I think this bonus needs a perspective change. Let me begin at the top.
Britons get their wood cost halved
Bulgarians get their stone cost halved.
If you drop two TC’s in Castle age, grand total, Britons will save 275 wood, enough for a University (to eventually get ballistics and chemistry) and tack on three houses. That’s extremely substantial.
If you drop two TC’s in Castle age, as Bulgarians, they will save you 100 stone, or not enough for a tower. Less than a third of the cost of a Krepost. Less than a sixth of the cost of a Castle.
This. Bonus. Is. Bad. It needs to be expanded or gutted. That’s the list of options. I hope we understand why. The ONLY significant purpose of this bonus is currently to be able to drop a single defensive tower against pressure in feudal and still have the stone to drop a TC in castle age, which loses all meaning if the pressure carries past that tower or if you go to stone to supplement your defenses. It’s a terrible bonus in 95% of cases, which is why I keep saying it, and why it should change.
The reason why the stone discount can be strong is not the Ressource save bonus to build one or two TC in the castle age. It’s more to SPAM TC in the later game. TC protect you for raiding that helps to expand and secure the outpost. But therefore you have Krepost and don’t need TC stone discount at all.
I think Bulgarians need something but no help in the castle age. The Krepost rush is insane. But Bulgarians are more focused in meelee fights and therefore they are far behind Teutons, Franks or Lithuaniens. That why nobody pick Bulgarians in the tournaments.
Konniks are not that strong in Imp, and Bagains are expensive and trash.
No eco bonuses plus expensive cavalry with bonus unique techs to unlock is a lot of hurdles to pass.
It’s practically the same as the Byzantines, except the Konnik is significantly more durable to Archers than the Cataphract given how much the dismount extends the life of each unit. Don’t forget that if you want the dismounted unit at it’s best you need three entire blacksmith trees upgraded, all the barracks techs, and all the stable techs. That’s a lot of techs. You might make Elephant archers jealous of such pampering.
No, I don’t think they’re too weak. But, like the Magyars, they have a constantly aggressive play style that’s probably difficult to learn for most players because it needs good simultaneous micro and macro to make the most out of the military bonuses without accidentally idling the economy. And at the high level I usually see players preferring to play with a balanced mix of aggression and economy, which is not a play style for the Bulgarian bonuses. To me, even the stone bonus is a military bonus for getting out the first Castle or Krepost faster, or for selling some stone early for a quick gold boost without hurting the boom.
I imagine making the most out of the Bulgarian bonuses usually hinges on first taking advantage of the free Militia line upgrades to make a faster and larger M@A army to start constant pressure as soon as possible. From M@A, possible unit progression could be into Knights, which could already have protection from Pikemen due to the prior M@A army turning Long Swords. Or Archers into Cavalry Archers, or just Cavalry Archers, which could already have protection from Skirmishers due to the prior M@A army turning Long Swords, Bulgarians have full Cavalry Archers, and a faster working Blacksmith to better support a diverse army composition.
In the Imperial Age, Bulgarian power options are Stirrups cavalry, Siege Ram, Siege Onager, Heavy Scorpion, Heavy Cavalry Archer vs. civs with lesser Imperial Age Archery Ranges, and Bagains Swordsman. Yes, even Bagains Swordsman. As Bagains is like the Bulgarian Champion upgrade, with the +5 melee armor making the Bulgarian Two-Handed Swordsman better in melee combat than a generic Champion. But with a much, much faster upgrade time and lower total cost than generic Militia-to-Champion because Bulgarian Swordsman upgrades are free. Although Bagains Swordsmen still lose to super Champions like Japanese, Teutons, Burmese, and Vikings. And to me, no Paladin upgrade just means more food and gold to put into other unit upgrades for a diverse army compositon, especially with the faster working Blacksmith .
Is very true all that you say, Bulgarian and Portuguese are the weakest civis in the game, I think that agressive krepost is good, but only if you win map control but with not eco bonus, you never will win map control with this civi at least the other opponent has less elo than you, the other face is that you have a in fact good strategy with pop 21 m@a but you dont put more pressure because the archers are very weak (no crossbow available), this civi suffer greatly against archers civi as Britons, Mayans, Ethiopians, but also suffer against civis of camels because you dont arrow attack, only halbs but the opponent could have archers or skirmishers, then cavalry archers are decent but you dont have the last armor, and skirmisher in late game fall so easy for the lack of last armor, cavalry and militia lane are very strong but very easy to counter.
When people were discussing possible new eco bonuses, one of the ideas was to have a civ start the game with some free buildings in addition to the TC. I think the original proposal was to start with 1 lumber camp and 2 farms, which would be placed like in Empire Wars.
I don’t think their eco needs a substantial buff. Maybe free stone mining is worth a try, idk. Protected by kreposts the tc less stone bonus can be quite nice. Very unconventional but I’m not sure Bulgarians have been sufficiently explored. What’s weird about them is that their options are mostly ultra aggressive or ultra defensive and I guess this is one reason why pro players don’t feel comfortable using them in tournaments. They feel just a bit awkward at times but have nice options to possibly make up for that. Like the free maa is not only great for aggressions but also can buy you time when you drush fc (if you are able to keep the militias alive). Imo their biggest problem on non-closed maps (besides having no xbows but that’s just their design) is lacking the final armor because you need to rely on siege to kill arbs unless you can spam hussars and skirms with better eco. And since you lack bbc your kreposts/castles can be taken down because you can’t snipe your opponents trebs or bccs. So I’d give them ring archor armor for better skirms and see from there.
Sorry is TriRem part of the balance team? Im not a legacy player and I hardly watch tournies so i don’t know the names apart from people name dropping here.
If “” mr big shot " said Bulgarians deserve such a buff doesn’t it mean Bulgarians are pretty weak in some field?
50% off such incredibly expensive techs is a HUGE buff. Yet throughout this thread you then argue with people against over buffing them?
Another option could be to allow Kreposts to tech in the imperial age. If the castle age Krepost teching is too strong. It could even be some trivial tech (eg 100f/100w)researched at the Krepost to unlock the ability
Bulgarians have a good (although predictable) start in feudal, but fall really behind in castle age. I think we could try to address this in different ways, here are a couple examples:
-Siege discounts: i think discounting the siege (yeah I know, slavs have that) could help them in castle age. Maybe just discount mangonel line by 25% and they could have a really good infantry + siege push. Discounting siege upgrades won’t help them in castle age.
-Free stone mining upgrades and/or start with extra stone. Not too much of a fan of this, as it pushes them onto man-at-arms trush in feudal too much…they risk becoming like the old koreans, completely worthless aside one OP strat.
.