[Balance] Some changes I'd wish to see

Some changes, excluding the new civs, with some civs I indeed went quite far, let me know what you guys think.
Thanks for reading!

Incas: Stone buildings cost -20%

Instead of just 15%. Now that they dont have their unique vill rush, they’re left with nothing meaningful in Feudal Age, noticably worse than the other two meso civs, and worse, just a generic sense to the civ. This 5% matter a lot, since it allows them to build 2 Towers within the starting 200 Stone.

Franks: Forage Bush lasts 15% longer

Instead of their current 15% gathering bonus. It’s more about whether they’re OP or not, but more about being too convinient and smooth to play.

Burmese: Arambai now has +3 bonus damage vs. Cavalry

Burmese struggle vs. Archer civs, I didnt confuse between the two, it has to be solved directly, however, back when they had that “OP” version of the Arambai it acted as a win condition against every Cavalry civ (similarly to a Conq, just with a possible Ballistics), and was versatile enough to be paired with Mangonels to deal with Archers and form some sort of an attempt to defeat the Archer civ before they reach an Early-Imp Arbalester which destroy Brumese. That was their ticket to shuffle up a game uniquely, Burmese have such a fascinating UU, shame we dont get to see it often.
It takes them roughly half way to their previous state when facing Cavalry. And therefore justifying forming a win condition based on the Arambai as if they were a CA. Currently dealing with Knights is too exhausting, the Arambai barely do damage to them, it takes about 15 (20 considering their poor accuracy) Arambai’s to one-shot a Knight, where previously (pre-nerf) they needed 10 hits with higher accuracy, this huge gap basically redefines their role, almost eliminating them from the mid-game and pushes them far to the last game where you have mass-vs-mass fights. This units deserves more than a Post-Imp niche.

Bulgarians : Dismounted Konnik now takes no pop

Either this or 0.5 pop, forming an army of Dismounted Konniks is pretty much impossible, since they mostly die right away, there’s no really room for an abuse just slightly more convinient.

Chinese : Starts with -50g

Civ with 3 eco bonuses must have more than a -200f -50w draw back, they’re top 1 civ in the game for years, for a reason, they’re too good early on, and that’s what matters in a competitive match of AOE.
It slows down their meta play and allows the player to pay few extra seconds in order to translate his predictable eco lead into an aggressive move.

Malay : Karambit creation time is now 4 seconds

Instead of 6, which made him the slowest Infantry to produce in the game alongside Teutonic Knights per a single unit of pop, despite how badly Karambits rely on their mass.
It takes 12 seconds to create 1 pop of Karambit or TK.

Vietnamese: Archery Range Units and Battle Elephants have +20% extra HP passively
Vietnamese: Castle Age UT: Skirmishers and Elephants are being trained 30% faster

Instead of just Archery Range Units. While also removing the overly luxurious tech: Chatras, that fitted only in post-Imp situations. Served no strategic purpose other than overkilling the opponent.

Imperial Skirmisher becomes noticably stronger than Elite Skirmisher only when massed, just then you feel its supiriority against units which it doesnt counter traditionally, like Light Cavs and Champions. It’s hard massing them, especially considering how mediocre Vietnamese economy is.
A little boost to their Elephant transition, since it’s always a tech switch, it better be quick or else they’ll get countered.

Goths: Team Bonus: Palaside Walls have +2 Line of Sight

Instead of the overly themed +20% Barracks working rate, which was an over kill, barely made any change, nor allowed any versatility. Considering Goths lack Stone Walls (similarly to cumans who have HP bonus to their Palaside Walls) it would be nice to a nice indirect defensive feature.

Mayans: Resources last 20% longer (Excluding Huntables and Herdables)

Instead of the previous 15% bonus that applies on every single resource. It made their early game so strong, having 3 eco bonuses once deciding to just play meta Archers strat. (Extra vill upon clicking Loom, cheaper Archers, and this bonus which gave them about 250 food from this precious food source for free) The post Dark Age powerspike is just too big.
On the other hand, I give them a little more grace up there in the Post-Imp situation, where they really become a below average civ, relying on gold so badly.

Italians: Archery Range units have +1/+2/+3  melee armor in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age
Italians: Castle Age UT: Buildings regenerate HP (300 HP/minute)
Italians: Genoese Crossbow and Condottiero have +1/+1 armor passively

Italy is known of taking the crown as the country with the most UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the world. (with China) The amount of preserved architecture there is mind blowing.
Besides that Italians dont really have anything for them besides Hussars in the very latter parts of the game where stone efficiency becomes an issue, so it wont be abusive.
Regarding their Archers, they feel way too generic, a luxurious UT comes way too late in order to make a change. This wont make a huge change, most noticably in Feudal Age where it actually gives their Archers and Skirms more time to exhaust the Scouts that hit them.

Portuguese: University and Monastery technologies are researched 85% faster.
Portuguese: Receiving 150f and 150w every new Castle they build

While removing their current teching bonus.
Civ that claims no powerspikes, having only 3 bonuses which share the same concept: “All the ____”
All the Units cost 20% less gold, All the Ships have 10% more HP, All the techs are researched 30% faster. With no focus there’s no identity, their only hope is to reach Imp to finally utilize their Portuguese nature.
This "All the ___ " format, not just puts us in a generalized position but also limits us from dealing with higher values, it always ends up with low number 10-20-30, that dont really add much to the player’s experience leading to low playability. An almost generic sense.

The second bonus allows them to go for Organ Guns more comfortably, their last resort when it comes to a playable identity. Most Maps are too open to even consider utilizing this unit, and the fact this civ has no eco bonus makes mining stone a burden.

Tatars: Team Bonus: Cavalry Archers and Steppe Lancers have +2 Line of Sight
Tatars: Steppe Lancers have +2/+1 armor passively
Tatars : Loses access to Knights

The civ was infalted with mounted options, Between a Hussar with more armor, an Unique Steppe Lancer, a great UU (Keshik), and a fully upgraded Cavalier- you’re left with too much options that fill roughly the same role. On top of that, in order to further differentiate them from Cumans.
Tatars tends to be a boomy civ (with the sheep bonus) into a double gold composition of Knights and Crossbows, instead of evolving into something a little bit more unique, beyond just an eco bonus and a free Thumbring.

Malians : Gold miners dont need a drop off site
Malians : Lose access to Gold Shaft Mining

Removing their current gold bonus.
Historically the people of Mali are known for their Gold Mines, however the 30% lasting longer bonus is not really needed, they already have a top 5 no-gold-post-Imp composition between the Farimba Light Cav and the highly efficient Champskurl.
They thrive on a low gold standart anyways, unlike Mayans this one, despite the history makes no sense strategically.

The new bonus allows a higher degree of playability, while also reversing their nerf they got (thanks Bohemians) slightly, losing an Imp tech fits perfectly with the rest of their tech tree, which is quite accurate historically. The Imperial Age was quite rough for this “Empire”.

Teutons: Stable Units receive +1/+2 melee armor in Castle/Imperial Age
Teutons : Teutonic Knight has 7 Line of Sight 

Instead of also applying on Barracks, which makes them broken on closed maps, and drain the purpose out of their poor UU, not a fan of turning their Champion into a semi TK.
Instead of 3/5 LOS in the normal and the Elite version, just a flat 7, He’ll no longer be surprised by Monks, or worse, by a Mangonel hit, TK already has too many counters, he’s too slow to react late, it doesnt have to be this humiliating.
Plus, unmounted slower units naturally have more line of sight, high movement speed disturp a sharp eye sight.

Persians: Rams move 20% faster passively

Having just 2 civ bonuses, over-minimalistic of a design, which is not that bad, it’s a balanced civ, however, feels generic many times. Especially considering the new flashy civs. And it gets worse when their Siege Elephant seems to be thousands time more viable than the War Elephant.
Rams have a 0.5 movement speed and a horrible collusion size + a horrible turn rate, unlike Armor Elephants that have 0.6 movement speed that’s basically 0.66 after Husbandry, with a much better turn rate than Ram which matter a lot. With this change we’ll have Rams that move at speed equal to these Armored Elephants before Husbandry. Plus it doesnt ruin diversity, Mongols have it as an UT, which affects all Siege units at a much higher value. (double)

Britons: Shepherds work 35% faster
Britons: Towers have +1 Attack
Britons: Yeoman: +1 Range for Foot Archers
Britons: Longbow: Have 6/8 Range
Britons: Longbow: Have 7 Attack flat
Britons: Longbow: Have 65%/80% Accuracy

This way we insure diversity within the civ tech tree, no longer a textbook over-convinient Crossbow build, but a more sophisticated one, allowing to choose between two option, an extra range Archer at a price of Accuracy yet highly rewarding when hitting with 7 Attack vs. the generic fast producing Archer, highly convinient, and high Accuracy of 85%.
Yeoman is now less than half its previous price, 400w 200g instead of 750w 450g.
And with the enhanced shepherds bonus and the passive Tower attack this civ can go for a Trush with Skirm+Spear push, old fashioned and highly fitting. More to play with during mid game, their Imperial remains the same, they practically lost 1 Range on their Arbalester. (Yeoman is much more accessible now)

Again, Thank you for reading, please comment your ideas/feedback!


None of your suggestions make any sense


I know you won’t see this, but for once I actually think you had a lot of good ideas. Not all of them, but there are a lot of nice ones actually.

I think this is fine, but now you may have some problems with it being too close the the Franks cheaper castles. Personally I’m still a fan of changing their Castle UT to make Eagles cost 30% less gold, I know you will hate it, but they are the one meso civ without a gold related bonus, and for a supposed lategame and counter civ, they burn through gold quite quickly if they are making powerhouse units like Eagles or Kamayuks. They also have the weakest eagles, so I think quantity over the raw strength could be a thing.

I don’t really agree with this. I know you love complex stuff and things, but the game still needs to attract new players, and Franks is one of the most beginner friendly civs, which is actually a good thing. Personally I would stagger the HP bonus as a minor nerf to their scout rush, and then change Chivalry to make knights heal and return gold when killed, to make it more useful in 1v1s, but less impactful in TGs when it can be oppressive.

Interesting, I don’t really have an opinion.

This sounds like a pretty solid idea, I agree they just die usually.

I wouldn’t say they are always the No. 1 civ in the game, but they are very good. This is interesting, although personally I would rather nerf the tech discount, and increase CKN gold cost by 5.

I wouldn’t go about it this way, instead I would allow 2 or even 3 Karambits to be trained simultaneously, although maybe with a creation speed penalty to the extra Karambits.

When you suggest the first option on other threads, I hate it, but considering your suggestion here, I don’t think it’s as horrible. I think it would create some issues with Rattans seeing less use though maybe. I also think it’s important to swap Elite Skirms with the TC reveals, so that the TC thing is the TB.

Honestly quite interesting, but I do think it’s ok to have Goths only do one thing kind of. This is actually not a bad idea though, I would be kind of interested in seeing it.

No, I think just reduce it down to 10%, but keep the huntables and herdables. Then the only other thing you need to do is tone down the archer discount, and they should be balanced.

These are all interesting ideas, I especially agree with the first one.

The second bonus is interesting, I would rather have 50% on all techs than 85% on some, but then again, you did pick the buildings with the most techs (barring Blacksmith), so maybe it would be ok.

Don’t really agree with these, I think Tatars are fine.

These sound pretty good to me, I reckon it’s worth trying.

Interesting, it could be worth trying, but I’m not convinced.

No real reason, I’d rather give them a bit of a cav archer identity, maybe Parthian Tactics in Castle Age, with some other bonus to make CA more viable.

Don’t agree with any of these, I think it’s fine for Britons to be one of the easy beginner civs, they don’t need drastic changes to match your ideals.

Overall, some of the suggestions are ok, I don’t like your reasoning or logic to them, especially the superior attitude you have, but the suggestions aren’t all awful. Some of them are though.


Makes sense.

Okay although I don’t think longer lasting berries 15% has a real noticable effect. You might as well remove berry bonus. Or make the longer lasting thing at least 30% (would still be a nerf to the civ).

I get the idea but I’d just find a middle ground between arambai before and after chamge, ie give them a bit more atk (but less than originally) and give them a bit less dmg foor missed shots (but more than originally).

I don’t think you’d spend res for a little bit of faster creation time especially since both units already are created quite fast and you got free conscription so I’d go for another UT.

Reworking chatras into a civ bonus sounds good to me though.

Since mayans are so reliant on gold late game I’d just let that bonus apply to gold (and maybe also stone) and make it 30%. As you write later on this one does not fit to malians anyways.

I don’t really like that. Chinese oftentimes open scouts (actually one of the few civs here nowadays) and in that case it’ll do nothing. Yes you’ll nerf the straight archers opening a little bit but more importantly you’ll hurt the civ even more on maps where they already a kinda bad (which is most maps besides arabia actually.

Sounds good to me. At least the archer condo parts. Not sure how viable building hp regen is. I guess there’s a point of balance for cost efffect tbough.

Portuguese are far from generic on water and closed maps so I don’t see a reason to implement this change. They aren’t the most extraordinary civ for arabia but they do have their power spikes so it’s fine imo.

Yes, the devs should have implemented this one instead of longer lasting gold.

You’ll rarely see tk in decent elo games anyways. And more LOS won’t change that. Even if the infantry armor is now featured in both champs and tk it is fine imo because the former is actually usable. Also I don’t think they’re broken on closed maps just very strong (still gets countered by britons and turks also by italians and mongols to a lesser degree).

I like the idea although it’s quite a nerf to their lategame (they’ll lose the UT right?) and I think SL with +2 melee armor are too strong. Also the civ usually goes for cav archer in midgame so you’d have two melee counters. So while I like the concept of them losing knights the rest needs some rebalance imo.

I also think are kinda badly designed with literally 3 ways to improve range but what you propose will just make the civ useless. You end up with generic archers that produce faster but have no thumb ring if I understand your proposal correctly? That’ll make portuguese a way better archer civ for most settings.


I don’t get the need for an army of dismounted konniks? They are supposed to be a throwaway unit that kills cav counters and keep the enemy busy when you retreat with the mounted konniks. The Goth replacement is trash, it’s obsoleted by having town watch and even before that, the civ doesn’t really have something that lets you do something about whichever attack the bonus is supposed to let you spot earlier.

For Portuguese 80% faster monasteries sounds like a good idea but not universities as it overlaps with Malians. And the weakness of all-in gunpowder UU play is that you have no eco behind it, why remove it?


this isnt even true. berserks are slower (14sec in castle age). serjeants are also 12 sec. and thats from a quick search, im sure there’s more. edit: chakrams 15sec. obuchs, ghulam 12sec.

but i dont think tt is the bottleneck on karambits either. as mentioned in the other thread, i would swap their gold and food cost. make a bigger difference between them and trash swords/elephants. make them a complimentary unit instead of an either/or

i dont think incas need more of a trush identity either. something else please. i dont think it really helps them either

its a small buff at least and i dont see a problem with it. prevent the few dismounted konniks from taking up pop slots of more valuable units.

they still have a sub 50 WR below something like 2000 elo. i dont think they need a straight nerf, as always i think they need a minor rework to make them easier to play, but potentially weaker

interesting i like this

at this stage ill take almost anything to make them weaker, they arent just an easy to play civ, but also irrationally strong. especially with the current meta

i really like this one. wouldnt mind trying the others at least. would be interesting to have melee resistant archers. incentivises the armour upgrades as well.

i agree they desperately need something to make them more appealing, but i dont like these changes. among other things it helps them too much on closed maps without helping enough on open maps imo

love this. would be interesting to try out at least

also interesting, originally suggested for burmese but would like to see them on persians with their weak militia line makes it more viable (in balance terms)

1 Like

Please elaborate, each suggestion is so different from the other, some are borderline fixes, and some are a whole redesign.

You’re right, 30% totally make sense.

That’s a good idea as well!

You might be right, I just gave them a temporary UT.

Interesting, however there’s something historically correct letting Mayans long lasting trees. After all they lived in the jungles of South Mexico.
One thing for sure, no reason for this civ to have a food bonus in Dark Age, this what makes them so stubbornly S-tier for so long. Glad we agree on this one.

I see, what would you do to Chinese? The triple eco bonus makes them too convinient, the retroactive vill lead is brutal and hard to balance.

We disagree about this one.

I agree that it won’t really change anything, it will just make them a little bit more microable against these embaressing counters. Mango and Monks.
The problem with the +2 melee armor for Infantry is their Halbs. Teutons can just go Halbs+Siege, the opponent cant match it up with his own Halbs since they’ll just die to the Teutonic Halbs, while in theory Teutons dont mind their opponent going Halbs, it’s a great excuse to make TK.
+2 armor on Halbs makes them too predictable and too strong on closed maps. I try to create somewhat of a viability for TK. This unit really deserves some love. :slight_smile:

No. They still have their UT. Similarly to Burmese. Perhaps we can just make it +1/+1 passively rather than 2.
How about that?

I consider them one of the worst civ designs in AOE, despite how glorious and diverse the British Empire was, they’re being narrowed into a very tiny role based on just one feature- range abuse.
It’s fine, but it needs to be implemented wisely.

Exactly. The civ have now the two most reliable eco bonuses in the game, considering this mass TC’s meta.
Being an Archer civ doesnt mean it has to be the Feudal Archer play that brings you the lead, sometimes it’s just the eco (Chinese and Vikings). I want to to transition into a Longbow play if they want to fully utilize this aspect about the civ, or rather invest into a Castle into a cheap Yeoman to have a fancy Arbalester.

I’m not a fan of the reductive definition “Archer Civ”. I do want Portuguese to be better making Archers, untill reaching Imp or late Castle Age, then Britons can tech and transition into fancier Archers, which Portuguese would be busy switching to other units or playing more of a generic BBC play.

What would you change here? I’m really curious.

Thanks for the reply.

It was a joke.

It was mostly a fix, the least important change here.

Town Watch in Dark Age?
And it’s a Team Bonus, it saves up to 4 different Town Watches.

20% faster working Barracks doesnt matter that much anyways, both early game and late game, the different between 100% and 120% working Barracks is too minor numbers wise.

However, I’m open for another ideas regarding their TB, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

True, I can see that applies only to Monastery, however I’m afraid to nerf Portuguese this way. Team bonuses for the most part dont overlap with passive bonuses of other civs, it has to be changed indeed.

The weakness of Organ Guns (unlike Conqs, or even Janni) is the fact they’re immobile, it’ll still be a possible 1TC naked push, but with some sort of a reward that’ll prevent Portuguese (in my opinion the most boring civ to play vanillaly) from just playing meta (boom+ double gold composition)

You’re right, I forgot about Berserks, since they drop to 12 when Elite.
TK share the 12 seconds slow training time with many other Infantries. (Chakram, Gbeto, Axeman are not melee range Infantries)

I think your idea is better, hands down. Give me the numbers Sir.

I can elaborate about WR in a whole different thread, it’s more complicated than just a number to rely on. Anyways, what rework would you suggest?

Exactly, I wish for something more meaningful, as you said before, a rework.

True, it’s very tricky to create a playable strategic powerspike with a civ that has flat bonuses. “All the” Syndrome.

I thought about giving something similar to Burmese, perhaps a buff to Mangonel turn rate, or rather Mango line of sight. Or just a similar bonus, just different numbers, I dont like the idea of an Infantry civ having fancy Rams. (I absolutely love the fact Mongols lack Halbs!)

Thanks for the reply!

Can someone tell them to read my post? For once it isn’t actually my standard style of reply to him, and I agreed with some of his stuff, but they can’t see anything I write, because they muted me a long time ago.

Okay longer lasting trees might be better then. I thought about it gameplay wise bc of gold dependency but I still think there has to be a somewhat historically justifiable reason. And longer lasting wood isn’t really what gives you a lot of res early on but should have a noticeable effect as the game goes on (I guess a value around 30% makes sense here as well). As they still have one extra vil, cheaper archers and cheaper walls it’s still a pretty good eco.

Firstly, I don’t think they need a heavy nerf as people sometimes suggest. You do need to work for your eco bonus to be effective and they are quite vulnerable early game contrary to a civ like mayans. Imo chinese should get the team bonus removed (and then give it as civ bonus to incas with higher value for instance). That’s a small nerf to chinese eco but imo it’d be enough. Then they could get a niche military bonus like scorpions +2 atk or so (after all they’re supposed to have good scorps but nobody actually ever uses them).

Teutons are actually quite flexible on closed maps. Sometimes you do see them making champions for instance and I don’t think this would often be the case if they have generic ones again.

Oh okay. Then +2/+1 SL is definitely too much. Otherwise I think late castle age all in with SL is extremely strong. +1/+1 with UT might be fine but tbh I don’t have enough experience playing SL too judge competently. I just wonder if SL with same armor as knights isn’t too strong vs xbows?

Aside from that imo the UT shouldn’t apply to light cav. Besides turks already having that bonus extra pa on both cav archer and hussar is just too much of a civ win vs archer civs late game. And their keshik already are anti archer bc of 3 base pa.

I get the idea but I’m skeptical britons will be a good civ if they get these changes. Yes they have good eco but it’s not vikings khmer chinese level.

An idea I had some time ago was to keep the first extra range in castle age but to remove the imperial one and also remove the extra range from UT. Then make the longbow an expensive upgrade to arbalest that grants 1 range and 1 atk. So they would keep the range advantage with +2 in the long run but lose the early imp range overkill (which is what the civs so deadly at this point (especially when you are able to squeeze in yeomen). Having +1 range here but no thumb ring sounds reasonable to me.

Instead of longbows from castle age they could get an infantry UU or something like that (no concrete idea though).

There you go. Although tbh not really sure it works this way 11

Thanks. They cannot see my posts, but they might should be able to see yours, so maybe they will read mine, not sure. Thanks anyway.

Ok, gonna add my two cents just for the sake of discussion:

I’m not certain about this one.

Agreed, much more balanced for Franks than gathering faster. Faster gathering could be given to Dravidians/Bengali instead.



Uncertain, Chinese definitely need a nerf but I can’t tell if this is the way to go, could be an overnerf honestly.

Any buffs to infantry are welcome

I think BE need a buff overall instead of reworking the bonuses civs get for them.



+3 Archery Range armor is a big no. Just, no. Crossbows are already waay too dominant.
But the +1/+1 becoming a passive for all Archers and the new UT is very interesting!!

I think getting resources when building Castles is an interesting mechanic, but I don’t agree with replacing their faster research with this faster university/monastery. They could instead buff the faster Research to 35/40% instead of 30%.

I don’t think we need to change Tatars, they are quite balanced and this feels like a change just for the sake of changing.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too strong, just no.

Again, Teutons are fine. They aren’t broken according to winrates and civ stats, they are definitely solid. No need to change for the sake of changing.

Very interesting, I’m up for it!

Eeer, I don’t know really. I like the idea of Longbows having greater range, but I just don’t know how I feel about this change. I’m not a big fan of Britons, but I do enjoy playing Longbows with a shitton of range!!


I like this one. Scorpions with +2 damage is definitely a reasonable TB to have.

SL with 2 pierce armor becomes better than knights at a certain point where you have a big enough mass of crossbows that can one shot a knight, then you prioritize the mobility and range advantage of SL. 80 HP vs 120 HP is just too much. I’d say roughly 25 Archers or much more, that can surely two shot a Knight, yet barely kill a SL, that’s the soft spot. Or just when there’re way too much archers, the overkill situation benefits SL over Knights.
Bottom line, 2 pierce armor for SL won’t make them a smooth replacement to Knights. Despite the cost.

However once you make the UT, then the opponent simply won’t be able to make Crossbows against your SL. Which suits the investment of the SL player.

100% AGREE.

I’m all for buffing their eco even further, just like Mongols hunt bonus we can make it 40% or even 45%. And make the Town Centers 65% cheaper rather than 50%, so they’ll cost 100 wood only.
Strong eco allows versatility. Britons have the right tech tree to make this happen at the mid-game, just like Mongols, roughly, in order to climb into their golden composition. (unlike Mongols they dont have Bloodlines and Camels, however, they have one of the best Castle Age eco bonuses with this TC bonus)

I do think the Longbow idea is inheretly bad, so you suggest to do the other way around, to remove it and make it an Imperial Arbalester tech. I think it’s way too convinient, having an upgrade to the most meta unit in the game, the most convinient one, the one that doesnt even require any macro (no need farming eco) nor micro (at this range it’s too forgiving), I’d never give Britons this smooth of a win condition.

But I agree with you about the criticisim regarding the problematic design.

Give me your money.

I am all for it. BE and SL are broken designs, strategically purposeless, considering the current meta there’s no point making them. Rams do it better. Knights do it better. Hussars do it better.
I offered rescaling the stats between Battle Elephant and Elite BE, having BE get 3 pierce armor at Castle Age at the price of losing some damage. Lowering the cost of the Elite accordingly.

Thank you.
Indeed we need to address this Crossbow dominant meta. Though it deserves its own thread, a long one. (in my opinion, it’s the map generation and more importantly, melee pathing)

I’m down for this kind of a buff, as I said, I’m against these small values, they make bonuses feel unnoticed, generic.

I love Tatars, but the civ is far from being complete, anything between the inflation of repetitive options, the poor viability of SL, and of course, the Flaming Camels.

Would like to know why, enlighten me Sir.

Arena though.

They’ll basically have 8+3+1, which is similar to the 6+3+2+1 they have currently. Just in a different manner which increases their viability at a price of having a bit less range on their generic Crossbows. (+1 rather than +3)

it was more an indicator on how most of the player base (even at higher elos) seem to struggle to use chinese. they have a high enough pickrate that i dont think its due to unfamiliarity

i definitely dont think the civ is weak. just harder to use, with a big weakness (siege), but not as big of a weakness as drav thanks to better cav

that being said previously i have said reduce starting vils down to 2 and increase starting food by 50. it reduces their vil lead (nerf) but makes the start easier. there must be a more flavourful change , but thats all i have thought of for them. adjusting tech has too many ramifications. and simply reducing starting res further makes them even less appealing on the ladder

previously mango combat buffs have been discussed in length on reddit and the issue that is usually brought up is that a buffed mango can swing the game too much due to mirror fights. any kind of movement buff (turn rate included) is perceived as too much since it gives too much of an edge in mango mirrors.

iirc celts are the only civ with a native mango combat bonus(koreans hardly count) and they suffer greatly in almost every other aspect due to this. both meta lines are bad (xbow, knights), eco isnt that great (compared to vikings for example), late game is very lacklustre

thats why if anything it would need to be scorps, rams etc

Am I misreading or you are suggesting 14 range longbows?

I’m not exactly a pro, but I do feel the Italians and the Portuguese almost feel like they… just exist. I definitely see their appeal on water, but if it wasn’t for that they would feel like they were added just for the sake of it.


Same range, different system.
(base range, blacksmith techs, yeoman)
instead of the current
(base range, blacksmith techs, passive civ bonus, yeoman)

1 Like

This huge vill lead is what makes them Chinese pretty much, so I’m not sure. After all we’re talking about the largest civilization in the world. I wouldn’t touch their fertility rate :slight_smile:

Chinese are OP. Harder to play than Mayans/Franks/Britons, but quite easy overall if you manage to pull off a smooth Dark Age. They indeed lose only to some fancy Siege, but by that point of the game they’ll most likely have a huge lead.

There must be a way to nerf their early game somehow. I got no clue regarding this one, the hardest civ to balance in the game.

I agree with you, Mangos many times are a tactical bottle neck, any little edge would lead to breaking the micro-based status quo.

1 Like