50% faster sounds like the cuman UT for free. I would try the bonus at 33% (16 seconds insteadof 24).
Edit: TT bonuses stack multiplitevly, not aditively, so my examples bellow srenot accurate, but the core idea remains the same.
Vietnamese have free conscription, which reduces another 33% upon reaching imperial (8 seconds instead of 24), so maybe this can be OP.
But with 50% they could train elephants in 4 seconds…
Even with a 16,5% bonus they could still train elephants in 12 seconds after conscription, which is very good.
Same goes for burmese, after paying condcription.
Another idea for either burmese or vietnamese would be to give their 50% trample damage back as a civ bonus. I think this fits more for burmese, because their elephants was almost ok before the nerf (vietnamese would need more)
And i think the training speed bonus fits more for vietnamese because they have free conscription, paper money (for when gold runs out) and the scouting bonus for a possible fast castle into elephants, using your scout mainly for luring deer.
I honestly think that the 50% trample damage should have not been removed. What was op were not the battle elephants themselves, but khmer ones. The issue there is that their crazy good economy allowed them to sustain production of large quantities of units. And khmer elephants plus khmer scorps are really hard to stop for a lot of civs.
That’s not how TT bonuses work. All TT bonuses I’m aware of stack multiplitively, not additively.
This means a 50% TT reduction combined with a 33% TT reduction results in a 66% TT reduction (ie 24->8 seconds in this example)
The vietnamese eco bonus is nice. It fixed the civ with one move to a decent level. One of the best DE changes.That they have bad siege is totally ok because they have free conscription which would do much for your siege upgrades and such. Vietnamese are still solid, they were the best civ in Clown Cup because of the combination of good eco, BBC and anti-archer units. Ofc the meta back then was very archer focused but still, I think they have solid late game.
I don’t believe viets need a buff for their elephants. After all, they’re an archer civ. Elephants are only an option for them, and they’re quite viable, since 380 hp is no joke, and plus viets have the imperial skirm to put behind the elefantos.
Burmese, on the other hand, could use a buff: could be elephants produce faster, trample damage 50% (like, roll back the nerf for them) or a change I would like is to take away faith from Burmese, and give its effect for free to elephants (thus making burmese elephants viable in castle age)
I havent noticed that the imperial skirm compliments the elephant very well, although both need a lot of food.
Elephants are an option but rattans are usually the chosen one. Viets elephants are a bit underwhelming even with extra HP because when you may consider them, you cannot afford all the upgrades suddenly if you went for an archer route. And they are expensive and the vietnamese eco is only smooth until late game, but struggles after that.
Another option to make them more viable without touching elephants would giving vietnamese the last gold eco tech, which would be affected by their wood discount bonus, and would help a lot to mass elephants and bbc (and rattans or knights…)
As far as I’m aware changes to hp, attack & armour are the only changes which are additive.
Changes to technology costs are quite horribly implemented, and you couldn’t really count on those working any particular way unless it’s specified.
All other changes I can think of are multiplicative.
The devs have been fairly sensible in choosing to make things multiplicative / additive in such a way to prevent bonuses interacting very strongly (as they would in the example you gave).
But why should every BE civ have a bonus for them?
An option could be to give them their trample damage back (maybe even making them stronger than they were before nerf) but start taking bonuses away if they get too strong for a specific civ.
Burmese have extra tanky elephants, onagers with siege engineers (also scorpions, but that doesn’t change much) and borderline acceptable skirmishers. Compare it with franks who have paladins (which are about as difficult to tech into in 1v1), same siege but with no siege engineers and skirms just as terrible as burmese ones. Even worse is the situation for turks who only have siege ram against archers (slow clap). Turks, however, are not considered strong, so this isn’t a comparison I would rely upon.
Really? Pro players must be all retarded then to use mangonels as a counter to crossbow, which doesn’t even have the range advantage, or to use onagers in chinese wars in deathmatch. Just because you can outmicro a lone mangonel in art of war scenario doesn’t mean that you can outmicro 6 onagers controlled by an equally skilled opponent.
But paladins are countered by halbs and camels. And since both onagers and skirmishers are easily countered by a variety of units, we conclude that there is literally no answer to archers in the entire game.