Yay another patch of not seeing tourbament play and sub 50% winrate!
But hey, I get it. Lithuanians are the black sheep of aoe2
1 Like
I agree that the leitis is too strong right now, at least for its current cost. I think it needs to be made more expensive.
Personally, I would rebalance lithuanians like this:
-Relic bonus cap goes from 4->3 but also affects champions.
-Leitis gold cost goes from 50g->60g
-Gain access to arbalest
1 Like
There is no point of give them Arbalest and nerf the Relic bonus
1 Like
There is. It gives them versatility.
my problem with these changes is it takes them from a trash and heavy cav civ to a civ that has pretty much everything except siege. i also think that is an overbuff.
2 Likes
Then what would you change to compensate for a more expensive leitis?
Lithuanians unique techs and bonuses (aside the relic one) are pretty lackluster. A broader tech tree makes up for that.
They already have enough versatility. One of the best trash civilization, best paladins in the game, mangudai level unique unit, full gunpowder, good defenses, very fast age up early due to +150 food, fast monks on arena-like maps.
1 Like
that’s the tricky part.
that is an understatement.
maybe, but it also shifts the identity of the civilization.
highly dependent on how many relics you get.
no, not really. mangudai is something you go for right away, like the plumed archer. Leitis you slow roll your way too.
but very lack luster overall eco bonus. yeah its good in the early game, but overall Lithuanians have one of the worst ecos in the game.
1 Like
They already have enough versatility. One of the best trash civilization, best paladins in the game, mangudai level unique unit, full gunpowder, good defenses, very fast age up early due to +150 food, fast monks on arena-like maps.
They sound really OP in your description…so, why are you against a leitis price increase? I’m curious…
Perhaps changing their food bonus could work. Like getting some resources each time they age up
1, +150 food is the different version of the Mongol bonus
2, Fast Skirmishers and Pikes are very strong because they can chase down armies easier it’s surprisingly good vs archers
3, Agreed with the Castle Age Unique Tech it’s pretty expensive and if you have a Castle you have a good control over your base
4, Tower Shields is a very strong Unique Tech makes Lithuanian trash insane, their Halbs are even faster than Celt halbs while Arbs and Cavalry Archers do 1 damage vs Lith Skirms. vs normal Skirms they do 2 and 3
1 Like
Honestly, the only reason i even bring up compensation is because people argue to nerf the Leitis because they believe its OP.
Lithuanians isn’t OP, its UU is. so basically the only reason the civ is good is because its carried by Leitis.
1 Like
They are similar to Mongols in this case because Mangudais carry Mongols hard
and despite this, they are still one of the slowest civs for eco overall, a huge reliance on a very passive/defensive style until they can get the ball rolling in mid/late castle age.
2 Likes
except mongols can actually afford to start massing there UU in the castle age.
2 Likes
Yes, I would always prefer 2 stable knights + monastery in the Castle Age. Don’t forget FC Castle drop hurts your economy. Overall perfect and fun civ.
2 Likes
yeah but the thing is, mongols got 2 advantages for them.
- the Leitis costs a lot of food that prevents it from being massed while you try to boom, whereas the Mangudai costs 0 food.
- the mongols get the final gold upgrade.
also, i think a lot of people tend to prefer the more aggressive style of mongols to the slower more passive style of Lithuanians.
it also helps that Mongols
- have been in the game for 20 years
- have pretty much always been a solid and fun civ.
- have their own campaign so people actually experience playing them.
3 Likes
My Criticisms -
Turks: The only thing that Jannisaries get are the armor upgrades for ranged units. Jannisaries don’t get range upgrades, thumbring, ballistics or chemistry. What is it about Jannisaries being classified as archers that would require them to be classified as something else?
Koreans: Why do you think Koreans need these changes, other than the fact that you want them to be more interesting for you?
Portuguese: Same criticism as the Koreans, why does this need to change other than you needing to feel more uniqueness for the civ?
Italians: Same as above
Vikings: Same as above
Khmer: You’re basically proposing the same thing without justifying why the status quo is unbalanced? Why is this needed?
Same for the rest of your proposals.
Bottom line, I think you need to justify why these balance changes are needed if you want some in depth critique for your ideas.
he wants to remove them being countered by skirms.
i can answer this one because frankly i have the same changes, basically, Koreans aren’t a very good civ right now and are rarely seen. these changes are intended to make htem stronger and appeal to more people.
Same thing, Portuguese are a little under-powered right now.
hes trying to balance water play so its not just Vikings vs Italians.
he’s also giving Italians a small land buff to help them there.
hes making it a gradual increase in power instead of right off the bat. the Khmer are a very very strong civ in team games.
2 Likes
What is a good reason to change a civ for you? For me balancing is all about the win rate and pick rate of civs in the multiplayer environment. It is all about buffing bad civs and nerfing great civs. You dont like it if people discuss those things, but i do think discussing about balance make no sense if you cant discuss about this point.
Some civs are designed as one-dimensional. Balance changes arent really meant to change how civs meant to be played. They are meant to balance the strength between the civs. There is nothing wrong with one-dimensional civs as long as they just are balanced in the current meta.
1 Like