Discussion of weak civilizations

  1. Burmese.
    What to do with Burmese? The idea of the developers is clear, they want at least one civilization to be without second armor on skirmishers. But this creates a lot of problems. How to beat off cavalry archers? How to fight off the Britons, Ethiopians? It is clear that they have tough elephants, hussars with additional damage on bows, but these are all imps. And in the early castles there is nothing except a siege workshop. Yeah, and economics for elephants or spamming hussars isn’t easy to do when you’re being choked. Can it be defended by upgraded towers?

Possible buff: Skirmishers with 30% increased attack speed.

  1. Celts.
    The Celts have the weakest army in the game. There are no good archers, cavalry. There is only infantry and siege. And that’s the problem. You can still play on closed maps, but on open maps, siege almost does not work. And if the enemy has a bombard cannon and hand cannoneers, everything is completely bad. The cannon fires at the siege, the gunners at the infantry.

Possible buffs:

Improve an existing crown stronghold. Instead of 25% attack speed on castles and towers, make it 100% and a little more expensive.

New silver crown “Siegecraft”. There is an opportunity to sit in a mangonel and a scorpion. Seats increased from 5 to 7.

New silver crown “Battle Cry”. First aura in the game. The line of knights reduces the health of enemy units within 3 tiles of the unit by 0.2 health per second. Bonus does not stack.

  1. Slavs.
    They are somewhat reminiscent of the Celts. Also bonuses for siege and infantry, but at the same time with good cavalry and skirmishers. But for some reason, the Slavs are never taken to tournaments. It’s like a gray horse that no one is interested in. Just a normal civ. But the Celts were taken a couple of times, and the Slavs zero.

Possible buff: “Summon boyars” new silver crown - the entire line of knights become boyars.

Lol no

Lol no

Lol no

Lol no

2 Likes

I’d like to see their UTs switched in Castle and Imperial Age. The +5 vs Archers would be way more benefitial in Castle Age and the armor for Battle Elephants makes way more sense in the Imperial Age since you most likely don’t have the economy in Castle Age to afford a lot of Battle Elephants, a Castle and the UT.

Also I’d like their Cavalry to get back some of the bonus damage against builings that they got with their old UT. Something like +1/+2/+3 in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.

VAT? Just look at what Hoang is capable of doing with them on open maps. I mean, sure, it’s harder to replicate something like that on lower elo, but so is defending from it. I’ve seen it work on around 1300 elo as well.

Still I’m with you on the Stronghold buff. It definitely needs an improvement. 100% sounds like a lot to me, but I guess 50% and keeping the same price would be a good shot.

I don’t think Slavs need to be changed. I’m with you, they don’t get a lot of attention in tournaments, but that might be due to the lack of good early game bonuses. I feel like Boyars are still heavily underused. The Elite version is just sick since it got buffed, they can dominate Team Games in Imp.

1 Like

VAT? Just look at what Hoang is capable of doing with them on open maps. I mean, sure, it’s harder to replicate something like that on lower elo, but so is defending from it. I’ve seen it work on around 1300 elo as well.

If we are talking about a professional level, there are also not many Celts there. Hoang has played about 6,000 games of Celts or more, and plays mostly all-in strategy abusing the market. He is not trying to play a macro game where the Celts are not very good.

The problem with Slavs in tournaments is that everything they do is done better by the Khmer. They even have Arbalester and better siege in Caslte Age

They need something else. Their skirms are still too fragile for this to really be that useful.

This is blatantly false. Even Hoang aside, playing Pike Mangonel with the Celts is incredibly strong, as is literally any siege unit. They really don’t have the weakest army. Their siege units can tank shots from BBCs long enough to stay alive, and in your lategame scenario with HC and BBC, the Celtic SO will likely flatten the hand cannons if played right, and then the fast Celtic infantry can run in and kill enemy siege. They aren’t a particularly easy civ to play, because they aren’t really a cav/archer civ, but knights with siege is perfectly viable for them, and their army comp is far from bad in the lategame. I do think that Stronghold needs a change, or better yet, a replacement. I’m not really sure what, it shouldn’t be any of these techs suggested, but it simply doesn’t benefit Celts right now because A) They are an aggressive civ, and shouldn’t really be on the defensive if they can help it, and B) They miss bracer, so their Castles are lacking 1 range, and their defensive buildings all are lacking 1 attack over what they could be.

That is just incredibly broken. Orthodoxy does need to be removed, and replaced, but this is really not how you do it. Boyar is just such a strong unit, people hate 1-time techs for the most part, and this will just completely break how the Slavs are played. It also doesn’t make sense, and the name is super uncreative.
Overall, just no. These are not the weakest civs in the game, except for Burmese. Celts and Slavs probably need their Castle Age UT changed (What you call the silver crown tech), but they are decent civs as a whole.

I’m not convinced this statement is correct. IMO the lack of leather archer armor is to push Burmese away from archers/crossbows, and toward the Arambai as a substitute ranged unit. I see it as similar to Spanish Conquistadors, which are encouraged because they do not have viable archers even in the mid-game. The Arambai has some base Pierce Armor (1-2), high attack and mobility, so lacking armor upgrades does not hurt it as much.

I’ve always assumed the horrible Skirmishers were an unintended side-effect of this decision, and not the goal. Maybe an alternate solution would be to remove crossbow and add leather armor, but this makes them less unique and buffs Arambai. I kinda like the civ missing two archer armor upgrades, unlike any other civ.

My answer is to give them Imperial Skirms (with only one armor upgrade), which would be approximately equal to civs with Elite Skirm and Leather Armor (but no ring armor). It still leaves them weak to archers in Castle Age, but gives a possible answer if they can survive until Imperial. It also makes Burmese elephants more viable by giving a trash counter unit against mass halberdiers. Currently Burmese have to rely on champions for this, which are vulnerable to enemy arbalesters and difficult to afford along with elephants (all food and gold).

1 Like

The problem with lacking 2 armor for skirms in imp is that they then take 4 damage per hit from arbs instead of 2. At the same time they deal only 7 damage. That makes them basically “evenly matched” with arbs (actually even less cause arbs kill an elite skirm lacking 2 armor in 15.25 secs whilst it takes 18 secs vice versa. Yes arbs cost 10 ressources more and a lot of gold, but it’s then only a very, very soft counter. The imp skirm brings it down to 15 secs, but it is still not so great counter.
Also it’s most likely often not worth it in castle age to go for the expensive lasting elite skirm upgrade if the castle age skirms basically only perform half as good vs xbows as fu ones.

That’s why I think that this solution of imp skirm unfortunately won’t work for burmese.

Yes, good points, I mostly agree. I think a good comparison for the hypothetical Burmese Imp Skirm is the Sicilian Elite Skirm. Both have 6 Pierce Armor, and die fairly easily to arbalesters. I think this is why Sicilians were given Hauberk, since their Skirms were not able to counter archer civs, and their reduced bonus damage also did not help in this matchup. The difference is that Sicilian Skirmishers have 7 damage + 4 bonus for 11 against archers, while Burmese Imp Skirms would do 8 + 5 = 13. Assuming the opponent archers have 4 Pierce Armor, this means a damage increase of 28% (7 to 9). I don’t honestly know if this is enough to make them an effective counter, but it would be closer.

Maybe another interesting comparison is Burmese Skirm and Aztec E Skirm. Again both have 6 Pierce Armor, and in this case they also have the same Pierce Attack, 8. The difference is that Aztecs get +1 range while Burmese get +1 bonus damage to archers and another +1 bonus to cav archers. Interestingly both Atlatl and the Imp Skirm upgrade cost 750 resources to research. These units sound about equal to me, and I wouldn’t call Aztec Skirms weak, so there is a chance of Burmese Imp Skirm being viable.

Anyway, I can’t say for sure it’s THE solution, just one option that IMO would be worth trying.

1 Like

That’s actually a very interesting point. Accotding to Age Arenas tests, Aztec Elite skirms perform almost as good as fu e skirms:

Aztec

Standard

I think this kind of test overestimates especially 1 range difference. In a real standoff a person also with not micro potential at all wouldn’t just patrol the archers into the skirms. At least he would try to close the distance a bit. But it’s quite appearant that 1 extra range can make a big difference in these battles aswell.

idk, i actually don’t see a reason anymore for burmese to don’t get the second archer armor. The Arambai is currently a shadow of it’s former self. Brobably this alone would already solve a lot for the civ.