Leitis (both) costs +10G. Presently they are super cheap, just as Steppe Lancers (I hope the devs should think this comparison too). Yes Steppe Lancers have +1 range, but that surely doesn’t compensate 5G for much higer attack which is ignored by armor, almost +50% HP factoring Bloodlines, +1/2 melee armor, +1 pierce armor, faster attack, cooler look, and a potential for another +4 attack with relics.
Keshiks (both) costs +10G. Similar to previous unit, the Keshik is about the same as Tarkan, having +1 attack, slightly different HP, no attack vs buildings, -1 pierce armor, but clearly faster attack rate and a special ability to generate gold. After the increase in gold cost, they still cost -16.66% resources compared to the Tarkan which still seems nice.
Steppe Lancers costs -10G. From previous discussion.
Teutons: a. +1 armor to Infantry (all) in Feudal and Imperial Age, and +1 armor to Cavalry (all) in Castle Age.
b. Teutonic Knight -1 armor (basically no change, and +1 than normal in Imperial Age). Elite Teutonic Knights -2 armor. --> a and b stack so it is not a nerf to TKs.
Turks: Free Chemistry from Castle Age. Helps in archer and cavalry archer strategies, which Turks also have a UT for. Synergistic with faster gold collection giving them a mildly strong option (but not OP) in Castle Age too.
Goths: Loom costs +50G compared to present. Basically Loom costs normal resources, but is researched instantaneously when queued.
Tatars: All civilian units created in -8% time (8.7% faster). Includes Villagers, Fishing ships, trade ships and cogs and transport ships. Basically villagers created in 23 s instead of 25 s.
Leitis also requires a castle to mass up, cant be easily massed in castle age, and the civ doesn’t need nerfs.
Funny though I dont see you comparing the keshik to the steppe lancer and asking to nerf the keshik
I mentioned above that cost of Steppe Lancers be lowered by 10G, thus maintaining my word by doing both things.
Lots of either typos or ambiguity in your post.
Im sure you mean, costs - 50g.
Also did you miss how the armour works for teutons atm? Just say +1 MA to BARRACKS units. Like it CURRENTLY is. There are no other infantry for teutons except the TK which your convoluted method counter balances anyway.
Otherwise i partially agree… Still doesn’t help turks vs archers in imperial age.
Not Nerfing the civ, but the unit. The Leitis is a heavy Cavalry unit available at the price of a medium Cavalry unit (cheaper than a Tarkan). Sure it requires a Castle, but it’s also faster to produce.
Being a unique unit means being produced from a castle. It does not mean having OP stats. By the same word, the Mangudai and Camel Archer should cost 40G apiece because they are harder to mass than regular cav archers.
Yeah i dont think people are going to take you seriously. Either you are misunderstanding how the game works or you misunderstand English.
By your own levels of comparison the keshiks need a nerf in the same way the leitis needs a nerf. That’s what matt is saying.
Loool really?? ACTUALLY any buff or nerf to anything for a civ leads to a buff or nerf for that civ. Read my very first line. People aren’t going to take you seriously.
No I meant +50G. It’s already free for Goths, and -50G to that is nonsense. I meant increasing the cost of Loom for Goths from 0G 0 seconds to 50G (normal) 0 seconds (this time is the bonus).
Not really though. Basically it helps in campaign missions and scenario editors as well, where I have other infantry units like Huskarls/Woads/Konniks Moreover it’s easier to program.
If you didn’t notice already, it basically nerfs one melee armor for their Cavalry in Imperial Age too.
Lmao, I though I wrote Increase gold cost of Keshiks by 10G too, but now I see I missed.
You see here, the civ need buff but the unit needs a slight nerf. The civ already has some good military options and bonuses but needs an eco bonus probably. Wait let me edit the post now.
- Leitis deserve a +G cost. 70F is okay, it needs to be less than the 80F Scout-line. But Leitis are too cheap for what they can do.
- Keshiks are an underwhelming unit IMO. Not a fan of increasing their gold cost.
- I would really like to see the Teuton armor on cavalry brought down to +1 in Castle Age and no further bonus. Don’t really agree with the infantry armor changes, but don’t think it’s a terrible idea either. I don’t think they need the infantry armor buff, but civs like Burmese and Malians exist, so why not?
- Free chemistry for Turks in castle age:I get the idea. I don’t know how you would write that into the proper words for the civ bonuses for the tech tree, but sure.
- Free loom from the get-go on any civ is kinda silly. I think loom should cost no resource (or be super-discounted) but still take time to research. I don’t think loom should research instantaneously, cause that makes the decision of when to get loom too simple. It also allows for getting loom in a purely reactive way. E.g. skipping loom until your villager gets attacked, and then immediately getting loom.
- Tatars need their eco bonus re-examined. I’m not sure if this is the one that fits the civ historically. But let’s say I’m on board.
Compared to Paladins, they have -3 attack, -1 melee armor and -20HP, and a special ability to generate gold. All this for half the gold cost.
Just like Cuman Rams.
Moreover since the Goths have got infantry discount in Dark and gold savings from Loom, their drush has become unmatched.
they are also bottle necked by a castle, and given to a civ with no serious bonuses (in comparison to uber siege, uber paladins with 5 eco bonuses, uber harvest rates, uber eco with uber eagles and so forth)… similarly to how OP the mangudai is, except the mangudai counters more things, is given to a civ with an AMAZING early eco bonus and has access to pretty decent UT
the leitis is in a similar boat, lith really dont have that much going for them, its only when they get 4 relics that they suddenly become nuts.
no worries, to be honest i actually didnttake you seriously so i didnt read properly the moment you said “leitis (both)” because that is already an incredibly redundant discription, there is no unit that has a price change between versions of itself
its still a convoluted change that is ONLY necessary for scenario editor. i get moaned at for wanting to have the game balanced around TGs as well, nevermind now the editor, thats asking too much. they can simply change the ALREADY +1/+2 to +1/+1, your method is actually harder to program as it currently stands…
and in the civ description it would read “loom researches instantly” that would be the first and only case for anything like that in the game. imo it can create confusion. on top of that
theres a horde of bros here who think if they face goths its an auto win scenario, and you’re now asking for them to be nerfed when they are already considered to be so weak? GOOD LUCK!
No. Thr point is that the keshik is super tanky and good against archers and generates gold. But I dont see you asking to nerf that. But oh lord. Must nerf leitis
The civ gets nerfed anyway. And the point is that even with a castle its harder to mass then a stable unit.
The difference is the mangudai has no downside compared to the cav archer, whereas the leitis does have downsides compared to the paladin.
- Agree, Leitis is completely broken OP
- Keshiks are not overpowered
- Good start but they’d be the same useless imo
- Teutons are not overpowered, the second armor compensates the lack of Husbandry
- This wouldn’t help at all. They’d be the same bad against Archers
- Goths are very far from being op or being good (expect exteme situations)
- Idk about this
Except the tarkan belongs to a stronger civ so comparing unique unit costs for thrm doesn’t work as much.
Not a fan of this. I think there is a good reason the extra infantry armor is only from castle age. Teutons have insane tower rushing potential with the +5 garrison ability and the cheap farms behind that. Buffing their feudal infantry would further buff maa into tower strategies and generally make them a lot stronger in feudal age.
I like the idea but I think this will turn Turks into a pure xbow civ as far as castle age is concerned since they would be able to compete with Briton and Ethiopian xbows. It’s not too bad in the long run because Turks don’t have arb but I guess everybody will just go all-in xbows in castle age (at least on open maps) with that.
Free loom is the only thing Goth have going for them until late castle age apart from having cheaper infantry so I don’t see a reason to remove that.
This is more or less the Persian bonus in feudal age. Why give a weaker version of it to Tartars?
Because they don’t deserve the Persian one which applies to more important things. They only need a small buff
So what? The Burmese and the viet have similar bonus by saving wood on their lumber upgrades.
The Franks and the viet have similar bonuses by saving wood on the farm upgrade
Lith and celts have similar bonus by having faster pike line.
Magyar, berbers have cheaper scouts.
Berber, byz have cheaper camels.
Im soooo sick of people using this absolutely lazy excuse of “but there’s overlap we can’t have that added”
When the majority of civs end up with more wood in some form of another as bonus overlap nevermind the plethora of other overlaps
We have 36 moffo civs. THERE WILL BE OVERLAP
+10G would be a huge nerf and I think it would be too much. Even if it just was +5G they should get like free Fervor or something like that to balance the nerf.
Tatars aren’t all that good. No need to make them even weaker.
Steppe Lancers are a lot about being massed and I remember when they cost 30G. Yes, they also were stronger back then but I feel this would get out of control again. Maybe -5, but again -10 would be too big of a change.
They’re fine just as they are in my eyes.
I agree that the Turks need something. I like the idea we discussed in the august thread that everytime they sell something at the market they get +5G. That would help their late game and this is where they really fall off compared to other civs.
I’m also annoyed by early Goth spams but I don’t play them a lot so I can’t really judge.
5% in Dark Age for Persians was already OP. 8% plus their civ bonus concerning herdables would be absolutely broken I think.
My issue with that is rather that this is too much. Faster vill production which is the most important of the Persian bonus (even if the rate is bit slower) on top of more food is really strong. Besides I think it’s pretty unspired.
Overlap is different from copying. Vietnamese partly overlap with Burmese and Franks bonuses, that’s correct and fine because its a different logic of how the bonuses work and to what techs they apply to. Same for the other examples you brought up. But this suggested one and the Persian one would be just the same but only of a weaker form. Imo Tartars eco is quite okay considering their free upgrades in the mid-game and their civ bonuses’ focus on military instead of eco. Not every civ needs a strong eco bonus. If the majority of the community still demands a buff (which I’m not sure about this is the case) why not just increase the sheep bonus to 75% or whatever amount seems reasonable. Maybe also add more line of sight for their sheep, resulting in better potential for early aggression due to a scouting advantage, idk. But I don’t see why randomly copying another civ’s bonus and giving it to Tartars would be a good idea.
except this is only partially true. Yes not every civ needs a strong eco bonus…
But if you want to be a great civ its almost certainly true. Look at all the best civs in the game and only 1 or 2 of them don’t have amazing long term eco bonus.