Chinese is weak!

I think the 15pop tc is the most reasonable change here to be fair.
Giving them extra crates will undirectly buff their ff, which is already very strong, but I do agree their early game needs work as if they are up vs rush civs

At least it’s very unpopular among the top players, as far as I can see in DE tournaments.

In Draft League #1 it was only 2 out of 46 picks.
In Draft League #2 it was zero out of 34 picks.
In Goodhouse Cup it was, again, zero out of 50+ picks (Haven’t watched the final yet, but I doubt any of them would use Chinese)

I’m not good enough to say how strong they are, but surely it was annoying to play around with the awkward Banner Army. I felt really constricted.

2 Likes

I agree.Chinese player want to say ■■■■ to play Chukonus Hit and Run and Pikeman against Cavalry
Because,Stepper Rider in Age 2 so weakly.Only 7 stepper is common.Flag Army I don’t think good.Because they are weakly against pure cavalry.And Keshink,I think.emmm…

1 Like

Well, the goodhouse cup is over. Link here: Live Today: ESOC GoodHouse Cup Finals - #3 by vividlyplain

We saw a good variety of civilisations:
Otto, Germany, Spain, Brits, Russia, Japan, India, Spain, 2x France, Portugal, Brits, Portugal, Germany.

Again, no one bothered to play China, We saw Japan and India, as we all know these are the only Asian civs being played, never China.

The devs have recently adjusted Portugal with a substantial buffs to their TC (TC now grant 100 exp when build) and this has lead to Portugal being played with good success.

Its about time that something is being done for China. At this point, its not so much about nerfing other civs. Its about buffing China so it can be played and compete with other civs. We have talked about its weaknesses already. Late Age 2 is the worst out of any civ because of banner armies, struggle against Cavalry until Age IV, bad shipments (flamethrowers).

I am sure that a smart buff like what was done to Portugal is needed. Like more starting population, more wood. But overall having a wider variety of strategies in Age 2 is also needed. This could easily be done by buffing the flamethrowers aswell as their shipments. Starting with a 2 Flamethrower shipment in Age 2, buffing the flamethrower shipments in general, lowering their pop cost and adding more range with upgrades.

1 Like

2 flame thrower shipment is actually a good idea.
Also the higher pop tc.
But I am totally against anything that will directly or indirectly buff their ff as it is already hard as it is to deal with the deathball+z move

By buffing the flamethrower and direct flamethrower shipments, China will gain the option to be more aggressive in Age 2. Something that China has not really been able to. This will also open up more unit diversity.

Because they cannot mass one type of unit apart from using shipments. This will open up just a little more strategic variety which they are severely lacking. China is best at rushing Age 3 and so they are predictable and can easily be punished by all those civs which are better in Age 2, but also strong in Age 3. Like France, Spain, Germany and others. This is what makes them better than China.

Consider this. If Flamethrowers are getting buffed, then they might be used and shipped more in Age 3 aswell. However, do not forget about opportunity cost. If you ship flamethrowers or build them, your “mass” of infantry is going to be smaller aswell.

For those of you who think “this is going to buff their deathball”, I disagree. Because you can only put so many cards in your Deck and ressources you are spending on flamethrowers will mean fewer banner armies.

The usual army of early age 3 China consists of 9 Muskets, 10 Arquebusier which are usually the first 2 cards send in the fortress Age. Let us assume that we will still send 9 muskets, but we ship a card of 3 Flamethrowers (buffed version). China will not have 10 Arquebusiers.

Now consider this: Would you rather have 10 Arquebusiers or 3 Flamethrowers? Obviously 10 Arquebusiers because Flamethrowers are not upgraded to veteran status, they have low range and only 4.25 speed, and are outrun by any infantry due to 4.40 speed after arsenal upgrade. Flamethrowers are weak and you are weakening your potential because you decide to get a weak unit.

By buffing flamethrowers, aswell changing some cards around them we can easily give China more strategic variety, give them more unit diversity without directly buffing their “mass” due to opportunity cost.

Adding a link to the goodhouse cup for those who want to watch it and proof that no one was playing China as expected.

Oh it certainly does. Because they made the decision to not invest into playing China. And this decision is driven by what they think gives them the best chance to win. People have been investing time into Japan and India because these are very strong civs. Even though they were released later on and many people already had a “main” civ.

And its not only the 2 people in the finals. We have seen ALMOST NO ONE play China and have success with it.

However, we have seen people play the same civs over and over again: France, Brits, Germany, Japan, India just to name the most played.

Portugal is also being played a good amount. Even more since its recent buffs. This is more proof that players will play the stronger civs, because it gives them the best chances to win. Portugal was not played as much before its buffs.

The fact is people play that which gives them the most chances to win. Anything else wouldn’t make sense in a tournament. China is not giving them the same opportunity as with all the other civs they have chosen. Therefore we can conclude China is a weaker civ overall. We have enough evidence for this due to many different players and a large number of games. Not just in the Goodhouse tournament. You can simply watch all the ESOCTV tournaments on Youtube. You will barely find any games with China.

See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDpnRJ_LXufk8-S0k6AMZAg

Edit: Someone collected the statistics from goodhouse cup. Obviously no one played China:
Here's Goodhouse Cup civ choice record if anyone wants to talk about

People don’t invest into learning that civ because they are weird and akward to learn, not because they are weak.
But the players that actually know how to play that civ are actually good with it.
I have seen hazza destroying kaiserklein french as china, simply because the civ mid game can just get an overwhelming mass mid game and you can hardly micro your way out of death ball+ z move.

sorry,I am not full.I am Chinese player.Rank ≈500.Thanks.

This statement is ridiculous and easily debunked.

You are telling us that between ALL the players from the goodhouse tournament AND all the tournaments on ESOC TV, NO ONE decideds to pick up China because they are “awkward to learn” as you say.

China isn’t any harder than other civs. Their eco is the same as most other civs. Their unit production is very similar to Russia and its not hard to learn at all. You are trying to convince us that just because the training of units has a different button and 2 types of units come out, this civ is so awkward that NO ONE wants to play it in tournaments? Ontop of that, due to the fact that China is so weak in Age 2 you only have Fast Fortress rush or some form of delayed fast fortress. But ultimately the gameplan is the same, every single game.

I have seen several players using china on tournaments.
I have seen mitoe using them, soldier beating h20 with china and quite a few other players using them on stream.
They may not be as popular right now and i agree that their early game may need a buff, but they are definitely not as weak as people say they are and any buff shouldn’t indirectly buff their ff.
Also what I mean by akward is mostly their composition which is melee units when most players usually prefer going for ranged units or skirm/goon composition.
Also idk what changed from ep china from the NWC tourney to DE china, but on the NWC china was wining almost every single game.

What about shipping two flamethrowers in China’s commercial era?

1 Like

Can be sent as early as Commerce Age, two flamethrowers are worth 640
The Swedish leather cannon is worth 800, which is actually allowed

1 Like

If we calculate the shipment resource based on age, age 2 shipment should have a cost of 600-700 resource, and age 3 shipment is 1000 resource. 2 flamethrower then have the value of 680 so should be “fine” to be sent in commerce age. But I don’t think moving it 1 age earlier can solve china age 2 problem.

There is already the Mandarin duck squad card in age 2, removing it 500 food cost but also reducing the number chu ko nu to 4-5 is a good start to see flamethrower in age 2 play.

It would be great if the wonders of China could exchange 250 tea for a Flying Crow,
With the first Flying Crow produced, I will own two.
I can try an extreme Early oppression

1 Like

I would rather allow them to ship
Then Remove Falconet (this country’s civilization cannot be produced)

This has been suggested over and over, but thats not even a card for China in Age 2. Obviously this is absurd, since this unit is both overpriced being 170 wood + 170 gold (and for some reason its 4 population) for its performance, but also a 2 Flamethrower shipment would still be less than 700 ressources, the “standard” ressource value of an Age 2 shipment. Compare a 2 Leather Cannon shipment to this 2 Flamethrower shipment, which doesn’t even exist. 2 Flamethrowers would still be worse than the current 2 Leather cannon shipment being 2 more population, less ressource value and less useful due to Leather cannons having 21 range.

If you read above, me and many others have suggested to both buff the flamethrower by giving it additional range (and/or speed) from upgrading similar to how Abus guns receive additional range from upgrades. This is an easy solution to giving China a better Age 2 and a more varied Age 2 by offering more aggressive potential via 2 Flamethrower shipment. And by giving Flamethrowers more range from upgrading, you can upgrade them in Age 2 and have them be more useful.

There is never a point in the game where you would want to build Flamethrowers. China is weak in Age 1 because for some reason they have 100 food less compared to the old game. China is basically unplayable because 12/10 exist and france can just raid China. Just because China is too slow to age and they start with less food than they used to. You don’t want to stay in Age 2 for too long. And once you hit Age 3, your Flamethrowers are not upgraded like veteran units so they have trouble competing with upgraded units. Then again there is no reason to even upgrade flamethrowers because they will ge going up against 20 range Skirms, Dragoons and Falconetts which can all snipe them.

Change flamethrowers to the army of Commerce Age, and then China has a card that gives fire ships +50% damage, and additionally provides flamethrowers’ damage range. What about this idea?

Sounds like a fun combination to combine the Fire Ship card with some bonus to Flamethrowers. But its not going to work. The Fire ship card is an Age 3 card and China would want like 15 Age 3 cards if that were possible. China already has a card which buffs artillery - and Flamethrowers gain 20% HP and Damage from it, but its still bad because Flamethrowers are bad. The unit needs some tweaks and not rely on cards to be good.

1 Like