Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition – Data Patch for Build 15.59076

[Kingfisher1787]

I actually don’t believe that’s how it would work.

Lanchester’s Law, essentially says there’s a non-linear benefit gained from a numerical advantage when fighting with ranged units. Therefore, the Dutch (as an example) with only 180 pop should see worse returns on a per-unit basis (from a unit to unit trade rate (and therefore a resource for resource trade rate)) than the current version of the civ. The worsened trading should therefore result in faster draining.

Giving Mexico a 190 pop probably wouldn’t be horrible, but I think there are much better nerfs that should be considered.

[hamletlopez]

@vanBladdeck

and as you can see in those 2 videos: fully carded chinacos easily beat most other fully carded heavy cav with equal ressources → they are op

What a surprise regular cav losing vs chinaco [slight anti cav], why dont you also put skirmishers vs any kinds of heavy infantry and accuse the skirmishers of being OP. In those videos some of the cavalry do not even have a fighting role.

You can clearly see how chinacos get smashed vs other real anti cav. Id like to see Chinacos vs any kind of dragoons and any kind of pike unit type, I’m pretty sure Chinaco will lose 90% of the time.

[hamletlopez]

@M00Z1LLA

It’s also a pretty well established rule of thumb that every unit in the game has at least two counters… except Chinacos.

@vividlyplain

Oh how far we’ve strayed from the foundation of this game.

Well I mentioned before, its a coincidence that theres actually 2 type of units that counter cav as Chinacos, they are called Dragoon type units and Pikemen type units, just for your information.

[hamletlopez]

sure, you want them both imperialzed right? Since we are discussing ultra late game only, not pretending to make an impact in 1v1 games

[Ekdal1378]

Then lets remove their bonus vs Dragoons and Heavy infantry.

Or lets remove the charged attack

It is not fair for them to have the charged attack, the bonus vs cav and bonus vs HI all 3 at the same time.

[vanBladdeck]

@hamletlopez

What a surprise regular cav losing vs chinaco [slight anti cav], why dont you also put skirmishers vs any kinds of heavy infantry and accuse the skirmishers of being OP. In those videos some of the cavalry do not even have a fighting role.

You cant simply change your line of argumentation bro

hamletlopez before: “no chinacos will not win, so they cant be OP. show me evidence. You cant!”

hamletlopez after: “no surprise, ofc chinacos would win… thats their design and its perfectly ballanced”

Edit: nvm. I see you have a long History of not getting the point

Mexico is S+ Tier now + China still S+ Tier + Other Small Balance Updates

20 Fully Updated Hussar [English] vs 20 Fully Updated Charros. 4000 Equivalent resources each. Hussar wins as expected …

[Moonshadow7475]

They should not have bonus damage vs cav of any kind. Period.
Mexico really doesn’t lack cavalry counters.

And this is coming from someone who absolutely loves abusing chinacos.

[BaldRock2260278]

@Ekdal1378

Then lets remove their bonus vs Dragoons and Heavy infantry

they do not have bonus vs goons. it was patched years ago (patch 56860 to be specific) , and justified.

[Adribird90]

Me da exactamente lo mismo si es una caballería con estadísticas base o no.

El Chinaco siempre ataca primero en las batallas por su alcance, excepto despiste excesivo del jugador que los usa. También tiene mejor pathing que cualquier caballería por su alcance.

Es una caballería poderosa que en el juego tardío está totalmente desbalanceada.

Eso sin tener en cuenta la charge o algún extra.

[vividlyplain]

My bad. I forgot every civ has access and upgrade cards and cost/pop efficient versions of those units so this is not ACTUALLY a problem.

[OperaticShip743]

@Moonshadow7475

They should not have bonus damage vs cav of any kind. Period.
Mexico really doesn’t lack cavalry counters.

And this is coming from someone who absolutely loves abusing chinacos.

Also, what is the historical argument for it being good against almost everything?

[Kingfisher1787]

PeoPlE PaID gOod MoNEy fOr tHat cIV! lol

[hamletlopez]

@OperaticShip743

Also, what is the historical argument for it being good against almost everything?

Honestly I think Devs just wanted to innovate with an hybrid of Hussar and Lancer. If Chinaco gets super nerfed or even removed Mexico has no other cav to relly on and the civ would become broke in a bad way.

@Kingfisher1787

PeoPlE PaID gOod MoNEy fOr tHat cIV! lol

Bro, right now in steam the civ is literally $1 USD so it’s not like if you have to pay $60 USD for an entire DLC or any pay to win stuff.
I think $1 USD it’s accesible to anyone.

[MikaelJakson_Hee_He1]

@hamletlopez

If Chinaco gets super nerfed or even removed Mexico has no other cav to relly on and the civ would become broke in a bad way

Mexican main here, we got enough options if Chinacos would be nerfed - even two heavy cav units from forts with cuirs amd Lancer

[Kingfisher1787]

I suppose the wacky caps didn’t signal to you that I was making a joke…

Also, I find it interesting that you responded to the joke and ignored a couple of highly detailed arguments on why Chinacos and Mexico are overpowered in the late game and how they could be nerfed with extremely limited impact on the early game.

Much of how you chose to argue makes use of bad-faith tactics, you move your own goalposts, distract with red herrings about how “Mexico is balanced in 1v1” and how “any nerf will break them”, you ignore stronger arguments that specifically address some of your stated concerns about 1v1 and cherry-pick imprecise statements (like “Chinaco’s beat Musketeers”) which can easily be proven incorrect, while ignoring the underlying point that Fully Upgraded Chinacos wildly over preform vs Infantry (when compared to a Hussar) and don’t have the weakness to heavy cavalry that characterizes a standard lancer.

I don’t think your tactics are likely to convince anyone.

@Kingfisher1787

Fully upgraded Lancers get like 44 damage with a 4x vs infantry, but have like 33% less base attack than a Hussar.

Chinacos get damage similar to a Hussar with a 1.25x vs Hussars. The whole point of what I was saying is that a unit doing ~100% more damage vs Musketeers, and ~250% more damage vs light infantry shouldn’t preform so well vs Hussars. The “trade off” for that massive DPS advantage vs infantry is costing less than 5% more and having slightly fewer hitpoints.

The Chinaco essentially has no trade off since most civs can’t pop efficiently use Dragoons in Treaty unless their opponent is spamming pure heavy cavalry.

Just to add here, if you can’t effectively use Dragoons, that leaves some civs with only Musketeers-type units to counter with, and those are a much softer counter to Chinacos than they are to normal cav. A unit that can only be soft countered will rarely be fair unless it’s stats are so bad that non-counters can beat it cost effectively (Chinacos do not have bad stats).

@Kingfisher1787

There is a world in which the unit could have its current stats and be balanced, but that would require a sub-par eco and/or sub-par units to support them.

The Chinaco’s current stats are horrendous balanced when you pair them with a skirm that does 46 ranged damage from 22 range, on a civ with a equivalent total army pop that’s bigger than the Dutch and an eco at least as good as a standard Euro civ isn’t fair.

@Kingfisher1787

@hamletlopez

the game is more or less balanced at the moment. Mexico as civ is not even the most picked nor the one with the most wins, that is still otto.

Let me start here, firstly, your chart shows an over 50% WR with Mexico. Usually WR is an unreliable balancing metric because the ELO system is designed to produce 50% winrates. This can result in inflation or deflation of players’ Elo in order to keep a near 50/50 WR. I don’t think Mexico is op in Sup 1v1, but your own graph, if anything, implies they are. Pointing to pick-rate isn’t fair here because you can only pick a civ you own and I think a majority of players don’t own all civs.

Secondly, we’re talking specifically about Treaty. I’m not sure if we track WR in their, but everyone who plays treaty seriously knows Mexico is extremely OP in that mode.

What had I suggested nerfing? Did I consider balance effects on 1v1 Sup?

First off, things locked behind age 4-5 will have relatively little impact on a 1v1. Age 5 is rarely reached and, unless things have changed a lot, most games end before age 4. With that in mind, let’s look at my list:

@Kingfisher1787

• Charged attack from Presidential Lances is now an attack that just adds +2 AoE to what is otherwise a normal attack.

Presidial Lancers (4). I suggested a nerf to the changed attack as it’s insanely strong late game. It won’t show up in most 1v1s but a simple solution if my nerf was too much would be adding to the card: “Guard Chinaco” tech costs 40% less. That would off-set the nerf to it as a 1v1 card while still being a significant nerf in Treaty.

@Kingfisher1787

25% less Conqs, and Aztecs from the TP-less native alliances. That’ll keep round numbers.

Nerfs to Tlaxcala Alliance (Fed 2) and Aztec Pueblos (Fed 4), neither of these are used much in 1v1. They might be taken, but usually aren’t sent. In treaty both are extremely powerful and should be nerfed. Lets balance these cards based on where they are actually used.

@Kingfisher1787

• Smokeless Powder should be nerfed, half the cost for half the effect (not just for Mexico).

Smokeless Powder (obtained via Tlaxcala Alliance or a Jesuit Mission) adds 10% attack to Gunpowder Inf and Cav, and 5% to artillery for 250f and 250c. An across-the-board nerf will not be an issue 1v1, especially if the cost is cut in half. Just make it 5% for GP units and Artillery. This is rarely used in 1v1 (unless someone built a Jesuit Mission TP in which case it’s a good nerf because Conqs are op as is). Mexico rarely uses the card that allows it to be accessed.

@Kingfisher1787

Skirm combat card in age 3 now adds +10%/10%, researches Veteran Salts, and adds the big button stealth ability. (Currently +15%/15% and adds the stealth big button).

This is the first one that might be an issue in a normal 1v1, but I don’t think it’s unfair. Guerilla Tactics (3) would be +10/10% for Rifle Infantry and would Research Vet Salts and give them the stealth ability big button. It’s a small nerf with a small buff that won’t change much but will be big in treaty as Salt nerfs continue to pile up.

@Kingfisher1787

Age 4 Skirm range card now adds +1 range, down from +2.

Plan of Miramare (4) transforms all your Salts into Guard French Skirms and adds +2 Rifle Inf range. I suggested cutting the range in half with no other changes. If needed cut the cost from 750f 750w to 600f 600w. +1 range and the power spike is still nice, but +2 range is OP in treaty Skirm wars.

@Kingfisher1787

• Hacienda trickle rate from livestock is 10% lower. Livestock trickle is 10% lower.

This is the second one that would have an impact on 1v1. If you consider this a major concern just have aging to 2 give a second cow. At that point it would basically be a straight up buff to 1v1 while nerfing something that is an issue in treaty where people regularly have like 57 livestock working.

@Kingfisher1787

• Age 5 Federal Flag card’s improvement to the damage aura is cut in half. I think the base is +10% to current stats, and I’m guessing card makes it +20%, so make it +15% with the card. That’s still huge as a Current-Stats-Upgrade.

Land of Juarez (Fed 5). +20% damage on all Infantry and Cavalry near the flag (which also gets +70 range) is too much in treaty and will have no meaningful impact on 1v1.

For the number of overall units Mexico gets (115 pop space plus approximately 35 pop worth of natives), both Chinacos and Salts are too good late game. Mexico gets an army similar in size to the Dutch but with an economy that matches or surpasses that of a regular European civilization. Most of the changes required to fix Mexico’s treaty issues won’t have a significant impact on 1v1 and therefore should be made. The only reason not to balance Treaty would be if it would have a meaningful negative effect on 1v1 or team.

@hamletlopez

Mexico as civ is not even the most picked nor the one with the most wins, that is still otto.

I’ve been a very vocal supporter of nerfs to Ottomans, but I’d like to think it possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Ottomans are a scourge to 1v1 and Team, but the level of imbalance in those is dwarfed by how strong Mexico is in treaty.

[BaldRock2260278]

out of the box thinking.

ban the unbalance format.

namly, Treaty.

problem solved.

oh wait, they did, it is not on the ladder

tbf, just make a separate patch for treaty. not their first time doing so

[Ekdal1378]

Mexico is broken in every single mode, teamgames, survival, treaty, black forest… the civ is a mess since day 1

[OperaticShip743]

And in 1v1? How is it?

[Moonshadow7475]

there’s a build that foes ff into chinacos. Quite fun.

[MikaelJakson_Hee_He1]

Really strong due to the immense variety in strats and having a lot of cheezy options like Baja