I know most people don’t play Treaty so the balance patches tend to skew towards supremacy tweaks. I have a few minor buff suggestions for two civs I am quite comfortable with that I don’t think would effect supremacy. I am currently hovering around rank 100 for treaty if that changes anyone’s opinion of my thoughts. I have included a Tier list below which is used in the Treaty League and is created through discussion with players ranked in the top 10.
I want to start off by saying these buffs are not supposed to catapult any civ from Tier 3 to S tier, or even Tier 1. I think trying to buff in one big jump is how civs become way overpowered, or way underpowered if you nerf everything at once.
The reason I want to buff India and Aztec is they are consistently considered at the bottom of the tier list for Treaty Civs and there is no reason to not buff them. The problem is how to buff them without buffing supremacy games. As an aside they may or may not need a buff in supremacy but I don’t play that mode so I am assuming for right now that they don’t need one.
For India I think they should make troops train faster through a card buff to the existing training time card or add a training time reduction to another card. Just making them come out five percent faster would be really helpful in helping them sustain a fight. I think adding a new card would hurt India more then necessary based on their current rank as they already have so many cards they want. India has decent units and a strong eco but their main weakness is how slow units train. This change would keep India’s core identity the same, provide a small buff to their weakest aspect, but not push them into OP status. Also, by using a card you are severely restricting its use for supremacy players as there are much higher value cards.
A more controversial change, which would benefit India for all game modes, would be to make their siege elephants have slightly higher range when attacking but not when sieging. India struggles vs civs with culverins because of how short their range is compared to a culverin. This change is something I would be fine seeing, but also understand if it did not happen, as it would remove some of the skill expression present in India. High level players can macro their cannons really well so moving them in and out of the fight is an advantage. For worse players, macroing in a massive 100 pop army can be very hard and the low range means your elephants will die before they even fire sometimes.
For Aztec I would suggest a simple buff to their late game eco by buffing existing farming and estate cards. This again should not really effect supremacy but would benefit Treaty a lot. The problem with Aztec in a 1v1 game is that you need to win on the first or second push or you are going to drain. If they added a slight increase to gather rates, say 10%, that would let solo Aztec players survive and actually trade with players, rather then just overwhelm the opponents at the beginning. This would buff Aztec in 2v2 as well but since you can pair them with a civ like Germany which has a massive economy the buff would not be as prevalent. This could be accomplished by reducing unit costs or something along those lines but that would effect supremacy games and would make them really imbalanced in team games where allies can feed you. That is why I think increasing the gather rate is the best path forward.
Let me know what you guys think. Personally I would love to see changes to other weak civs and nerfs to the strong civs because I like to see variety. I think we should aim to have all the civs around the Tier 2 level.
S Tier: China, Inca, Lakota, USA, Ethiopia, Hausa
Tier 1: Spain, Portuguese, France, Japan, Sweden
Tier 2: British, Haudenosaunee, Germany
Tier 3: Russia, Ottoman, Dutch, India, Aztec