The conversation about balancing civs and the focus for 1vs1 and 2vs2 could be helped immensely if they started releasing data on win rates, picks, etc like we used to have for aoe stats. They need to address this ASAP.
2 Likes
But seriously, what’s the OPest you can get? Also, in team game not all players can go for the same strat. So if you stack 3 cav bonuses, only the pocket will be able to benefit fully from the bonuses. And good individual civs can form powerful teams as well. For instance you could do something like Incas+Mongols+Persian, and still have a good team despite the suboptimal synergy.
There are tons of people who struggle with tons of things. Some people are unable to counter mangonels, some people think Goths are invincible as soon as they hit imp, this kind of stuff. Balancing around the lowest level is almost impossible since almost everything should be tweaked, and each solution would only be temporary.
Well right now atleast it seems to be an ok thing. Some civs are better suited for team games and that’s that, that’s how they’ve been balanced right now. If a civ is completely useless on both, then that’s a very bad issue. I mean, I’d sure like to have a very good balance on duel side, but team game balance should not be totally forgotten and has to be taken into account when making decisions. If a decision on 1v1 balance breaks team game balance completely, that’s not a good decision and ought not to be made. There needs to be a middle ground. If balance was truly good, every civ should be good for both teamgames and duels, of course not good on every situation and composition, but not a totally forgotten one either that no one plays and having it would just mean you lost.
That is something that balance does not need to be however, since not all 1v1 games are needed to be mirror matches either.
Mayans, Saracens and Britons on a Team. Try it.
It is hillarious to see 1 guy get destroyed by Feudal Archers from 3 different players, and if one of them hits Castle, it all goes downwind much faster.
If you’re going to focus 1 dude and their teammates don’t do anything, then maybe the bonuses aren’t the problem… and anyway, why wouldn’t you do triple saracen (or maybe 1 brit + 2 saracen) since +1 is quite underwhelming for the Brit/Mayan ally
1 Like
plus the obvious weakness of having bad heavy cav options
gl trying to win a game with only a archer civs vs a team that knows how to play
In TGs the possible unit composition is much more important than having team bonuses that seem OP if combined.
2 Likes
no, infantry is perfectly balanced in feudal age
Daut suggested this. But apparently you’ve played more than him and know better since you’re so sure.
that’s like 0.73 speed? barely any change
Any speed bonus would make TKs more viable than they are. How about 10% then, didn’t test.
Why’s everyone trying to nerf Khmer again?
Because they’re being overplayed on walled-in maps such as Arena, Hideout, BF because you can pull 13 min Fc easily because of the farms, get a big eco advantage, and have sick post-imp compositions.
Ele LoS, is that going to help?
I was thinking Burmese are rarely being picked nowadays because they’re so one-dimensional until imp with Arambai, which are weaker than Conqs. They’re pretty weak against spread xbows in castle age and become quite immobile when you add Mangonels. So I was thinking giving them Ele Los to make them a bit more viable than they are rn because of monks. Prob not the best idea but just throwing that in there
People already rarely buy infantry armor upgrades, they won’t buy Squires in feudal
when there are eagles + archers on the map, you have nothing to do but stay at home or overinvest
Aztecs: Skirms are definitely not what makes Aztec OP
tell me a civ that beats azt 1v1 in post imp equal relics. Missing +4 armor doesn’t matter since you’re not going to make ranged units vs them. Mass azt skirms kill Champs before they get close
Aztecs are a monk civ, why would you remove monch techs?
They’re still be a monk civ, but you’ll have to spend more to get them ‘invincible’. they’re so hard to kill in imp too
Changes nothing as well
Might be interesting to go Fc caravels and get away with it with micro. You could do that if they’re faster. Would maybe make portu be picked more in mixed maps. Maybe not the best idea tho
khmer aren’t the best farmers in the game
taking in consideration how misplaced farms can be in late game for regular civs + cost of mills + they are better than regular farms and I think as efficient as aztecs’ in feudal + you can farm anywhere if you make a house next to your vil + you can kil la deer in the middle of nowhere and then have a farm drop off makes them pretty strong
turks, Arena they would become OP
might be true but I don’t really think so since they lack block printing, making their monks pretty bad for Fi and if you refer to their gunpowder FI, I dunno if the 20% faster gold income is the reason people do that. You can do Fi with aztecs and counter that and aztecs are so good on other maps
Point is, Britons with Saracen Team Bonus + Mayans with Saracen Team Bonus + Saracen Market exploits, equals a very unbalanced Team, yet none of these civs give anyone any issues in 1v1.
Mamelukes, Heavy Camels with Zealotry and El Dorado Eagles = no problems in the Cavalry department.
Aztec Monks are not invincible. They are not even hard to deal with, since Monk micro is something that only the AI can do to any significant degree.
I don’t know what context he suggested it in but m@a already have no proper counters, archers only act as a soft counter until a decent mass is achieved. Spearmen also being better at catching upto scouts is a huge nerf to their mobility and manueverability. Feudal wars are balanced outside of a few civ bonuses, I think it should be left alone.
3 Likes
They don’t stack like that
Yeah sure why would you ever want to go for leitis its so bad unit just pure fact its created in castle you cant outmass even knights that you counter in castle age if not any stats increase (and i think their stats are ok-ish as situational unit) decrease creation speed by about 20% just like keshik got.
ONLY good things about leitis : 1)good vs knight line and rare uu(tk and boyars) they do ok vs champion line
2) fast and cheap upgrade to elite compared to paladin
TK needs a buff, maybe Boyar too. If they get buffed, Leitis becomes more useful. I’d say after that has happened, then it should be taken into consideration if the Leitis still needs a buff.
It does not.
Saracens bonus + Obsidian Arrows +20% faster Archery Ranges does, however.
Yes I’m fully well aware of how team bonuses stack. I’m not in need of explanation on this matter.
- Leitis also gets a lot better after relics, able to do things like killing a FU halb in 3 hits instead of 4 like a 14+8 paladin, 2 shotting an arb instead of 3 strikes. Leitis have enough distinction from the knight line. Cavalier+Paladin upgrade is expensive and takes quite some time, While Elite Leitis is better than the cavalier in every way.
hahahahaha. Exactly what kind of reply I was expecting on this forum. No, Monk micro is very good at decent level and on. You can dodge arbalest with ballistics shots with monks and convert with 9 others
Monks are not fast enough to evede Arbalest shots with Ballistics, nor are they fast enough to get out of the way of Scouts and Eagle Warriors, both of which are specialized anti-Monk units.