Make a test, and I guarantee you the Farimba Cavaliers win.
The most important stat for both Cavalry and Archers, is damage, which is why you prioritize Damage upgrades first for them, instead of Armour. Infantry needs Armour and Hitpoints more than Cavalry does, because they are slow.
the most important stat for Cavalry, is damage
NO.
Yes.
Really, just ask any pro player. Damage is generally the most important stat is RTS games in as a whole.
Both Cavalry and archers get mor mileage out of their damage stat than armour or HP.
Eh, what? Team bonuses can provide some nice synergy, but in all situations it’s far from being game breaking. Even in extreme cases, like Turks + Berbers giving Turks the tankiest genitour in the game and bypassing their otherwise awful trash line, that is balanced out by the availability of trade/gold units that make trash units less important. Getting 20% faster working stables as a cav civ is, again, a nice bonus, but far from having “no counterplay.” Your enemies can just build a 6th stable to your 5th and that nullifies the comparative advantage anyway (after a certain point, say 10+ stables, having more isn’t really helpful since the bottleneck will be your eco, not how many production buildings you have). Or your enemies can counterpick you by picking infantry civs and spamming halbs, picking camel civs, or picking battle elephant civs. Or they can have a better metastrategy and win, and so forth.
Team bonii that stack on single units or strategies, are unbalanced. Huns with faster Stables helping Franks and Berbers is OP.
That is why the game will never be balanced for Team games.
I’d say reduce the cost of one or the other. the real problem i find with byzantines is that despite being labeled a defensive civ and getting HP bonuses, there buildings miss on the armor bonus from the HP upgrades that exist in game. but that’s just me. and ofcourse they lose out on blood lines.
this is actually interesting.
i’d go with the former, they already get an HP bonus to camels.
they need lots of love. easily the weakest civ in the game. i’d say some sort of eco bonus and some love to their archers or stables to get them through the mid game.
crop rotation i agree. hand cart doesn’t impact them that much.
agreed.
i think the fish bonus is fine for them.
Byzantines: Byziantines are decently balanced, only give them a tiny buff if needed
Teutons : Teutons are decently balanced, only give them a tiny buff if needed. 15 movement speed on knights is huge, maybe make it for the teutonic knight only, that could be cool.
Sareacens: Sareacens definitely do need a buff, but i would prefer giving them an eco bonus over giving them a military bonus. My suggestion would be, them getting +100 gold as soon as they finish building their first market.
Goths: imo its to soon to make any conclusion on how good goths are right now.
Khmer: khmer are perfectly balanced, dont touch them for the love of god
Mongols: mongols are also perfectly balanced
Indians: Indians are also perfectly balanced i guess you could give them battle elephant for historic reasons, though that’s a risky move. maybe give them battle elephant but not elite battle elephant.
Turks : ELITE SKIRMISHERS indeed
Persians: the archer cost with kamandaran is fine really, if you made it 60 wood, 20 food, it would hardly ever pay off and you could just make skirms instead. The thing that’s too good about kamandaran is the gold saving potential, so the best fix ive seen suggested for that was making kamandaran the imp tech and mahouts the castle age tech, so you save much less gold, by getting the tech much later. Also that could make elephants slightly more meta relevant, which would be great.
Vietnamese: tc bonus shows all enemy tcs. (I didn’t know it didnt do that already, but yes it definitely should) Rattatan are balanced well enough.
Samurai, woad raiders, jaguar, boyars, leitis are all well balanced
Teutons should capitalize on the fact that their UU is a warrior Monk, and have them benefit from Sanctity and Fervour, which would also help with their low speed issue.
false. they never see tournament use. like ever. the applying infantry bonus in dark age was too much, but goths is so weak and so one trick pony there is no reason to use them.
False
Nope. The rule of thumb is that you get armour first for melee units, even if the enemy only builds melee units, because you still might have to deal with TC fire.
Those work just fine? Heck, even Ethiopian Camels work.
Not against archers.
Still better than other buildings most of the time, and especially against siege weapons which is critically important.
Xbows are better than skirms against everything except enemy archers and skirms. Fortunately for that you have FU Hussars. But moving Kamandaran to imp sounds good too.
maybe so, but i do believe byzantines need a small buff, and what a way to give them one, while staying true to the byzantine theme, then to give them some building armor to make them more resilient?
Burmese
I think their imp tech should make elephant HP regenerate. They are considered an elephant civ yet don’t have any more emphasis on elephants than Vietnamese or Malay which also have elephant bonuses. Only Khmer labeled as an elephant civ makes sense since they have an elephant UU. All 4 Rajas civs have elephants and bonuses for them so you really need something extra like a UU or another UT for elephants to consider it an elephant civ.
Infantry +1 attack per age starting in dark age but start with -50 gold. Slower drush but stronger militia and infantry in all ages.
Should Burmese get SO to help defend from arbalests in team games/situationally in 1v1 ? Skirms don’t really do it and archers can outrun elephants.
yes, they are definitely stronger than skirms, but they would also be notably more expensive, plus the additional cost for kamanderan would mean, it would take very long until you’re having an effective advantage over hypothetically just having produced skirms from those resources
To be fair they could have said “infantry” or “cavalry”. These civ tags aren’t the most accurate anyway. And both Burmese UT apply to elephants.
So basically now they can’t drush and use early men at arms even tho it’s one of their best strats, and their bonus end up being a complete Aztec rip-off but for free. Not a good change.
But normal Xbows are already more expensive.
It won’t take long before both players hit the pop limit tho.
What’s an Aztec rip off? They could drush first before loom. Makes for high risk high reward.
Yes, they clearly do have very good BEs. Burmese are in a good spot.
Having +4 attack on Infantry, like Garland War does. +3 is already quite uninspired, so the exact same bonus…
That sounds like suicide. What’s the use of having a better drush if you’re forced to defend because your vills won’t be able to survive the enemy drush?
Ahh gotcha. Well it’s different that it helps them in every age not just imp.
Couldn’t you early wall if you were going for this strategy since you know you’ll be vulnerable?
What if you made it -20 or 30 gold? Still allow to make 1 or 2 militia right away after loom but they are stronger. Then you can make more later. I like fewer but stronger vs more but weaker matchups.
Even if the +1 attack in dark age is just too hard to balance, their UT is negated by masonry which is way cheaper than the UT. It’s really not ever worth it. Should be HP regeneration.
SO should be considered to help counter their arbalest weakness. Wouldn’t be possible to get most games but would be available if had the resources.
They get countered by archers pretty hard and there are a lot of archer civs plus going archers is already meta. Don’t see them played competitively at all. Really ever.
Ok, I get it could eventually become balanced, but the deal is that Burmese are already good at early infantry, so if they really had a problem it wouldn’t be there.
No, even after Masonry they still get a +3 bonus. And it applies to all cav and Arambai. It also means Burmese are less reliant on siege in trashwars.
They were played once in NAC 3 and won tho.