I agree with you. Nobody on this forum uses “stats and analysis” when discussing balance tbh. If we dismiss the opinions of several of the top players in the community because of this reason then we should also dismiss every other random person complaining about balance on the forums.
We often don’t have stats about things and even when we do, we all disagree on what they mean for the game anyway so why not let everybody say their piece without character attacking each other.
That is probably about as good a comment as any other on here.
I have added unit stats for the previous topics I have used personally, Malta units and African Javelins were clearly over performing according to stats. Same as shotel warriors rajputs and all other concerns which is posted in the main competitive post here. Competitive suggestions are all based on data and knowledge, not all of them are shared to not flood the forums but for an example of one of the change PUP is bringing, most units have lesser bonus against shock infantry and this is clearly showing that shotels will kill all type of units even easier starting from the next patch with those stats, even without the shotel combat many competitive players reported how cheap shotels are and need to be balanced.
no they dont they are weaker than skirmisher pop wise and they do lowered damage to canons(yes against canons they are little bit better than skirms but they cost more pop and weaker against what skirmishers strong)
Wait, I’m a competitive player now ?! 
More seriously though, as a screenshot I took was used for justification, let me add context:
There was an analysis linked to it, here it is.
An Age3 carded and with infantry breastplate (portuguese age-up) Shotel Warrior has these stats.
So the balance question becomes : is giving a very effective swarm unit a combat card a balance issue ?
Now that the facts have been presented, I invite competitive players to comment on this as they’d like.
This kind of analysis is good and it would be great with video tests displaying what you are stating.
Sure let us just take your word for it…
This is another way to present an analysis, mostly comparative analysis:
This is exaggerating their strength. All of those French and British cards also apply to Cuirassiers and/or Dragoons and 2 of them are available in age 2. The new Shotel card is just for Shotels and not until age 3.
Hussars also get a +30% guard upgrade vs +25% for Shotels so they catch up more later on.
This is probably the least representative example you could possibly pick. Comparison vs a Dragoon would be most representive because is covers the disparity in multipliers and range resistances. In that case a Shotel takes 6 shots and a Hussar 10. Vs Pikemen will favour Shotels a little more.
And I’m not sure what numbers you’re using because against an Abus, Hussars should take ~180% of the shots a Shotel can.
Italy definitely needs a nerf, they can go FI by 9.40 and you cant punish them because they simply make 10+ free outposts with their architect. Once they’re up they got crazy eco too, absolutely ridiculous
“Malta units…were clearly overperforming according to stats”
This is patently false, Malta has a slow start and their main civ bonus is not an economic one but rather a military one that finally pays off mid-game.
It is not a boom civ nor a rush civ (a rush can be done at the expense of eco and will auto-lose if any mistakes are made), and for being a “turtle civ” is still very vulnerable early game due to their eco not actually kicking off until way later.
So when you take into account their slow start, their “superior HP units” can only be tapped into once the other player is outplayed for long enough - as it should be in any RTS.
We don’t take the civ in a vacuum and say that the stats per pop are better in a Post-Imperial Treaty-type setting. The civ overall was underperforming despite the strong cards and interesting mechanics.
I could agree to a 1% HP boost to artillery and a slightly worse Fixed Gun by way of HP late-game, but with a slight boost to sentinels and early economy by way of reducing the cost of German tongue by 25w, for example.
Sorry buddy, you do not speak for the “competitive community” just because you made a post claiming such. And even if you did, it doesn’t necessarily make your opinion valid as many have stated here already.
Malta doesn’t have a slow start, ages up at 2:20.
It can age up fast but it has a slow start in terms of it’s eco paying off like the settler wagons and late game the wignacourt does not make up for the loss of a factory. 2%HP bonus is also not that great unless you’ve sent 20 cards especially on low hp units like the xbow.
The card that replaces a factory for the Maltese is Sicilian Supply (Villagers gather from Mills 25% faster; grants a trickle of 2.75 food). I like this card because even though you can’t choose what to produce, it’s like having a factory that only generates food but can’t be destroyed. With this you can have fewer settlers gathering food. Or you can gather tons of food and then use Barrakka Gardens to exchange all food for an equal amount of wood. Then with the wood you can build many Estates…
@LevitexIslam I could agree to a 1% HP boost to artillery and a slightly worse Fixed Gun by way of HP late-game, but with a slight boost to sentinels and early economy by way of reducing the cost of German tongue by 25w, for example.
Good ideas!
But there are other points with which I do not entirely agree.
I’ve been playing malta lately, the crossbows+culvs+fixed weapons and her turtle style are too strong.
Improved crossbows and their ranged siege are op.
The culverins that can withstand one more shot are OP.
Fixed weapons for 700res that can be repaired are OP.
The problem with the crossbows is mainly due to the steel bolt card, and now that the light inf is worse vs cav they will be less powerful.
The 2% health increase is the problem for culverins and stationary weapons.
Wignacourt economic card is crazy. But it has been nerfed.
the pike rush that Revnak talks about at 2:20 can be too oppressive. At the expense of running out of echo, it is true.
But Malta is still considered in many cases of a lower level, not being able to deal with aggressive ff’s or late game many times.
And in treaty it is rubbish.
They should improve the sentinels, the tongue cards, probably add a shipment of 2 falconets, and of course give them chances in treaty.
Italy may also be too strong with their FI, despite having other clear deficiencies and also being treaty rubbish.
Let’s use the wood for estates… but my estates have 20 range and steel bolts 
Artillery shouldn’t get any HP bonus, it changes counters to malta by a lot, requires 1 more hit
Malta bow pikes are so much cost efficient it’s possible to spam them by a lot with just even a lower economy, cheap units with a lot of upgrades behind is a balance concern
From what I’ve seen of the pup being played on twitch malta certainly are weaker now, especially the xbow seems to be heavily effected by the changes to light infantry vs cav. I’ve seen just loss after loss so we might move away from massing only xbow now and we might start to see more sentinels which are not a bad unit at all, 1 of the most cost effective units actually for it’s stats it’s just they use a lot of pop like strelets.
Well, everyone thinks of Russia as age2-only civ, but in age 3 they get +30/+30 on their strelets in 2 cards, while Malta gets there in 3 for XB. Please explain the difference, and why you think one is considered weak, while the other is considered OP.
the difference is the basic stat, 15% on a strelet does not have the same value as 15% on an xbow
for example cav combat on a cossack will be weaker than cav combat on a hussar
Not since the patch. Abus gunners have .4 versus SI and .5 versus cav.
So Shotels have 25% more effective HP. Add to this the fact that 2 shotels have about 7% more base HP, and you get the fact that shotels, per pop, have 33% more base effective HP against skirms than hussars. If we go with
your sentence, the Hussars can take 150% more shots, but are also 85% more expensive.
The reason why I am choosing the abus example, is because SI and cav can easily be used as a skirm-shot barrier for ranged infantry.
I however have shown multiple balancing factors like harder massability. It’s not all black or white, as previously stated.