Are Hindustani units decreasingly impactful?
- This topic has 11 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
After observing the latest tournament, it appears that the popular choice of the Hindustani civilization only won about 10% of the games.
I believe this is due to the civilization being excessively nerfed.
The removal of halberdiers and reduction in economic bonuses might result in an overall win rate of only around 45%.
What are your thoughts on this?
No, not at all.
NAC4 is not representative of the ability of each civ.
I think you are forgetting that NAC4 was a 9 villager start.
Even old Hindustanis suffer from this version of the game.
That is 6 less villagers you get at a discount in early dark age.
Meaning the game mode already is a slight nerf to them.
So it is hard to really see how much the actual nerf did for the civ in standard games.
I don’t think so.
I rather think they didn’t shine because of the maps and because pros have a tendency to play heavier into xbow than into knights (Lierrey even said the knight is the worst unit in the game currently because of monks in the winner Interview).
Hindustanis is still a strong civilisation, but it might not be #1 anymore – that’s not what I’d call an overnerf though.
It was still picked a lot, so pros still think it’s top tier.
So, no.
No.
Hindustanis isn’t a early agression civ, and shouldn’t be there.
On Castle Age they will shine with amazing camels and UU and, in Imperial Age, they have a opressive combo with Imperial Camels + Hamd Cannonners.
Plus that they have amazing trash and solid eco bonus.
Nac 4 settings were different..
it was 9 vill start with nearby res explored.
Thus, hindustani dark age vill bonus is negligible.
Hence, they can’t compete with top civ’s on scout builds.
Again, some of the matches have water or hybrid, they don’t have any bonus for it.
Finally, closed or semi closed maps, Turks and burgundy just run the show.
Again, they could be top 5 in arabia, and arena.
But there were always another a couple of civ’s better than them.
Yes, they were.
But you will have people defending the Hindustani nerf with ”tournaments are not valid proof of a civ’s strength” despite tournaments and pro/streamer opinion being the only excuse people have to defend Franks being overpowered as fuck.
Now, watch them nitpick and cherry pick ”acceptable to balance around” players out of the top 0.1%, because data is only valid when it benefits them.
Hitting the only real eco bonus of a civ that was mostly good at countering mono-comp armies just because archer/cav abusers wouldnt/couldnt adapt (aka dont make a mono comp army) was kinda not the epic balance win some people are pretending it was.
I think nerf was good, I think hindustanis have dropped down from S tier to maybe A-tier or highest B-tier.
Yes.
Their biggest issue was the ghulam, not the vil discount.
Edit: Vil not civ
That UU makes them broke … their UU should not have passthrough damage.
Yes, they ruined the Civ.
Should have keep there vil bonus & removed crossbow.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
