Discussion on the treaty model and the ranking model of African civilization

I am a player who loves African civilization very much, when I first came into contact with the game, I was using two African civilizations, and both rose to level 131, and then I came into contact with the treaty mode and successfully entered the top fifty in the world, about the balance of Africa, I think the unreasonable influence led to this result, the influence design is a good design, he can provide indigenous units and artillery, but in the ranking mode such a second-to-second game, Born with a resource that does not need villagers to automatically collect and convert into combat effectiveness is unreasonable, compared to Asian tea, the influence in the early stage is completely transformed into excellent quality indigenous troops to join the battle, and does not occupy the population, the characteristics of African troops are strong in quality, in the early stage of the economic model of no land all rely on hunting, other civilizations have no way to implement economic suppression of Africa, although african farmers farming efficiency is very low, but in the ranking rarely hit the time of farming, Most civilizations can not cope with the powerful troops to cooperate with the indigenous people such as the size of the population of the combat force, even if the African civilization in many ways all weakened, as long as the influence is not changed, Africa will still have new tactics will still be strong, the same livestock market trading is also a problem in Africa, I guess the design may be to find a way to give Africa some additional economic resources to maintain his factories against Europe in the later stages, The collection efficiency of 1.09 and 0.86 for African farmers alone is not enough, but unfortunately, the same is abused in the ranking, and the masters continue to sell cattle to speed up the formation of a powerful suppression.I have seen the rush tactics of Hausa selling all cattle and 10 villagers. This is very unscientific. I don’t want the civilization I love to be so brainless and stupid. The game should be full of games, not Sell ​​all the cows to run out of influence to get close or win. The strength of Africa is definitely not solved by weakening the quality of arms, but a mechanism problem. weakening the quality of arms will only lead to the loss of African characteristics. Let’s talk about Africa in the treaty mode. This is the part I am good at. The fear is far greater than that of Hausa. In fact, there are many aspects involved. After upgrading all technologies, Ethiopia’s skirmishers are very powerful, and his strength matches his expensive price. Treaty is not the mainstream mode. Many players play the treaty because of My own level is limited and I hate fast-paced games to choose the treaty. The thinking and ranking of the treaty are completely different. The most powerful weapon of the treaty is the artillery. Some novice players will complain that Ethiopia is too powerful after I defeat them, because they never use artillery, but simply rely on soldiers to shoot at each other. In this case, it is natural for Africa with excellent troops to win. If the resources are unlimited, all soldiers will win. With a population of 1 Sweden’s victory is almost certain. With the same population, mercenaries are the strongest. Therefore, treaty players defeated by Ethiopia should think about whether they have gained an advantage in artillery battles and whether they have used artillery. Africa has considerable defects in the treaty, which also comes from the imperfect mechanism of influence, and later gains influence It is quite difficult. In the treaty model, there are several standards for national strength, such as the strength of arms, economic output, and the strength of indigenous people. It is an indisputable fact that African villagers are inefficient in farming. Limited by their influence, Africa of the same level needs a lot of money. The battle is coming to an end. With the continuous production of aborigines and artillery, the influence is also rapidly depleting. Once the influence is used up and the aborigines and artillery of other civilizations exceed the population, the game in Africa will be like a barbarian versus a civilized man. , Failure is inevitable. In a high-intensity treaty game, it is necessary to use food to exchange less influence, which also adds to the economic weakness of Africa. I’ve used Ethiopia in a lot of games above 1500 points, and the treaty masters use up influence through walls and artillery and then take me out. Another major flaw in Ethiopia is that it does not have strong heavy infantry, which means that the siege capability is weak, and its advancement is extremely dependent on mortars. consume influence. I think it is very unreasonable to rely heavily on a certain resource in a game. It is most fun to allocate appropriate resources to play the game and rely on operations to defeat opponents. Very deformed. As far as Ethiopia is concerned, it is an indisputable fact that the combination of the javelin cavalry and the skirmisher is weak in advancing. Even if the quality of the skirmisher is excellent, there is no way to kill the opponent, and there is no siege ability. The artillery behind the wall can only be killed. Coupled with the constraint of influence, Africa is very unfriendly in the treaty tug of war。The following is my most important request! Hausa and Ethiopia are completely different features. Hausa is characterized by a combination of powerful muskets and cavalry. There are Megardi and aboriginal musketeers available in the ranking. The balance of Megardi has always been worthwhile. One point of criticism, even because the Danish gun is banned, I suggest that McGardy should be played after era 3 or 4 in qualifying, so that powerful guns upgraded with era should not be able to play in era 2, it is better to play in era Third, it can be used to make up for the lack of useful skirmishers in Hausa. As for the treaty mode, I strongly urge the developers to reduce the production time of mass-produced aboriginal muskets. In the upper Andes, the production speed is accelerated. On the map, there is no priest bonus, only the aboriginal musket production time of the university is slower than that of the Japanese musket, this kind of experience is very bad, weak archers are not the characteristics of Hausa at all, strong cavalry and muskets are, I do not There is no need to strengthen McGatti. Such expensive muskets have proved unsustainable in the treaty many times, and Hausa’s economy cannot support such a huge consumption. I ask the development team to automatically speed up the training speed of the muskets of era 5. This does not affect the balance of the ranking. The current training speed is too slow. It is very suitable to control the training speed of 4s under only the university buff, rather than 7.5s under the current situation of only the university buff, even in Japan. Countries with significantly slower musket production rates can achieve 6.5s in the Andes. A little help to Hausa mass production of muskets will obviously not affect the balance. I hope the open team can respond to my request. I know that most players do not like to play African civilization, but I still hope that the development team can make changes. I hope to see the legendary muskets produced at a faster rate in the next version. My English is not very good. There are inaccuracies in this article. I hope everyone understands. I hope all players can actively discuss Africa with me. I love aboriginal muskets and African civilization, and I love to play. Thank you for your patience.