Balance ideas on Reddit

4 Likes

are these confirmed from the pup or are these just someones wishlist?

Nothing official:

That’s how I wanted to post this but I didn’t know how haha! Thank you :slight_smile:

1 Like

No problem. Editing the title would be maybe a good idea too :wink:

1 Like

These ideas are pretty bad, as always with these lets change the whole game entirely threads…

4 Likes

These are someone’s wishlist

I totally agree with the general changes, I like buffing burmese, cumans, spanish and saracens and not other civs that are already balanced, but i dont like these particular buffs. I guess alltogether it would be some ok changes, but with room for improvement.

I would be interested in your reasoning behind that claim rather than just insulting that post. Why do you think they are bad? :slight_smile: How would you adress these civs (with obvious problems)?

1 Like

A lot of the suggestions just scream ‘I dont like this or that mechanism’ but don’t really address any problem, or just plain don’t do anything meaningful. For example the Burmese buff is incredibly small buff. Very unlikely that this change would make them more viable.

House HP change: guy probably hit the level where people are more efficient at responding to danger, so let’s nerf building HP…

Squires in Feudal: just will be a noob trap, another tech that noobs will research every time even if they dont need it… (a la Supplies)

Spanish: These changes don’t really address why the civ struggles, while the buff would be appreciated and probably sometimes useful, it wouldn’t really help the civ’s struggles with its weaknesses.

5 Likes

Thanks for your explanation. However I believe for example the Burmese buff would actually be quite good. You can pressure buildings really well which is especially nice in feudal age.
Also regarding the house change: the current walling meta is making the game a bit stale on open maps. You yourself said you prefer the game being a bit less meta focused, if I recall correctly. Wouldn’t that change adress that?

1 Like

As for walling:
Not really, I think walling just intuitively makes sense to do, so trying to get rid of it is just the entirely wrong line of thought. Especially when it comes to Scouts, other than walling them out (or trapping them), there is not much you can effectively do in Feudal.

As for Burmese:
While I do not generally like to overhaul civs, I think Burmese need it. The fact that their archery range is effectively a bad joke makes them very weak because archers are so commonly used and seen due to how much value micro can squeeze out of ranged units.

But since an overhaul is unlikely to happen, I think adjusting their Manipur Cav tech is the right line of thought. I just don’t think it’s necessarily tweaking with the building bonus value that will make the civ more viable. Maybe the Light Cavalry line getting some extra resilience against ranged units could help them.

1 Like

There are already 3 civs with pierce armour bonuses for hussar, it’s time to stop 11

Anyway I still don’t get the whole Burmese vs archers = autolose. OK sure their skirms don’t soak up arrows well enough, and that’s a big disadvantage compared to literally any non-Turk civs. But they still have fine knights and siege to use, so it isn’t as hopeless as people seem to think. And to add to the confusion, people say that Indians are weak to archers for the opposite reason: good skirms but no knights. And yes in a tryhard 1v1 settings you’d be better of against non archer civs as Indians, but not enough that you should deem them bad and never pick them.

And I really don’t think you need both +2 knights and +2 skirms to not lose to archers…

The difference is that Indians are actually generally a strong civ even if some people don’t like to use them. While army composition with Indians can feel tricky to get right if you’re used to knights, they do have a lot of options coupled with a pretty nice eco bonus. The Burmese eco bonus is wood oriented, which doesn’t really help against archer civs because you can’t make your own archers.

Why? Archers are very over represented in game (non-archer civs playing archers anyway in 1v1) and basically every flank ever in team games just goes archers. Could be a good way to enable a slightly less stale meta while also making a civ that no one uses hopefully more viable.

Not sure if that’s all too helpful in feudal but extra attack on knights vs buildings is certainly nice. Imo that could entirely replace manipur cav because that tech just isn’t good. Even if you’d buff the bonus damage it still would be useless in most games while in some scenarios might be too powerful.

Because the game should feature some sort of variety. As of now, you have one civ with +1pa on scouts in feudal (turks), two civs in castle (turks+indians) and two in imp (turks+tartars). So their bonuses are somewhat different but imo certainly close enough to not add a fourth. I mean look at other units with similar bonuses and apart from aztecs and burmese with extra attack on infantry I think there isn’t even one cases of two civs sharing such a bonus.

Having quickly thought about I actually like the idea of extending howdah affect to knights. Gives their knights/cavalier extra tankiness at a point in the game when it’s not op (as a civ bonus with effect in early castle that would be too much for sure).

Well Indians certainly did share that disadvantage but with the extra pa in castle that has been resolved imo.

You still can go knights and siege. As an aggressive castle age strat that can be pretty effective against archer civs usually tend to add tcs in castle age quite early.

Tell that to the devs, not me :smiley: I am advocating for more variety. But on a more serious note, the fact is that Burmese currently do not add to the variety of this game because nobody picks them. They also have a clear weakness to range, so adding a survivability buff to their Light Cav would help to tackle both of these issues, by making the civ suck less, and by hopefully making archers a bit less over represented than they are now, since there’d be yet another civ that can counter them effectively.

I actually like all the changes except the burgundian, house and monks change. The chinese one is a smart one, because it mainly nerfs them at high elo, would especially like that being implemented in the game.

But Burmese would be last on the list of “anti-archers light cav” civs. All that such a change would do would be to turn their hussars into siege weapons, which no one wants.

Yeah I agree, light cav with extra PA certainly do not need +6 against buildings lol. But there are also other bonuses that can be reworked for Burmese so I think on that basis, they could become a decent civ.

Good ideas. Monk times are just too random. And burmese having that bonus on their knights (and elephants) will reinforce their options outside arambai. Mamelukes can be buffed, yeah.

Cumans… I still believe they should have extra attack on their SL.

The only ones i don’t like are chinese one and burgundians. Burgundians should have their techs 33% cheaper.