It’s been a while since i’ve been here so I haven’t noticed if there was any discussions regarding the Britons.
I think they’ve fallen out of the meta quite a lot. Since they no longer have +20% faster archery range production but only 10% I see them used very very little.
I don’t want to revert the changes because it was needed very much to balance them in team games.
But Britons were not used very frequently in 1v1 anyway except occasionly on closed maps.
What do you think of this:
Military units attack 5/10/15% faster in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age
I’m not sure if this would be too strong, so this could as well be changed up a litte bit. (e.g. only melee units attack 5/10/15% faster; only land units attack 5/10/15% faster; all units attack 10% faster starting in castle age, all units attack x% faster except siege units etc.)
No, the point of britons is having very long range archers in exchange of low fire rate.
I would like to see a kind of rework of britons, but if this is too naive, a bonus for militia line could be interesting
Ok I see the point with the long range and low fire rate on archers. That’s why I thought this could be changed so that archers or all units doing pierce damage could be excluded.
I also like the idea of a militia line bonus for them.
All units that do melee damage attack 5/10/15% faster still sounds like a pretty good overall bonus to me.
We already have Japanese with fast attacking Infantry and Bulgarians with fast attacking cavalry, there isn’t any need to randomly and needlesly give a buff to Britons that doesn’t even fits their identity as an archer civ.
We also have Slavs with faster farming, Celts with faster wood chopping, Turks with faster gold mining, Koreans with faster stone mining and then there come the Romans to take a piece of all of them.
My suggestion is the same, just with fire rate, instead of faster res income, so I don’t see why the Japanese and Bulgarians bonus should prevent such bonuses from being given to other civs (or new civs)
Also their identity would kind of stay the same. They would just not be pushed to only being an archer civ. Why does nobody like to play them in 1v1 anymore? Because everyone knows what they will do. And if they don’t do that one thing, then they are a generic civ with no military bonuses.
And still Romans will be individually on those resources worse to compare.
Because powercreep, I don’t see why Britons need a buff now, why turn Britons into another Scouts Into Knights civ with strong dark age and strong booming potential?
Maybe because of the Archer upgrades cost increase and team bonus nerf, but even then Britons are not bad in 1v1, they still have good match ups, and general powercreep of the game made Britons fall a bit apart, but go and see that Britons on closed maps (both 1v1 and TGs) still do really well, especially after massing Longbows. So why simply buffing a civ that’s already fine instead tone down other civs?.
In my suggestion, the individual units of the Britons also would still be worse than Japanese infantry or Bulgarians cavalry, so that’s still the same.
Without bloodlines? I don’t see them becoming a good scout into knight civ, especially not in castle age.
I agree with you for the most part here. Of course Brtions were hit hard by the archer upgrade cost increase and the team bonus nerf, and I know that they are still used a lot in team games. In 1v1 on closed maps they may be a borderline top 10 civ but you never go like “oh man for this map I pick Britons because they’re the best here”
Japanese have faster attacking infantry because of the unsheathing techniques of real japanese swordmen. Bulgarians have faster attacking cavalry because of their relation with stirrups, which, incidentaly, is the Unique Tech that you have to research in order to unlock that bonus. Britons have absolutely zero cultural trait that could be translated into what you propose. In point of fact, Britons had a strong reputation of horse breeders, so they should get bloodlines.
I actually think the Britons are horribly bland compared to every other civilization. The Edward Longshanks campaign somewhat mitigated this because I could just mass Longbowmen, but it feels like they have nothing to offer in normal games.
To be blunt, the Britons were already harder to play and less forgiving than many alternatives in higher level play when they were at their peak. Their edge was simply worth it for the players who could exploit it.
The 20% faster ranges bonus was too powerful as a team bonus. Just make it a civ bonus for 15% faster and make team bonus something less important, like towers get extra los or something. Also would be nice if Yeomen was half its current cost or lower but only applied to longbows.
No. That’s definitely strong. Archers with extra range and free extra rof. Other civs have to wait to get thumb ring.
Apart from the purpose of longsbows, the civ is fine. You have a huge advantage in treb wars, very good towers, full upgrades on infantry and even cavalry get +4 and are better compared to most archer civs. There are plenty of maps other than Arabia where Britons are quite good. Like hybrid maps, easy to wall maps like Runestones, maps with extra sheep etc. They might seem weaker compared to civs like Mongols, Georgians, Franks, Portugese, Chinese and Mayans on Arabia. And that’s because those civs are damn too strong. Once those civs get an appropriate nerf, Britons won’t seem that bad.
Town Centers cost -50% wood starting in the Castle Age.
Insert one effect here.
Shepherds work 25% faster.
[Team] Archery Ranges work 10% faster.
UU1: Billman
A gold-costing Halberdier-like unit. Has good HP, speed, melee armor and attack bonus against mounted units, but no extra attack bonus against the camel tag and the elephant tag.
Would the Halberdier need to be removed because of the Billman?
UU2: Longbowman → Elite Longbowman
Replace the Crossbowman and Arbalester. Almost have same stats, but having respectively 6 and 7 base range.
Castle UT: Yeomen
Longbowmen have +2 range; Insert one or more effects here.
Imperial UT: Warwolf
Gives Trebuchets blast damage and 100% accuracy against units.
Potential effect candidates: (Some of these are references to AoE4 English)
Towers have +1/+2 attack in the Castle/Imperial Age. (Towers have +2 attack if for the Yeomen.)
Archery Ranges work +10% faster (or the Archer line units are trained +10% faster if the 20% faster trainning of Skirmishers is considered too strong).
Villagers wield bows when attacking enemy units and TCs fire twice as many arrows.
Give Longbowmen and Billmen the ability to fast build Palisades.
A new bonus for something like the Militia line. Maybe an ability to set up campfires for healing?
Since the Georgians can make buildings inclyding Towers have +2 attack, frankly I personally still prefer having the Britons instead of the Koreans have the +2 range Towers which echoes the identity of longer range, having the Koreans instead of the Celts getting faster firing Towers/Castles, and having the Celts UT provide effects like Towers/Castles can heal infantry and do something else with their aura. But I know all these are unacceptable to some people.
If the Organ Gun was removed from the Portuguese for possible historical accuracy reasons, perhaps it could become a regional unit in Siege Workshops in the Imperial Age for Britons, Burgundians, Franks, Italians and Spanish, obviouslt after a tweak. Just saying. I know it is hard to happen.
I think it is entirely unnecessary to make the Longbowman replace the Archer line. As far as I can tell, the Britons are supposed to be a simple civ with not too many gimmicks. Replacing a core unit line takes away from that.
Instead, I would make the foot archer range bonus be a simple +1, and make the Longbowman have 1 more range to compensate, ending with the same 12 range, but a lot more than the Archer line.
