Like the idea of overcharging health, but think there would need to be a limit to it.
Players would research loom first, and the first house would be built by the time that finishes. Suspect the end result is that the player can theoretically play with 0 TC idle time (or at least close to it) on Arabia - a strong buff, though actually doing so might be tricky unless the map starts with straggler fish or has a sheep/llama/animal under the TC.
I think losing plate armor would be a bit much: -15% population space on infantry wouldnât make up for losing either free infantry armor or plate armor (and certainly not both). With all these changes, you could add gambesons and champions and the civ would still be overall nerfed (less timing advantage due to needing to research more techs, weaker imperial age due to weaker infantry).
Yeah, probably, but if theyâre changing it anyways adding a 85% (or whatever) overcharge limit would be relatively easy. And again, itâs only 5 health per unit lost, maximum, and if thereâs enough units lost for it to get theoretically get that strong several of them will be overlapping in their death boost, thus reducing the actual amount healed.
Yeah, thatâs what I was thinking it would do, but I think it would be strongest to the players that need it most.
Perhaps -25%? Also, if infantry actually get buffed into the castle age meta we donât want the bonus being too strong. But thatâs details, itâs all about the idea, and the free armor is not really the thing Malay should get.
A lot of the opposition to the bonus Iâve been hearing is that there isnât a disadvantage with it. With this malus there would be that disadvantage: âYou have a really strong eco but youâre on a timer.â
My point is that those kind of stats means about nothing when balance changes must be made with the top players in mind.
Balance changes are not made for the lower level players for which a small change does not change a thing or close to it, but for top 1% of players for which it matters most, and rightfully so. So using this stats as an excuse to get buffs or nerfs is a bit misleading imho, because no one would ever think bulgarians are stronger then georgians and need nerfs while georgians need buffsâŚ
But why make things more complicated? Simply reducing the bonus from 5% to 4% will be enough.
They donât actually have a particularly powerful Imperial Age. Itâs just that their economy is strong enough to let them do everything at the right time.
No, that team bonus should simply be treated as a civ bonus. It synergizes too well with how TG works. Weâre forgetting why it was nerfed.
If I remember correctly, the current construction time for the second TC in Feudal Age was calculated by TheMax. Maybe it could be extended further, although thereâs the issue that it might not be worth it.
I think itâs simply unbalanced in every way
Youâre not the first to say that the Georgians shouldnât have that regenerative ability; certainly not in the Feudal Age. But the developers have always refused to remove it.
Itâs called âhuman nature.â Everyone has the potential to be this way, but most people donât indulge it. But thatâs a topic for a different discussion.
Teutons already have Scouts in the early game, but they lack access to Light Cavalry later on. This leaves them without a cheap, mobile unit for map control and relic play in mid and late game.
What if they got:
Light Cavalry
Bloodlines
Full Blacksmith upgrades
BUT no Husbandry and no Hussar
This would give them a durable but slow Light Cav:
useful for utility (relics, map presence)
still weak at raiding due to low speed
Would this help fix their mid/late-game weakness without making them too strong?
Or is access to Light Cavalry itself already too much?