Lithuanians are cool as well
On hybrid? Really? Just because of the starting food?
It’s your opinion against the ones of 2k+ players. No offense, but their understanding of the game ia way better than yours (and mine too tbf)
picking rate and win rate from ranked games barely means something. Based on pick rate and win rate from ranked game goths are the best civ while they clearly aren’t
I mean, since a lot of pro players prefer other civs to them, it means that they are not the strongest one. But ofc I agree that in some hybrid maps water matters a lot, then italians and Vikings can shine a bit more probably entering the top 5 after the civs you correctly mentioned
Being slightly less powerful than japanese and malay in hybrid maps is no small feat. Yet again, we are talking about your feeling vs the feeling of 2k+ players. If Vodka_L tells me italians are really strong on cross and with the right build order they are basically at the same level of japanese, i trust him way more than I’d trust you
Sure but then why pro players even strong than him do not pick italians on cross?
Again I agree with you that they are a good civ on hybrid maps, but I think that while they are in the top 2 on islands, you agree that they are not a top 2 civs on hybrid maps. In some hybrid maps top 5, in other not at all. Which is enough to say that they are good on hybrid maps as you say. But clearly not a top pick.
I mean, I am saying you and mbl are right on this. You are not saying that are comparable to islands! Which I say is very wrong, as other pro players say (and you correctly said)
That’s not true, the only water civs that are often seen are only the ones with good land bonus too, like the vikings or the Malay.
And that’s not true either, cheaper age ups alone don’t do anything, both their eco and military are standard, most of other civs either have more powerful unis or good eco/discount bonus that value a lot more than 345f and 150g for a whole game.
Italians are behind vikings, Mongols, Celts, and a lot of other civs with better eco and a better land army.
On paper yes, in reality I watched a game when hera played vs burmese with italians on cross, he literally had every possible civ and map advantages that he could have, and however he won only by a little margin.
Despite having a bit better eco start with cheaper FS, in reality a lot of other bonus (like japs fishing, mongol hunting, Celts and so on…) allow the other civ to have a better eco lead.
And on maps like cross, where it’s the land army that win, italians struggle to keep up with strong and fast civs, like Mongols, huns, meso civs, malians and so on… all standard land civs.
Well, of course, we all are here to share our opinions, otherwise we should just stop losing our time here and simply let the pros discuss and play the game alone.
They may say that italians are top tier in cross, and other hybrid maps, but I almost never see them pick Italians.
A lot less. Both for eco and army.
2 Likes
Yes, the starting food allows them to gather wood instantly instead of food, so they can build their first dock and fisher ships very fast.
Actually in the past we have discussed another way to balance Italians. The idea was to reduce the dock tech discount to buff the age up discount. With a proper balance you can leave them in a similar spot on water maps, but you can give them a more reasonable playstyle in land maps. I think I will move this idea in the topic on August balance changes.
I am not a big fan of this, but at least a mathematical solution exists to ensure similar water performance with a land boost.
Picking Italians on Islands, TI, migration and a bunch of hybrid maps is no-brainer. GX as a UU is a specialist unit but I don’t think they’re useless at all. Lots of TGs they can come in handy. Maybe give them +1 range or something when elite, but overall they’re not a bad unit, and Italians is a jack of all trades-type civ despite not being a powerhouse. Once random civ preference takes hold again, I doubt you’ll see top players unhappy to find themselves with Italians in 1v1s or tgs.
1 Like
They aren’t useless, their concept and stats are fine, but they are broken, since they take so long to train that it impossible to have a decent number to accomplish anything.
Nah, a TT reduction in castle age is more than enough.
Their problem is that they don’t have anything on pure land, cheap age up isn’t that much alone when compared to other civs bonus, and they lack a powerful units. The gunpowder discount comes into play to late, and it regard already underused units.
Still, it’s true, they don’t need too much, just a minor bonus, like for example something the teutons on their first patch (+1MA) or like the tartars (free TR, for the Italians it could be free archer armor).
1 Like
Your patches to the game are the only thing that will keep the game alive. Thank you!!!
1 Like
Why do you think this (your) idea is bad? It sounds to me really good actually. If pavise becomes a bonus, then you can choose whatever you want for the UT. A boiling oil like solution or something better. For instance:
- pavise becomes a bonus
- silk road move to castle age
- imperial UT: maybe some team effect (like applied to all condos). Or even extra speed/hp for the trading unit. The effect can be very small
Well, that why I’m against it.
Find another bonus it a pain in the ***. Both for the balance and the devs. They haven’t even changed atheism, which is really a useless UT, asking to change a decent UT it would be too much.
Also, pavise as a UT work right now, it’s cheap, it affect 3 units, so changing it for no reason would just make things more complicated.
And finally, the UT it’s historically accurate and it gives the civ some identity, wich is a secondary role of the UTs that we shouldn’t forget.
The problem isn’t pavise itself, the problem is that it’s not enough alone, and it’s a lot more easy to simply give a small bonus to the civ without changing too much.
Also, the problem that pavise is too similar to viets bonus would remain. My idea is that yes, italians should pay for their advantage on their archers, but after they paid it, they should have a stronger advantage.
That can be achieved by giving a bonus that can be stacked with pavise (armor for free, +1PA) or by simply buffing pavise.
Coming up with a completely new UT that also solve this problem is the more complicated solution.
It’s not that is a bad thing, but it’s longer and complicated, so there is more risk of disturbing the delicate balance of the game right now and there is more risk to make mistakes along the road. Plus it’s a lot of work more for the devs, that seem already stretched thin.
Silk road is a good tach that fit the imp UT, there is no reason to move it.
In feudal and early castle age, giving extra armor as a civ bonus is equivalent to make pavise a civ bonus. Equivalent in the sense that it is the same. You will have xbow with +1/1 armor.
For instance, if they get a new UT very weak (like the hun one), their late game will be unchanged, since your units already have the extra armor as a civ bonus.
Then finding a new UT more useful is not that difficult imo. For instance a UT giving a discount to condos (even for the all team), a UT affecting monks, rams, buildings. All these options can have a limited or situational effect, also negligible, so no balance issues at all.
I think this would make more flexible the way to balance them. For instance assume someone argues that +1 PA stackable with the current pavise is too much since you will get +2PA arbs in imp (btw, I am very convinced it is not). Then if pavise becomes a civ bonus, nothing changes since you will still get +1PA arbs in imp.
No, because the idea is to give them +1PA (or +1/1 if we want to exaggerate) that is stackable with pavise then in castle age, for a total of +1/2 plus the standard blacksmith upgrades.
So if you give just pavise as a bonus, you just have +1/1, you still lack that +1PA.
But they don’t need a new UT, and the idea is TO CHANGE their late game a bit, by giving them more durable arbalests.
It easy for you and me that we don’t have to implement it in the game, they we don’t have to verify that it’s balanced, that it work without bugs, that most players would accept it.
They shouldn’t make such a radical change if there are other way to help the civ.
I don’t like having a weak UT like huns or mongols, I prefer a decent UT that is useful.
Removing a UT that work just for giving them an useless one doesn’t really make sense in my eyes.
But that’s the purpose, and most aren’t that against the +1/2 arbs in imp.
However, if the majority is against it, that’s why we also came up with the free armor upgrades bonus, which is far from being OP, and more easy to implement since you don’t have to change pavise.
Also, with the new condos changes, people will complain that now it’s too easy to do a fast imp condos rush, that are even stronger than before, while now the castle and the UT act as a buffer.
Before such a change, we should see how the new condos works.
In feudal and early castle you do not have pavise, so it the same. 100%. Then it changes. Clearly if the goal is affecting the late game, +1 PA is needed. Pavise becoming a bonus is a weak version of +1 PA since it works only for the early stages.
Overall let me repeat I am in favor of +1PA and in changing the late game. I was just proposing weaker solutions if someone thinks that +1PA is too much.
In my personal perspective, +1PA is probably not sufficient to make them viable, but I would be fine with even a smaller bonus since now, with the recent buffs to italian competitors, Italians are probably the worst civ in the game averaging all the scenarios. And maybe in 1v1 arabia by a wide margin (together with turks).
It is not.
Ok, maybe I wasn’t clear, sorry my bad.
The main idea for the +1PA bonus is that archer (only) get +1PA from feudal (well tecnicaly from dark, but since in dark there are no ranges…), so in feudal they would have a bonus, that then can be further improve by researcing pavise in castle for a total of +1/2.
This is the main idea, some weaker versions (that would still be better than nothing) are to buff pavise to +1/2 (but it’s more complicated since you would have to differentiate between xbows and the 2 UU) or to give them the bonus only from castle age.
There are also stronger version of this bonus, but let’s discuss those another time.
Righ now, italians arbs with pavise are about on the level of etiopians and viets if you confront only the pure stats of the xbow/arbs and you let them fight (without considering micro of course), all other archer civs are stronger. And a lot of non-archer civs with better eco are better too.
The problem is, that both etiopians and viets get their bonus for free (let’s call it the “resources” problem) and a lot sooner (the “time” problem), so to compensate that, on the late game after buying pavise, their arbs should be more powerful.
So the +1PA would act as a bonus that let you archer still keep up with other archers civs on a military level from the faudal age (solvig the “time” problem) but still with the eco disadvantage.
Then pavise would come into play on mid/late castle, and their arbs would finally be better, since you pay for them (solving the “resources” problem).
That way, we should’t worry about changing pavise. And it’s just a small and easy bonus to implement.
Of course, free archer armor is a weaker but still viable option.
1 Like
However, I’m doing a new topic only to discuss the italians, since it seem that it’s a pretty big discussion, so if you want wait and answer me there.
1 Like