that the UA then has a name of something else.

That's excactly the beauty of the Indian UA, it's long term effects of cities that has started to grow earlier and more constantly then their opponents, and it's huge happiness surplus. This can be used to alot more then just war expansion in later game. You can go cultural victory for instance with the benefit of few cities, loads of Golden Ages, and with Piety SP you get loads of extra culture per turn due to 100+ happiness.

This is the beauty of the Indian UA, and what makes it shine so much for us that like it. It is a long term bonus, and it's later game benefits can be exploited in many different interesting ways. It's very unique compared to other UA's, and makes for a very different gameplay (like also Venice will). The challenge it gives to come up to the point where the UA gives a tremendous bonus is where the most fun is in my view. After that it's just to wait for victory.

I would be very sad if we lost this UA and possible way to play this game.

I'd take the Indian UA before most other UA's in every game if I could choose. In the NQ FFA's we mostly go random civs, but when I get India I allways get a little bit extra excited.

 

[Seek]

Against high-level AI the whole territory becomes settled quite fast. India can't counter this. They have to go extremely tall early in the game. Later (after the cities are closer to the point there India is equal with other civs) it could start expanding, but there's no space for this. The only option is to start offensive war and it's a difficult thing as Elephants are already not so killer unit by this time and will quickly obsolete during the war.

So, in these conditions India UA actually forces them very strict to follow a defined early path. And the forcing comes not from bonuses provided, but from penalties to other strategies.

Again, that's against high-level AI. Against low-level AI or humans you usually have space for second wave expansion, which is an absolute game changer for India.

AI happiness (and therefore early rexing power) will be leveled somewhat in BNW, so this point may not apply when the expansion comes out.

If you play India with 4 cities, you doesn't use it's benefits, because India doesn't have any bonuses to growth, just happiness. Any Civ could grow tall with 4 cities and a lot of them could do it much better, like Siam with additional food, Egypt with more wonders, etc. Yes, India will have more excess happiness, but it's nothing. In the best case they'll have 1 more Golden Age, but quite unlikely.

The advantage of India comes later when you could grow both tall and wide, but in higher difficulty levels it's a pain.

Excess happiness potentially means more than just an extra golden age in BNW: it means you can sell off your last copy of luxes faster with domestic food TRs (may end up being more powerful than the Netherlands) and since Piety has been buffed and is no longer exclusive with Rationalism it will be chosen more, it means more culture.

 

[GKShaman]

So I've played as India for about a 6 months now here and there so I'm gonna give my thoughts on what a lot of people said.

Late game Warmongerer - YES India is EXCELLENT at that u can take 10 pop 15 and higher cities and easily conquer entire nations without killing ur happiness. I remember after destroying an entire nation of Ottomans I went from 70 happiness to like 20/30.

Hurt in the most critical part - Early Expansion - Also yes! India I agree maybe shouldnt be meant to go wide. But in trying to implement that they made it where india struggles to go beyond 2 cities. on standard two cities is 12 unhappiness which needs around 2-3 luxuries to offset. And as the pop in capital grows - more resources are needed. This means really well placed cities. But thats not possible since u cant expand too fast or even at the good speed. This INEVITABLY throws me into a early war. I end up taking and burning a french/mongolian/greek/ whatever city fast and then building my 3rd/4th.

Choice of Leaders - Plenty of GOOD leaders to chose from Jawaharlal Nehru, Akbar (he facilitated a lot of diverse religious dialogues and didn't forcibly convert anyone), Netaji Subha Chandra Bose, and there are the older ones - Asoka, Chandragupta Maurya, etc. Gandhi was an excellent leader, but maybe a change in leader might be nice? Not too important in my opinion but if a lot of ppl want it why not. Or in civ 4 u could just chose between two.

Exclusion of history - It seems to Sid Meier and team India consisted of Mughal Rule and British Rule and then independence. Which LEAVES out ALOT. There were the Marthas, Cholas, Guptas, and plenty more. It would be a really long intro dialogue if they mentioned all of these but a the intro speech for India could definitely improved.

UU-War Elephant - Literally this makes me really mad. Elephants in the Indian army in the ancient times and over a wide amount of time advanced through the ages. Rise of Nations and Age of Empires do this SOOO WELL - there are ranged elephants, melee elephants. In fact the Sowars (camel light infantry) and then Age of Empires asian dynasty has rajputs, gurkhas, sepoys (the heavy, ranged, and musketman infantry). There are TONS of indian unique units possible here but they make a ranged strength 11 elephant thats only good in the first 50 turns? When india is not even making units?

Siam's Narusean Elephants are boss, and Carthage's have "feared elephant. (-10% combat modifier)" They could at least give that to the War Elephant but they didn't even update that.

The Indian elephant even gave Alexander the Greats army a run for it money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hydaspes)

Population Growth doesn't mean population growth - Perfectly said. Its just a late game happiness buff. The Aztecs actually get growth simply from their UB. Instead they should do India gets a +20% boost to growth when at peace - SIMPLE yet forces the player to play tall, peacful cities. Or Minority Religion - +1 gold and culture for every 5 followers of a different religion in cities.

Changes I'd Like to See
Better more relevant unique units
Possible candidates:
Gorkha Rifles - Industrial/Modern Era Regiments of the soldiers served in WWI under the British Raj Flag and later in Independence joined Indias army. Serve still today and have had major battle honours won in most conflicts.
War Elephant thats stronger and maybe with cannons or melee. Maybe add in "berserk factor" (in times of panic the elephant would do damage to its own infantry) but then make the elephant stronger.
UA - Peaceful Growth and/or Minority Religion - India gets a +20% growth rate in Peaceful times and +1 gold and culture for every 5 followers of a minority religion.
India generally in history has desired independent self rule, peace, and diversity. Its a hot sizzling pot of Hindus, Muslim, Jews, Christians, Jains, Sikhs, even Zoroastrians. Resemble that.

Sorry for long thread but needed to get this out there.
Thoughts Anyone?

 

[adwcta]

GKShaman and Seek, agree with everything you guys are saying.

Interestingly, with the BNW happiness change (apparently, combat penalties start as soon as the empire is in unhappiness, rebels start appearing "much earlier" than -20, and you actually start losing cities at -20 happiness), India's late-game conquest will be even more beneficial. I've said earlier in this thread that India wasn't getting a boost in BNW, but I was wrong. With this new happiness information, India's UA actually got a HUGE late game boost for sustained conquest. This means I hate the Indian UA even more since it's now even better suited for modern/atomic age warfare, but now at least I don't think it's fair to call it underpowered in BNW.

Such horrible flavor for Gandhi.

 

[stealth_nsk]

AI happiness (and therefore early rexing power) will be leveled somewhat in BNW, so this point may not apply when the expansion comes out.

Yes, I've mentioned this. I was speaking about the situation in G&K.

Excess happiness potentially means more than just an extra golden age in BNW: it means you can sell off your last copy of luxes faster with domestic food TRs (may end up being more powerful than the Netherlands) and since Piety has been buffed and is no longer exclusive with Rationalism it will be chosen more, it means more culture.

1. I don't get how domestic TR are linked to lux trading. Overall, lux trading is more difficult in BNW as trading for lump sums requires DoF.

2. India is the hardest civ to get a religion. I'm afraid it would be even worse in BNW as Piety opener halves building cost for Shrines and Temples and thus opponents who focus on religion will be able to benefit from their number of cities much better.