Yeah, Khmer needed a buff. No one disagrees with that. Something to help them get to their very food intensive options
They needed a buff not a broken bonus
Even with the slower farming the nerf is not felt at all. Once they get any basic boom going they’re virtually unstoppable - ask anyone who’s played vs them on arena tg. My friend has a khmer 4 tc boom arena pocket build and I don’t recall us losing with it yet. There’s really nothing to stop a post imp khmer army, which is extremely easy for them to get to given that their food bonus is over-gratuitious and coincidentally they don’t have any age up requirements. Normal compositions from virtually any generic civ involving halbs/siege, arbalest/halb dies to really any khmer mix of Elite Battle Elephant and Heavy Scorpion. Getting ahead before they can get their boom off is the only way to stop this but given their myriad of defensive bonuses like being able to hide in houses and being able to farm in distant locations to escape pressure, even in more open maps it can be too difficult against a player that’s competent in protecting his economy. And this isn’t even talking about closed maps like Arena and Black Forest. What do you propose then? Siege monk rush into a pocket’s base and get ganked by their two flanks while you yourself are wide open for an attack and economically behind? That’s practically suicide.
They could be like some civilizations which excel on closed maps but aren’t ideal on open maps - like Portuguese. But the farming bonus and the way it collides with their other bonuses is way too strong - they’re great on Arabia as well, as a result. House bonus protects from smaller and even moderately large raids of knights in wood lines and camps. No age requirement gives them insane capability and able to get by under pressure even more. My team mate even made a 16 pop scout rush build with them that I’ve seen and it’s absurd. It rarely feels like it’s possible to do enough damage to khmer before they outpace you economically, and can do things that other civs can’t and still have a streamlined economy afterwards (like 16 pop scouts…)
Did we not nerf slavs for a similar reason? And slavs are a much worse civ than khmer in terms of options and flexibility. Khmer flank could choose to go either archers or scouts. There is no reason for slavs to make archers outside of surprise factor because it’s un-streamlinable and unrealistic as castle age military, especially against actual archer civs who will have thumb ring or an easier time massing them. Khmer missing late game archer options isn’t really felt because by that time they already have the economy to get to their stronger options - THE LEAST OF being quintessential imperial age units like halberdier/siege or cavalier, and of course their elephant and scorpion compositions which is a gamble to kill once en masse, and it’s not like most ideal compositions which are situationally weak
Mayans have massed archers and eagles - in fights they still CAN die to skirmishers/other archers and swordsmen or knights. With Khmer it’s just not the same. There’s no simple answer to their composition because monks and halberdiers - the usual counter to the elephants - are outranged by the scorpions and halberdiers struggle against elite battle elephants as is - not even mentioning how they’re invariably backed up by scorpions or an equivalent support unit like crossbows.
Is the Khmer post imp composition strong? Absolutely.
Isn’t mangudai/siege ram/hussar strong too?
Absolutely
But I would pick fighting that any day of the week in contrast to fully boomed Khmer because Mongols, even when fully boomed in their ideal composition, have weaknesses. Their lategame economy is terrible and exploitable. Khmer’s is flawless. Several small raids can set mongols behind, but with Khmer they can defend so easily and it barely puts a dent in their economy. You could kill 20 villagers in an assault and assuming theyve already got their upgrades for post imp, can still produce their units easily.
The bonus needs to be nerfed more or be restructured entirely. I’m a fan of the Slavs farming nerf but the fact they got nerfed while khmer have even better farms (there is literally nothing else in the game that compares to the constant food stream they get once they get above 16-20 farms and you cannot convince me otherwise) is laughable. Make it even slower or take away crop rotation - do something because anyone that insists the bonus itself isn’t overpowered as is, is in denial. In recent tournaments they’ve almost completely replaced slavs, in fact. Slavs were often picked on gold rush in 1v1 tournaments and I’m seeing khmer way more.
They are not the only victim of overbuffing, though
Civilization bonuses
- Monks have double healing range.
- Towers garrison twice as many units.
- Murder Holes free
- Herbal Medicine free.
- Farms are 40% cheaper.
- Town Centers can garrison +10 units.
- Barracks and Stable units receive +1 melee armor in the Castle Age and +1 in the [Imperial Age]
What even is this?
Contrast even the number (7) of bonuses with other civilizations
Byzantines have 5, and were a civilization known as having some of the most at one point
They have more than Koreans’ 6, who previously were a civilization with some of the most bonuses as well
However the difference is that Byzantines and Koreans had a plethora of small but significant bonuses to make up for the fact that they don’t have strong economy, nor an economy bonus
Byzantines and Koreans got notable military and defensive bonuses (cheap camels, building hp, tower range) because they lacked a good economy bonus and needed time to get to their open and strong options (cataphracts, arbalest, war wagons, siege onager…)
The balance with Teutons is completely counter-intuitive with this in mind.
The identity of Teutons was always a defensive civilization (despite HD calling them an infantry civilization. Their only claim to that was having the strongest infantry unit in the game from the castle.)
As a result, similar to the byzantines, they had a myriad of defense oriented bonuses - but they had key important notable differences
- They had an amazing economy bonus (With cheap farms)
- They did NOT have a military bonus that they didn’t need to tech in to
Now in contrast, they get one of the most significant military bonuses in the game (Ever since DE, Frank paladins have fallen so far from being the best, now that they die to lithuanian paladins with relics and teutonic paladins very easily), as well as one of the most significant economy bonuses in the game (Farms are practically half cost. You don’t feel the 6 wood difference when you’re actually playing and slapping down farms because it’s so microscopic) - if that wasn’t enough they have an absurd amount of defensive bonuses per their initial identity. Free murder holes, free garrison healing tech, extra garrison room for town centers and towers to bunker down during raids…
And people are okay with this? People wanted this?
Overpowered civilizations are NOT fun.
Teutons really did not need a buff at all. The funny part is, we haven’t been able to see the overbuffed teutons much in tournaments because the binding patch had a bug for Malay. Battle of Africa and RBW were played on older patches 
they still get picked, on open maps no less, and are still very strong - this is pre buff!
Balance should always revolve around competitive play - not just what’s trendy. I’ve seen myself dozens of people here and on aoezone demanding teuton buffs despite there was nothing holding teutons back at all and I can’t fathom why, from a game balance perspective, this was done. They, even before DE were not a bad civ. Just because they weren’t popular with the upper level doesn’t mean they were weak at all. They were (and persist to be since they’re egregiously over-buffed) king on closed maps like arena and BF. There’s very few things they don’t have an answer to. Archers? They have Paladins and Siege Onager. Infantry. They have Paladins, Teutonic Knights, full infantry upgrades on their champions. Siege? They have cavalry and their own siege. Missing husbandry does nothing to harm them if they’re played correctly. They have weaknesses - like reliance on gold and defenses - but that’s not a bad thing. That’s just how civilizations should be designed. A civ can’t be good and able to thrive in every situation (You know, kinda like Khmer who have an even more open tech tree and a likewise very strong economy bonus)
Fighting teutons as a cavalry civ is almost impossible now because if the other player is remotely competent all they really need to do is match your numbers and upgrades. Teutons are amazing at defending and booming under pressure. Now with this extra melee armor on their knights (not even MENTIONING how they can heal faster if garrisoned, how teuton monks can heal farther, or the teutons other reliable anti-cav options like pikes and ttks), it’s even more ridiculous because there’s almost no way to pressure them efficiently AND they have a much better military. Even against strong camel and archer/gp civs like Saracens and Indians, they have an answer for everything with their halberdiers and knights.
I know a lot of people like these changes, but a lot of people don’t. I was upset when I first read the changes but I decided to wait to see how it all plays out. I did. I was upset when neither were nerfed in the May patch. Most of my team personally and folks they’ve talked to on AoEzone agree that these buffs were over gratuitous and I know I’m not alone on this. Buffing a civ should be a little at a time, not such drastic changes all at once.
I would propose that instead of giving them extra armor on their cavalry, make cavalry armor upgrades cheaper or something along that road - and they don’t even need that because their farm bonus gives them an amazing economy and able to make military and tech in to upgrades while booming. I see no reason whatsoever that they should receive such powerful military bonuses when they don’t struggle with literally anything else. with an A++ economy AND defense.
Byzantines don’t have good economy and their lategame options are expensive but effective. They have some of the best defense in the game. Koreans have a negligible economy, their generic options are weak, but their onagers and war wagon compositions are very strong. Their defense and tower bonuses are solid. Contrast this with Teutons, as another defensive civ, who have a perfect economy, perfect defense, and perfect military bonus. With everything they have, the techs they do miss like good skirmishers and light cavalry don’t matter when they have crenellations castles and Boyar paladins
(Yeah yeah, there’s a 2 armor difference between teuton paladins and boyars. Boyars have 150 hp. Teuton paladins have 180.)
At this point it really feels like Cysion saying “we don’t want to be reactive with balance” was a lie
