And after your done nerfing those 3 units you can suggest buffs to the civs. None of those civs deserve nerfs.
1 Like
Mongols are fine even with nerfed mangudais, they barely use their siege (aside trebs) and cav archers right now. If anything
Leitis are straight up ridiculous in terms of cost effectiveness. Lithuanians should have something more reasonable as a bonus, like extra food at the start of each age. Way more versatile and fun than relying on a broken unit.
Tatars are just bad right now. They need some serious rework. Perhaps a discount on some of their cavalry units, or maybe something like eco upgrades cost no food (thatâs a very good eco boost tbh).
Balancing civs around single op units is just bad, it promotes going for always the same strat instead of trying different approaches depending on the situation. When was the last time that you saw a mongol late game not revolving on mangudais? Canât even remember seeing thatâŠ
2 Likes
You mean having the fastest siege weapons arenât really used?? cmon
Ethiopians already have extra food per age, and the maximum thing in nerfing Leitis is a small gold cost increase (like 5), even the Lithuanians arenât either OP or UP.
Berbers already held cheaper cavalry units, Foodless Economic ugrades could be better for Turks than Tatars, but well for them wouldnât be that bad.
2 Likes
mongols typically go hussar+mangudais + trebs. 99% of the time they donât need to use their siege. Which is stupid.
And I couldnât care any less about civs sharing a single bonus.
1 Like
No theyâre not, Mangudai are their only viable strategy after feudal. And they definitely use drill rams, idk what you talking about
Halbs are still cost effective against them, arbs supported with halbs are still very good against them.
And what other option do they have? Their non-trash cavalry in imp is bad, arbs lack armor, lost supplies and lack halbs so canât really go siege
4 Likes
They point is that they donât even need to bother using their already very good siege to counter enemy siege. Just use mangudais.
Again, a mangudai does everything a cav archer does, but way better. Plus bonus against siege. Mangudais are not filling a role, like for example longbows, they are just straight up better at everything. People donât even try anything which is not mangudai with mongols. Why would they? Thereâs no merit in doing that.
1 Like
If u want to win you go for the best strategy and of course Mangudai are the best. Of course u can try go for other unit. But everyone loves Mangudai. Thatâs why they donât get nerf. I do the same. Mangudai, Hussar and siege ram are amazing.
Who uses siege to counter siege? Aside of BBC which Mongols donât have. I think your focus is pro games, on open maps which are very fast paced. Pros with Mongol eco barely can afford Mangudai and Hussars, thatâs why they usually donât invest into siege and try to make it work with just trebs
This forum needs to decide what it wants. One asks UUs to be better and more viable than generic units, now this one wants the civ to invest into slightly cheaper but worse unit. What you really should be asking from devs is generic cav archers to be more viable. Iâll ask again, whatâs another viable option Mongols have other than Mangudai in imp by current balance
1 Like
You really are making @Exradicatorâs point for him. If Mongols are so one-dimensional, why would it be bad to nerf the UU and buff the civ some other way?
You 2 seem to be against any change intended to make civs more multifaceted, ever. How hard is the concept that a change can be more than a civ-buff or a civ-nerf?
Mongols have 5 separate civ-bonus sliders which could be used to adjust how good the civ is, in addition to the Mangudai stats.
For the record, I do love playing with Mangudai. So fun to micro 
Though I canât speak for the whole forum, all these requests have a common thread:
to make civs more multifaceted, less predicable. To see more units in the game.
Probably for optimum variance you should see a UU in at least 20% of games, but they shouldnât be more than 60% of the army in more than 60% of games.
(If youâre going to argue against this please argue against the concept, not against these specific numbers.)
Like Mayans are now in a good spot, where plumes are perfectly viable and archers are too. And in my opinion (though others disagree) samurai are in a decent place because itâll make sense to mix these units in with your archers when you need some quick melee support in more than 20% of games.
1 Like
And the only way I see that happening is giving Mongols plate barding armor. The question is, is it really necessary to change a civ so radically after 20 years because a few people think all civs should be versatile?
And Iâve already advocated for parthian tactics and an actual eco bonus for Lithuanians in the past
1 Like
history says otherwise. they have nerfed mangudai in the past only to revert the nerf.
they are currently sitting at around 48% winrate at higher levels. that to me means they need a buff if youâre going to nerf Leitis. especially since those civs worse then them? everyone wants to buff them.
the 5 civs Lithuanians are best at? include the 4 civs that pretty much everyone agree need land buffs (Koreans, Portuguese, Turks, and Italians).
except he didnât ask to buff their other options. he said
there isnât a single thing in this comment about making Mongols better elsewhere.
false. iâm against nerfing civs that donât need nerfs. thus if youâre going to nerf Mongols, Lithuanians, etc, then you better believe you should ALSO be suggesting buffs to those civs.
they have 1 eco bonus that dries up by the early feudal at best.
cav archers are not that good right now in general, and replacing mangudai with cav archers doesnât change much. its still cav archer units.
they already use siege and hussars, but frankly their cavalry suck in general (lacking armor upgrade), their infantry are terrible.
so what other option do you have for them?
and taking away unique units goes the opposite way.
if Lithuanians donât use Leitis what are they going to use instead? Paladins. we see plenty of civs use paladins.
this is purely your opinion, there are others who want different design.
Iâll be on board with nerfing Leitis and Mangudai when they get compensation. which was my problem with @Exradicator post. he didnât say anything about compensation. all he said was nerf those units.
1 Like
I think he means more variety when facing or using a civ. When we use or face mongols its almost always just mangudai.
One of the counters to archers is siege. Cav are a counter to siege, so is drill onagers since they can dodge and kill enemy siege, camels are also a counter to CA, but mongols donât even need to do any of these counters or worry that much about camels thanks to mangudai. Which leads to pretty similar matches against or with mongols.
Same for lith, they are in such an odd position that they almost only run paladins or leitis, so we have yet another set of franks, but possibly even more singular.
you also see knights, light cav line, trebs, and siege rams quite frequently. but frankly, the civ doesnât have a whole lot of options.
their cavalry lack final armor upgrade, cav archers just arenât that good with 50% accuracy and 10 frame delay, their archers lack final armor upgrade and their infantryâŠwell yeahâŠmongol infantry.
2 Likes
Oh yeah definitely, but i think toughertrack (even if extra didnât say it) also means mongols could be buffed in some other way for compensation
Hopefully cav archers get buffed. Will really help the civs that have terrible archer line yet are compensated by CA, like Bulgarians and SpanishâŠ
Besides obviously buffing the civs that use them the most(hun CA rush) i was wondering which civ it could potentially affect the most and was wondering if it might be burma or khmer. Khmer actually has FU CA except for thumb ring, so making CA morr accurate could actually make CA a viable unit for them? Atm with 50% accuracy and no thumb ring i would never consider them.
And for burma it could become something one trains to supplement the arambai, not main line strats but something to consider at least.
I dono if goth CA would become an option too⊠Also no thumb ring but all BS archer tech.
Whereas ironically frank CA will always just be a meme?
Again, I am all fine with other buffs to civs if their UU get a bit nerfed.
For starters, I feel like CA could use a slight buff, at least in their frame delay. This makes them better at microed fights, but doesnât really change much for the late game. Perhaps a very slight cost decrease, but we need to be careful not to go overboard.
Mangudais bonus against siege is just too much. I know they are fun units to play with, but so were steppe lancers at the release. I just think they bonus against siege should be toned down a bit. Itâs fine against ram, but against onagers itâs way too much. When those units were designed, it was not possible to micro like today, so it made sense. Now things have changed and we need to keep up with the times. Mongol drill siege is among the best of the game, but it is barely used. Usually you go trebs to take down castle, sometimes siege rams depending on which civ you are facing. Almost never onager. Mongol rely too much on mangudais when they could just use their siege. Devs could give them some other kind of bonus, if you think they need some compensation. Like extra hp on camels or cheaper camels. Good anti-cavalry option which doesnât hinder their mobiliy. Or something else, if you prefer.
1 Like
This was nerfed in Forgotten and was reverted soon after. Almost like nerfing the civâs main viable unit has consequences?
And how often do you see that on open maps? Outside of Celts and Slavs whose main strategy involves siege. Ethiopians and Koreans donât go for it on open maps either. The absurd amount of gold and time it takes to research and mass siege onagers is reason enough.
A civ focused too much around an UU is a ridiculous reason to change it. Not all civs need to be bread butter versatile
1 Like
Or maybe people keep complaining when their favourite unit gets nerfed, instead of relying on other strategies?
This is exactly why drill exists. To have fast and mobile siege. And onager is not insanely expensive and itâs enough in 99% of the situations. You rarely need SO. Moreover, mongol army composition is still way more gold efficient than say, franks, which are also basically centered around using a single unit as a centerpiece to their strategy.
Iâm generally against nerf the UU. Thatâs the unique thing why most people chose their civin game. I donât like to play all the time with Archer or Knights.
Some civ have quite strong castle units but you need to push your castle up and the training is slow when you need to mass them.
Keshik for example are cheap but you need a castle. Most of the time is better to just go for Knights. Itâs a lot faster and u donât need to go for stones early.
Leitis are strong and gives the player the reason to push up their castle fast. Itâs hard to go for monks and castle at the same time. Make them a bit more expensive I think wouldnât change a lot but I would prefer to push th weak UU. Then the civ would be more used.
again, what other strategies? your own siege isnât a counter to opposing siege
Bruh Iâve had times I couldnât even research Hussar upgrade for gold concerns and stuck with light cav. Even noticed this in many pro games. You are telling me Drill+ 800f 500g upgrade and massing units that cost 160w and 135g with 46 seconds of TT is a straightforward strategy? Considering Mongols donât have any good answers for heavy cavalry, onagers are incredibly risky
2 Likes