Anyone think that a 10% faster ship speed bonus is enough to justify it as a naval civ? They also lack shipwright which is a pretty big tech.
Civ descriptions aren’t always the best, but this one is more accurate than saying Teutons are infantry because of the TK and Crenellation, or that Chinese are archers because of the Chu ko nu alone. Also, other naval civs like Saracen and Portuguese lack shipwright (and Vikings too but they get a half compensation with their bonus) while some non naval civs like Goths, Ethiopians and Aztecs (!!!) do get it.
1 Like
Yeah my main point is that the civilization bonus isn’t very strong to be considered a naval civ. I guess if they had a full naval tech tree then maybe you could make a case but obviously they don’t.
Yeah, I think this is an example of the tech tree/civ description overstating a civ’s proficiencies, although not necessarily a sign that the civ in question is underpowered, since the cheaper cav bonus, UU, and Team Bonus are all quite good.
That said, and while I think Berbers are pretty fine the way they are, I could live with them getting some kind of small boost on water. Mainly because I find that water is dominated by a very few civs (Mainly Italians, sometimes Viks/Malay/Japs, occasionally Persians or Saracens). Having more competition in that regard would make water and hybrid maps a little more interesting.
1 Like
Yeah I never thought the berbers were bad but this naval civ description always bothered me.
Yes I do agree that there should be more balance for water civs. Even though there are technically several “naval civilizations” Italians dominate water and it’s not even close. Persians dominate hybrid maps and it’s really not that close there either but definitely closer than pure water maps. It would definitely be healthy for competition if there were more balanced water map civilizations.
I mean the most logical conclusion is to bump it up to 15%.