You realise the armor affects their other units too, right? So all their other infantry units have to suffer if the player decides to keep their tks “fast”. Tk doesn’t need that kind of a drastic boost to their speed as +0.2, which means if you give them less they don’t become that op. They only need a slight speed buff, like +0.05 or something like that and maybe 1 more pierce armor for the elite version. We should start with that and see if they then become useful or not, then see if they still need something, like a little more conversion resistance.
Edit: and I’ve got no clue why you dragging viper into this. His surely one of the best players if not the best, but even he can say stupid things. So what are you trying to prove with that statement? Maybe the other suggestions were even worse than this one how am I to know. Maybe not. Maybe he just gave it a quick glance and first reaction was nice and didn’t go pondering about it more than that. Or maybe he really thinks it’s a good idea. Well it still ain’t.
It goes from 1.35 (1.25 base+0.10 obtained in feudal) speed to 1.5 base speed upon being upgraded. That is a substantial increase in speed, and you wording is pretty misleading.
I have to agree on the goth part of OP’s post, but that’s kind of what everyone is complaining about in the forums nowadays (and by playing with goths a bit in ranked, both in 1v1 or 2v2 with a friend, I found the militia spam to be true cancer).
Because before that buff you could counter mass chu ko nu with onagers, but now redemption+block print allow the Chinese to convert them safely… Fortunately it didn’t prove to be OP (as of now)
Wrt that crazy speed change on TK… so the TK will go from 0.9 down to 0.72 after only 2 ARM upgrades, that means with as little as 4 pierce armour it will be aslow as it is currently… so even worse than it is now(4 pierce arm vs 6), nevermind the 3rd upgrade making it even slower than it currently is. Unupgraded how quickly is a TK going to be shredded with only 2 pierce arm, effectively making all post imp ranged units do +4 damage vs them…
kamandarian doesnt ncessarily need to be more expensive, the wood cost for persian xbows need to be more expensive (if anything)(as pointed out by others its the trash wars where the tech becomes stupidly OP)
agree cumans and tatars could do with a buff (especially tatars, due to that stupid situational unique bonus being useless on some maps)…
Unfortunately, also just because you “say” viper said he liked ur idea, unfortuantely doesnt necessarily make it true, u could be mistaken, he could be mistaken about what u said, or it could be a fabrication, how many times have we heard “some guy” say he heard " something" from some " big player"
Heck, even if Viper did say he liked it that doesn’t mean much. He’s briefly reading chat while playing games, not exactly time to consider the long-term implications of a major balance change. That said, he likes speed and thinks the Teutons are too slow, so any suggestion that involves the words “Teutonic Knight” and “Speed” will probably get a +1 from him.
I think that there is a problem with certain civs being auto picks on some maps. Persians on Nomad/Meditaranian, Mongols on high hunt maps or Indians on high fish maps and so on…
We see right now with HC3 Maps (and we saw it beforer in other Tournaments) that some maps will always be Mongols Mirror or Persian Mirrors and I dont think anyone wants to see the same civs all the time and because they are so dominant they still win even if you counterpick them (if they even have a counter. So in my opinion those strong eco bonuses need to be tuned down or other civs given bonuses to compete with them.
Suggestions:
Indians dont use their fish bonus on pretty much every map but on those that they do its just very broken. Either reduce the gather rate (5% maybe) or give another civ a similar bonus (like longer lasting shore fish)
Persians are probably the strongest earlygame water civ cince their buffs with de. I dont think they where intendet to be a naval civ. They where a decend civ before the buffs. with strong mid game economy. Now they not only got one of the stroner early game ecos but also probably the strongest late game comp with their gold free archers. My fix would be to switch their unique techs so that kamandaran is an imp tech (and costs acordingly more) and on top of that either make their docks not get the HP and production increase (making them a strong land civ) or make them loose their 5% bonus in dark age (just like before de).
Mongols were already adressed. but 40% hunt bonus still makes them the only choice on all high hunt maps. Tuning that down to 25% might make room for other civs. Mongols still get an unbeatable Post Imp composition so widening the window they are vulnerable on all maps will probably male them less frustrating to play agains.
There are some arguments to be made towards Franks and Britons who also have a bonus that can be very op on some maps (berries and sheep) but we dont see many of these maps currently so I think they are fine in that regard
Now some thoughts on civ changes to weaker civs:
Tatars should be fun to watch and play with their Hill bonus and fast composition. Unfortunatly they just dont have anything that makes them better in open and fast pase maps then Huns or Mongols (their eco is just much worse). So my idea here is to give them the bonus: All animals last 25% Longer (maybe with the exception of fish?) This way they also will have a little more food than a regular civ in dark age (since hunt last longer and hunt is gathered faster). Might make them just enough viable to see Mongols vs Tatars on high hunt maps. while also giving them some place in standart resource maps.
Goth the recent buff to goth made them even more one-dimensional while making them potentially also broken (not quite sure if they are actually to op). Nevertheless the buff was not what makes them more balanced. (buffing them in a way they where already really strong, Infantry, while not fixing the problems they have, economy and unit options) Taking away their dark age infantry discount and instead giving them some kind of small eco bonus should make them more balanced.
For that I like the idea of giving a buff to their houses, making them cost less and making them build them faster. Its like a weaker Huns bonus and thats fine, dont think they should get that good of an eco. Another Idea I had is to spawn a boar underneath their TC apon arriving in Feudal (would fit with their weired other boar bonus) it might need have less food though (200 maybe?) as it would be potentially to strong for going FC after also having a fast Feudal time (for defensive Towers or MAA).
Tell me what you think of these, if you agree or disagree and why.
I don’t like that Tatars change. As-is, they get about 400 extra food. That would go to just 350 with sheep+boar, and would only become superior with sheep+boar+deer.
Their dark age econ bonus is already very good, imo. Their biggest problem is that their unit bonus is too location specific. After all, Mongols get +25% fire rate anywhere; Tatars need the hill bonus, and it only takes them from 125% damage to 150%, or, in reality, a 20% bonus.
So not only is their bonus harder to use, it’s less powerful. Even worse, it’s only active in a place where they already have the advantage.
My idea was something like, ‘Tatars get hill advantage when attacking enemies after retreating. On hills, bonus is twice as strong.’
Basically making parthian tactics real. IRL, they would charge, then feign a retreat, causing the enemy to break formation to chase them down, and then they’d attack the weakened enemy formation and break it.
So it would make chasing after Tatar units a bad idea, but it would make outright attacking AS tatars harder to pull off effectively, as well.
Not sure if something like that is possible to code, though. But it would make Tatars effective even on hillless maps.
The Idea about the retrat and attack sounds really nice, but you are probably right that it would be hard to code.
With the other bonus I must disagree a little. Sure you might loose some food in total (which i didnt intendet just didnt knew the numbers and it doesnt need to be 25% can also be more). The big plus of the hunt lasting longer is that that time you spent gathering hunt is also time the villagers gather faster.
While current Tatars still have sheep in feudal age to gather from, they didnt gather anymore than any other civ without a eco bonus. Sure Britons are already out of sheep but they just gathered it faster and have the villager time now for something else (taking a nice walk to the stragler trees).
Tatars are the most balanced civ of the last khans, their herdable bonus is actually useful, you can up faster in most maps due the lasting sheeps, cows etc.
Their UU is a good one, they can camp on hills, the problem is the steppe lancer being so expensive, the civ should remain the same now with halbs, maybe in the future re work their UT that gives more range to trebs.
Persians need to lose their fast dock bonus until castle age, or only affect non military ships.
Perhaps Crenellations could receive a small buff to make it’s Garrisoned Infantry more worthwhile. Currently, they only get the Castle to fire 12 arrows (7 extra). That’s 2 (14) less than what 20 Villagers would give, 3 (15) less than 20 Arbalasters/ Cav Archers would give, and 9 less (max of 21) than what 20 Hand Cannoneers give.
I see your point, although this is as much, or more, of a problem with the maps than the civs. On the vast majority of maps, including all the older maps, there weren’t huge amount of animals/shore fish to take advantage of. Some new maps that are almost only ever seen in tourneys have been designed in extreme ways that highly favor one or two civs, and it doesn’t seem fair to nerf the whole civ on all maps based on how it can perform on a specialized, rarely played new map. Most of these maps, BTW, are not official Age2/DE maps, but are made by T90’s team or other creators, and the purpose of them is to switch up the meta or to offer unique situations that no other map offers. So in general I don’t like the idea of watering down good bonuses because they might be OP 5% of the time. Map and civ bans exist for a reason.
Persians are kind of a different animal, and might just be the strongest overall civ right now, but especially on hybrid maps as you mention. I think switching their Castle and Imp UTs might be sufficient.
Its true that you can also see this as an map problem, but it just restricts map design so much. Its not only T90s maps aswell. Vally was in the map pool and was so Mongols focused that it was globaly banned on that map in a Tournament (I think it was NAC3?) Skandinavia has a clear edge to Mongols aswell and all it has 1 extra boar. Beduins saw some tournament play and used to be Chineese vs Indians (with Chineese still having their no TC start bonus) and Indians still domionated every Time. El Dorado is another one where Indians wehere heavily favored.
Land Madness used to be Franks all the timenow with addition of some deer its always Mongols.
If one small change (like one extra Boar, some extra deer, few millable shore fish, extra berries) makes some civs just so much better then others, it really restricts map making alot.
Not saying that this aplies to lower and intermediat play but tournament and high-level play certainly.
If this would only be a Tournament Problem (by having ranked matchmaking be random for example) I would be more fine with it.
I also dont think this will change the fact that on maps like Mediteranian or Nomad they are the best (by far) pick. Most of these are won before it ever comes to that point, because of their insane water production ontop of having one of the strongest economies and uptimes. I do agree though that the UTs should be switched regardless.
