Coop battles and upcoming Balance changes

All really good suggestions. Didnt think anyone would have the balls to even consider making war elephants more viable in castle age, but here it is and i love it.

Those aren’t suggestions, are indeed the upcoming balance changes


suggestions by the devs (upside down emoji)

Really? How were they found (edit my internet is bad and I’m half asleep didn’t see the video just text wtf )

Where is Portuguese buff ;(

Flemish revolution change won’t be enough. Or at least any fixed cost solution will only be balanced for a narrow range of villagers at the exclusion of other ranges. If it is balanced for X +/- y villagers it will not be balanced for villagers > X +y or villagers < X- y. y can only be around 10 if I had to guess.

The issue with the tech is numerous:

  1. you can mass units cheaper than their upgraded counterpart. No military upgrade has this property at this magnitude (villagers are 40% cheaper than flemish militia). This is the primary reason fixed cost solutions cant work.
  2. The above combined with losing villagers creates a loan. You loan the player the marginal cost of upgrading the units and they pay it back with lost production. Unfortunately present value (PV) of loans are not easy to calculate when the time horizon is stochastic and can create hyperbolic discounting which makes the PV much higher than you would intuitively think. This amplifies the issue of fixed cost solutions.
  3. Military units already have an opportunity cost in terms of not making extra TCs and villagers. E.g. you are effectively borrowing from the future by going 1 TC pressure rather than 3 TC boom. This means flemish revolutions present value is higher than even the shorter time horizon would indicate. That is the true cost of flemish revolution is only how far off the optimal villager: military ratio it puts you. If 50 vills: 150 instant military were optimal then the cost is only those 50 villagers being lost.
  4. villagers are inherently safer while obtaining maximum return. Stone defenses are very cheap for the protection they provide. Military units have a good chance of dying while obtaining maximum return. This makes flemish revolution act on many more units than military upgrades. This means comparing to other upgrades will be ddeceptive.
  5. the new cost is approximately the same as militia → champion. But due to the above reasons this is too low. Acting like the above dynamics don’t exist and just increasing the fixed cost won’t get you anywhere.

All together these imply that the present value of spotting the player the 10f and 25g for each militia has a much higher present value than intuition would generate. This is why many players can use flemish militia and win the game by a wide margin (many surviving units).

Fixed costs can only work if a fixed number of villagers are converted. There exists an idle military hotkey for selecting them even if the conversion is random. Otherwise you need to have the cost be on a per unit basis or make flemish militia a unit whose value is closer to 50f.

Edit: I want to point out that first crusade and cuman mercenaries are much more balanced precisely because there is a cap on the number of units generated.


This is a poor justification for imbalance. Lanchester’s Laws show that a winning engagement will typically result with most units on the winning side surviving. Only extremely balanced fights will result in victory by small margins.

None of your arguments are intrinsically flaws. Every one of them is an intended feature of the tech.

The only potential flaw of the tech is that players must preemptively prepare for the tech to occur, but that is the case for many civs with periods of relative strength and weakness. You can’t make archers against goths, for example. But that does not mean the Goths are overpowered.

In point of fact, the tech is arguably already underpowered. Players using it sacrifice much more than they gain in the long term as they attempt to rebuild their economy. Should the attack fail, they will find themselves in a significantly disadvantaged position.

The ‘problem’, is that the proper response to the tech is nontraditional, and many players are resistant to doing it. The simple addition of a layer or two of hard defenses essentially neuters the tech completely. Instead, you’ll see players try repeatedly to send 40 troops into 200, and get confused when they die.

This is why the changes in this patch are very smart. By making hard defenses an even harder counter, it will encourage players down those lines. Once they learn, it may even be possible to undo this nerf at a later date.


Flemish revolution cost increased to 1000 food and 600 gold.
Vineyards no longer make farms generate gold.
Stable technologies are 40% cheaper.

Elite boyar +1 meele armor (7).

Artillery technology stone cost replaced by 500 wood.

These changes should be more effective. But oh well.

There’s always a critic.

HC buff!

Actually, they may be usable for a lot of civs: turks, portuguese, spanish, indians, burgundians, and italians for sure, but also koreans (free armor upgrades) and other civs such as goths will welcome the change.


I agree that Turks artillery buff was not necessary. They already Too Strong in Arena and one of the best civ in Imp when Gold is available. Artillery was expensive but the tech itself worth research. BBT cannot be taken down with enemy BBC is so HUGE. Same with Crenellation tech of Teutons. It also cost much of stone but no one complains it is too expensive. Turks extra Range BBC is also so effective when enemy is Teutons.

Also Turks benefits from buffed HC. I don’t think this was necessary change either. I would rather increase bonus damage against Infantry. Now Turks FI is really unstoppable strategy in Arena.


And balance requires that evenly skilled players be able to prevent this from happening with regularity. Unfortunately the loan aspect of the tech allows good players to overwhelm equally skilled players with regularity. E.g. Viper can achieve it with regularity because of the selection bias of when he decides to use the tech.

Your arguments only hold true in a small number of cases. Mostly the pure boom right into flemish revolution strategy. They don’t hold under the mixed strategy of “Play standard then pop flemish revolution when I can close out the game with it”. How are you supposed to expend enough resources to mitigate flemish revolution while not losing against standard play? It’s possible on arena or black forest maybe, or as a cavalry archer civ but that’s about it. Certainly not on Arabia or even more open maps.

Fundamentally a fixed cost can only balance the tech in very specific use cases which was the point of my post. You can’t get away from the loan dynamic that occurs due to the mismatch between the value of flemish militia and villagers. Imagine if you could upgrade hussars to cavalier but were forced to pay back 75g per hussar. No one is going to care that they have 0 gold income the rest of the game because they could build all the siege they need before hand, then pop the tech and overrun the opponent.

No changes for Saracens or nerfs for mesos or their stupid Eagles?! Burgundisns broken eco remain the same?!

I think they did those changes because DoTD civs; it seems there was some common things or bonuse between the new 2 civs and the old ones bonuses so they buffed some of them (Turks especially and Slavs) to make it fair comparing to what we will see in DoTD.

It also could be the other way.
They propably have tested the civs together this changes at once.

Elite boyar armor buff makes sense and makes the pole UU more appealing.

Ornlu in their channel has posted that developers want to buff burmese but they need need more changes and testing so they arent receiving buffs this patch.

I suppose we will have a postDLC minipatch adressing bugs and implementing some delayed balance changes, like it happenes with the post LotW patch.


Oh so there is a chance to nerf the mesos and their eagles and buff Saracens (Mameluke and Madrasah at least). I am really surprised how the devs didn’t nerf the Burgundians eco bonus.

I’m not sure if this is legit or not, but cavalry archer nerf?
We’re talking about the 40W 60G unit right? Not mangudai or other unit? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Too bad that Burgundians eco is more than enough to afford a crapload of siege weapons.

Well intended stuff can be bad.

That was before Burgundians had Viking eco tho. That’s yet one more problem of the tech: if the civ has a bad eco the tech is mostly crap, if the civ has a good eco it suddenly becomes god tier.

This. Especially since with the cheap paladin upgrade, you can first attack with paladins to make them go for cav counters or stronger cav, then you click the golden button and all of a sudden you get an army of what is basically a Viking champ, that will just steamroll the units that counter paladins.

Turks already have so much gunpwoder bonuses they are at no risk of being outclass in that regard by Bohemians, and I think the boyar buff happened to make them more than a glorified Teuton paladin from a castle.

We are talking of the unit that didn’t need a buff in the first place, but did anyway cuz people kept thinking they had a worse frame delay in AoC despite evidence of the contrary. Btw even after this nerf they are still buffed compared to AoC. not that only a tiny part of the player base can actually use the difference anyway

1 Like

Mixed feeling about this one.

I’m excited about coop campaing, I will probably give a try as soon as possible.

About balance changes, I find them quite disappointing.

  • CA nerf is pretty minor (there’s an error in the video, pre-buff CA had 1.3 attack animation), yet I don’t think CA needed a nerf.
  • HC buff needs testing, I am not sure it will actually help that much.
  • FR nerf looks a desperate attempt of making the tech more balanced without reworking it. Sadly, I’m quite confident to say it won’t work at all. Cost increase is not that relevant and removal of bonus damage vs building doesn’t help either since it’s meta to make few BBC or trebs alongside with FR.
  • I don’t get War elephants change either. It makes the unit probably even more unviable for 1v1 due to higher gold cost. It maybe helps in closed maps TGs with trades going on, where I don’t think war elephants need buff to be honest.
  • Elite Boyars change looks a bit of a nothing change aswell. It’s still an expensive unit for 1v1s which is hard to afford in mid-late imp (where the buff should come into play). In TG maybe can situationally help, even though in arabia Eboyars should still perform worse than paladins and in close maps I think slavs have better compositions available.
  • Turks artillery feels underpriced post-change. I’m ok with replacing the stone cost, but I think gold cost should be raised a bit. It’s a very powerful tech after all.

On the other hand, no changes or buff to the few weak of generic civs that should get one in my opinion (Burmese, Sicilians that still need an identity, Incas that should still get a compensation for the loss of their rush, maybe even Spanish need something in my opinion)

1 Like

Tbh I’m surprised by the reactions to the boyar change, I would have expected people to at least want to try it out, the thing’s stats are now absolutely insane, but people still say they won’t try it out. Ever since DE they got +2/+1 armour, how can an unit be buffed this much without getting people interested?