Balancing of the standard units

Is it just me? Or do you also feel the general balance approach is off?

Age II:

Tier 2 trash units are not usefull overall … The spearmen performs overall the best imo from all. It is a decent counter to cavalry while not able to win 1v1 vs lancer it is resource efficient and the brace mechanic make him viable. But the spearmen is slow, weak vs siege combs and you put yourself behind, your opponent can harras your base, you will have a hard time to defend vs it, because of the big speed dif.

and if you overdo it with the spears and want to force a fight you can get easily counterd and dont do as much dmg in your enemys base as if you had cavalry.

Armored units should not have so much Armor in general! They just overperform. T3 units like MAA and Lancer just outshine everything you can build from the base units, archer/horsemen/spearmen. Dont get me wrong, all should loose in equal resources vs MAA but by a fair margin and i still want to have the option to age up with a decent number of units upgrade them and be able to perform decent if i have double the army size in resources. There is not rly a big need to upgrade these units in Age III, they will be still beaten by Lancer/MAA and you have even to invest in upgrading a unit that is allready obsolete at this point. So i personaly directly switch to MAA, Lancer, Crossbowmen and add siege no upgrades needed and they perform well. I think this should not be the case at all! Advancing in the next Age gives you better technology upgrades and the option to upgrade your army. But most units stay useless even if maxed out completely. They should bring all the base dmg per resources closer and then add the bonus dmg on top, so it is just the cherry on top. Not the main selling point of an unit and it is garbage in all other scenarios.

The trash units cost also no gold and this is also a disadvantage, wood has the slowest gather rate of all resources and can beomce rly inneficient if the fights starts and you are not able to constantly place close lumbercamps and micro management your woodline.

Suggestion:

A Base Armor of 2/2 would be enough imo and if needed give them some more hp, what i doubt would be needed.

Unit comparrisson Spearmen / MAA

Spearmen : 9 dmg, 110 health, 1,75 attack speed and 0 / 0 Armor, 80 resources

MAA: 12dmg, 155 health, 1,25 Attack speed and 4/4 Armor, 120 resources

In this scenario MAA needs 10 hits to kill a spearmen (Killtime: 12,5 seconds)

Spearman needs 31 hits to kill MAA, while also attacking much slower (Killtime: 55 seconds!)

And u have to upgrade the Spearmen to perform that well twice :smiley: (450 resoucres total …)

And the only reason you have a lot of spearmen now is that you commited more to Age II and expected more pressure from horsemen/ lancer, and if u dont upgrade the spearmen and your opponent gets also the blacksmith upgrade advantage then the spearmen does absouletly nothing anymore, just an inefficient meat shield that only purpose is to fight cost efficient vs an unit that can choose if he wants to pick the fight or not and can easily produce an counter for it, since there is no technology needed to reasearch / unlock. Your time window to fight efficient with a comp of spearmen and archer is rly small now that rams got nerfed and tc can focus fire.

And MAA do still okay vs knights not the best trade for a generic MAA to take, but not the end oft he world either and they dont die so fast from archers, towers or if you attack your opponents base.

Archer, Horsemen and Spearmen are just decent at one task, but dont perform well in all other scenarios. I know i picked an unfavored matchup in the spearmen/MAA example and spearmen should not beat MAA, but MAA should not be able to beat everything so dominant either.

Same goes for Lancers/Knights …but i dont want to make it to long here at this point …

I would like to see in the future that im able to tech through the Ages and that my previously build unit comp still has a chance if fully upgraded and i have an decent army resource lead and im forced to slowly transition out of my current unit composition, then rather just switch to the new unlocked units that the new Age provides with no penalties involved.

There are so many other units that are useless like the Abbasid Camel Rider, but getting the core units that all civs have balanced would help a lot.

Knights, Mangonels, Bombards, MAA, they are to strong. Also the Rus Cavalry Archer and much more. Some perform across the board to well.

And the horsemen nerf was also not nice, they where nice the way they where. I dont like the idea that one unit has only one purpose and that is killing XYZ only. When you have a comp that is forced to dive the backline it is allready a huge problem, there could be not enough space, frontline spears or other meat shields, a castle and much more that prevents you to engange the fight efficient.

I would like to see that all units come closer together in the way they perform and the bonus counter dmg is just the cherry on top and not the only selling point.

Im also not a big fan of the university percentage upgrades, they shuffle everything again. Suddenly you can do dmg with Archers, dont get me wrong, they are still bad at this stage of the game tho. It should be balanced from Age II till Age IV and all units should be able to perform decent overall the tech advantage alone from the new Age should allready be decent enough bring your army to the next level, instead of introducing a new unit type, that performes just better out of the box.

The civs differences alone would allow an intresting matchup, what approach, what kind of unit comp they build, what strategy they go for. There is no need to have these big gaps in the peformance of different units.

Siege:

I dont like the current game design of siege.

It should be slower and in general less effective and the line of sight of them is also not allways clear and results in weird behaviour that feels so much rng, why my siege can not shoot? What is going on, why it is moving towards the enemy, the tower gives me vision on the enemys so why can my siege not attack them? Imo it should be simple, what you can see and is in range can be shot. This also adds to frustation at times, where you just quit the game. You where allready forced to play a way that u dont want to play, heavily siege focused and then your siege does strange things, your opponents performs normal and just wins the fight and its gg.

Even the springalds nerf will be not enough, you will probably need them to be ahead in Mangonels or Bombards. That are just overpowerd, to much dmg and speed and attack speed.

Suggestion Siege Speed

I think the best fix for speed is they start to be very slow and catch up over 5-10 seconds to the desired speed. I get the intention of the devs, that the game should feel quick and no one likes to wait 5 minutes that his siege arrives at the frontline … but this would make it rly intresting. If they would slowly start to speed up from 50% speed to 100% speed over time.

Bombards just delete buildings and is also effective vs everything else, again to much of everything. The dmg of bombards vs building is so insane that you dont have time to react and repair your castle. It is just a waste of resources to build or repair defensive structures when the opponent has a siege lead.

Bombards just overperform vs castles and units underperform vs castles aswell there again i would like to see that the defence structures /siege / units come closer together.

The Hand Cannoneer is another example of making an unit like the archer obsolete, the dmg / resource ration is nice not much upgrades left to invest, just university and u have a good range unit that outperforms other range units like archers. If Siege would not be as strong as they are, they would be produced way more.

What are your thoughts about it? Do you agree? What balance changes would you like to see in the future?

1 Like