Seriously, why are people believing Italians are weak on hybrid maps?
Well if Italians become “mid-tier” then something will end up becoming bottom-tier right?
Behind what? Maybe at 1600+ elo they can’t win against Chinese&co because the enemy will use their civ advantage super well but for everyone else it won’t play out like this, and furthermore people don’t only play the strongest civs around all the time. I bet that if most of the participants of this very thread were to lose as Italian against say, Magyar or Berber, they would be wrong to blame the loss on their civ (I know I’ve told this quite a few time already but I think this way it’s clearer)
If you don’t want to do that you can choose random and enable the random pick option too. At least I think it should work.
AKA ez monster kill for my mangonel
It does benefit other units than archers, like ranged melee units. And SL are supposed to work this way.
Yes exatly, vs knights it helps a bit, but overall more MA doesn’t have a big effect, that’s why I think it would be better to simply give them +1PA as a bonus and then pavise, for a total of +1/2.
+1MA that pavise give is more than enougt, more wouldn’t hurt, but it wouldn’t either have an consistent impact on the game.
I would rather sacrifice the +1MA for be sure to have the +1PA.
+1PA can have a big impact on feudal, and in the late game having arbs with 6PA can really make the difference.
A weaker bonus would be free archer armore, to help a bit in feudal and early castle, at the same time we could buff the pavise tech so that it would give arbs +1/2.
That way we could still help the italians in feudal age (but less) and they would still have their powerful arbs with +6 for the late game.
Because they are. They fall behind most good pure land civs and other hibrid water civs too.
Of course in the end who win and who lose depends on the players, the skill level, and some random factior, but as civ speaking, italiasn fall behind.
Trust me if you see Italian, on an hybrid map, beating Mongols in HC3 (ie.Italian wouldn’t have been picked if they didn’t have good viability) it’s that they are indeed good at this. Think about it this way: on such maps, your docks work as additional TCs that you can get in the dark age. Imagine if Indians could get more TCs in the dark age too? Italian are a bit like that on hybrid maps (and defintely, totally like that on full water)
Yeah but it’s really one exception, I’m not saying that it’s an auto lose, but they are almost never picked in hybrid maps, since people prefer civs with either strong eco (japs or mongols) or really powerful units.
Still, most of the ideas here are for pure land and hybrid too, but nothing that would make Italians crazy OP.
Some time ago I watched a game from hera, italians vs burmese on cross, on paper it should have been an easy victory for Italians (cheaper FS, cheaper dock techs to win the lakes, GC to counter Arambai) but in reality he struggled a lot.
Cheaper FS help a bit in the dark and feudal, but it a lot of a weaker bonus when compared to faster fishing, infinite/cheaper fish traps, faster hunter or faster lumberjacks.
Also GC struggled a lot to deal with Arambai, both because they were slower and can’t force engagements (which don’t get me wrong, that perfectly fine and it supposed to be that way) but especially because they were constantly outnumbered, he can’t properly reach the mass that he needed even with 4 castles.
I disagree with this. I love 1v1 arabia, but it’s okay if not every civ is completely viable on a competitive 1v1 ara level. Civs that excel on water or excel in team games absolutely have their place, especially with a wider range of maps being played.
Turks are powerhouses on arena and in many TG formats, and Italians can certainly hold their own even on 1v1 ara with their cheap age advancements.
This can be use as an argument to justify every statement. At low elo levels random factors like map generation matter more. But this does not mean that civ balance should be neglected. I mean, you are right on what you say, but this does not imply that a civ is not too strong or too weak.
The concept of low and mid tier is disappearing. Persians, tatars, Lithuanians, Teutons, koreans, Portuguese, Khmer, Saracens, vietmamese… all they got a buff going to the level of other non meta civs. Italians and Turks remain basically alone in the low tier.
My feeling is that currently the balance is very good (all civs at the same level) except for two. I am very satisfied with what the devs have done. So now we are missing just a small step! Two civs only needing a buff!
Just gonna say: even if the last ones receive buffs another ones gonna take the lower tier spot no matter what, but at the end the balance will reach a point where is 99% perfect.
Also is good to say thanks that those low tier civs now are decent.
That’s your opinion dude. In my book it allows for some cool plays that in an rts are fine.
And anyway, you don’t get to decide what has a place in this game and what has not. Stacking has always been there and should stay this way because this is Age of Empires 2, not Age of Partnan: leave the mechanics that are a core part of the game alone
I got your point, but Turks really struggle for 1v1 arabia. But ok, they are fine on arena and closed maps. Also their gold bonus puts xbow, knights, and CAs above average. Still I think they need something, but I can agree that they have something especially in TGs.
But Italians are not good in water maps in general. They are at the top on pure water maps (islands). None picks them on hybrid maps simply the are just above average, since too weak on land. Probably at least 10-15 civs have a higher or comparable picking rate on hybrid maps…
On land they have a negligible aging up discount and no special bonuses up to late castle age. Also no really pop efficient units in TG. Even they good BBC miss SE. Their GC is classified even by pros as one of the worst UUs. They need an important buff. They are played on one map only!
