I don’t think this needs nerfing honestly. Because all you need to do is keep booming and relocating and the longer the game goes on, the more likely the all-in player will run out of steam. And if the defending player gets a castle up, it’s GG because they are so far ahead with eco upgrades and vills.
1 Like
Exactly you only loose if you react bad. I faced a burmese opposition and i did not create units to counter the arambai. HInd sight I would react differently. And i never attacked their base which was fully open nor did i dusrupt their build when i knew what was coming.
1 Like
You could produce Rathas with market but there was no use. Before the buff, they were a knight with 1 p.armor which is extremely weak. And if you use ranged mode, they need both attack upgrades just to match crossbow’s damage output. Both modes were abysmal before. Only the buff made the Rathas good to use. Now you can spend 100 food on archer armor and get decent value.
Bengalis were one of the least picked civs before the buff, absolutely abysmal stats. It didn’t climb up from 20-25th spot to get a top-5 position on ladder. It has climbed from 37 to 19. And like I said before, a lot of it has to do with the market use that leads to phosphorus like strats. And if its as broken as its being exaggerated, civ would easily have 60+% winrate in games ending between 20-30 mins, they just have 52% in that time window.
At least 30 civs are clearly better than Bulgarians. You can’t nerf all of them to make Bulgarians a good civ.
Civs with bonuses on militia line, benefits for tower rush are struggling because these strategies are less feasible. Berbers and Aztecs have a weak early game as well with negligible resource benefits for quite some time. These civs have to be buffed individually or maa and tower rushes should be buffed. If you just nerf mediocre civs with a decent uu and 50%winrate, Berbers, Bulgarians and Aztecs might climb a few spots but can still never compete with the likes of Chinese, Mayans, Mongols.
You were specifically talking about closed map TGs on how to deal with Bengali EAs with parthian tactics by increased damage output from scorps. What I’m saying its more meaningful to use siege onagers or bombard canons plus halbs or other options instead of heavy scorps. You barely outrange, the damage output is still much lower compared to SO/canons and you need so many numbers which makes them vulnerable to enemy SO/canons. You can do 5-6 SO/canons and get good value but you might need like 30+ heavy scorps. A couple of SO or canon hits will destroy most of them. And the left over scorps will be very ineffective and can’t run back. This is the reason why scorps are almost never used. Neither mobility nor pop efficiency.
3 Likes
Then that is because the civ is leaning on its UU to do the heavy lifting, which is not a good spot to be in either.
Civs that live and die by their UU will swing all over the place balance-wise, and are exceedingly predictable.
It’s much healthier for Bengalis to have their other problems sorted out, rather than just buffing their UU and diluting their options.
1 Like
Exactly. The Spanish have suffered from the same problem for years.
If they were fine before then how many times you saw at 2k level Rathas being used when most of the time Bengalis were rarely played and on closed maps doing nothing but Elephant archers?
I can even remember one tournament game years ago where Rathas were used as a main unit and guess what… being completely countered by Burmese elite skirmishers 
3 Likes
True but before this both the civ and the uu were terribly weak. I agree that the civ needs to get more well-rounded. Given that it doesn’t have thumb ring, knights, CA, hand canoneer or bombard canon, there’s not many other ways to bring about that.
That being said, Rathas are not an imbalanced unit now like Conquistadors. Maybe their training time could be increased a little but nothing else. Before the last 2 set of ratha changes, Bengalis had received 4 buffs from their original version and were still the least played and one of the lowest winrate civs. This all-in phosphorus type play should be weakened through generic changes like market prices, weaker walling or distance of mines from tc rather than weakening average unique units.
Exactly, Warlords 1 quarter finals I think.
Rathas were knights with 1 pierce armor that could also prevent the enemy from walling behind. Also, until your enemy gets Bodkin 1 PA is sufficient. You could run under a TC, just not stay under it for long. Since they have a ranged mode, they did not need to. Rathas can run out of TC range and then shoot at farmers. Also, any vill not under a TC was in danger.
Before the buff, FC → UU was not common on Arabia (only because Phosphoru had not yet shown it was possible with so many civs), but it was standard for Arena. But all civs could do it, so it was nothing special. Their monk play was much stronger and easier to get to.
Rathas only problem at that time was that they are the 2nd most expensive unit to upgrade, which made EAs look comparatively cheaper to go for in 1v1s.
Objectively false, they have the same base pierce attack and reload time. Check the wiki.
That is only because the overall stats are biased towards Arabia since that is what most people play. They were great on Arena and played often in tournaments on closed maps. They couldn’t compete with Turks and Bohemians, but that is all.
You missed my point. On stats that are biased towards Arabia, these open map civs are still doing badly. If you check the Arabia-only stats at 1900+, you will see what I mean. They were doing 50% or better on Arabia before the patch. These civs are not weak, Berbers and Aztecs are played in almost every open map tournament, if they are not banned.
Scorpions have lower damage output than SO/cannon but cost much less than them. So, you can make many more. Are you trying to say 5-6 scorps should be good against 30+ EAs when they both units cost about the same? You don’t need that much pop efficiency because you don’t want non-siege units against EAs anyway. Let your ally make those units. And you don’t need mobility against elephants. Where do you think they are going to go?
If you thought cannons or SOs could kill EAs, why do you still think EAs not getting PT is a good change? Why should they not get their pierce armor now if SO/cannon is as good as you say?
Bengalis were not rarely played, they were frequently played on closed maps. This video shows Viper beating Hera with Rathas on Arabia last year. Here is another one where Daut beats Hera on Fortress. Hera chose the previous top tier of Fortress - Chinese and still lost.
You laugh, but this is what good balance looks like. Every unit must have a counter and every civ must have something to go for in every situation, even if it is not efficient. Skrims countering Rathas is necessary, even if it is Burmese. I remember an old Viper game where he spammed Gurjaras spearmen against elephants until he won but cannot find it.
You mean games were Viper was playing nothing but Monks +Pikes without even bothering to sue Skirmishers? and the other as well with hera not adding Skirmishers as well…I can then remember one Viper game when he went full Ratha vs Byzantines in Mongolia and got terribly wrecked.
Ok so revert the Mameluke into the old archer armor class so any skirm spam kills them, so expensive units should die to just one unit while being hard to get and upgrade… what a good balance then…
Is neccesary but not to the point you can’t even do the unit because how easily dies to even the counter unit, remember DOI release new Elephant Archers and how incredibly bad were when had -7 Cav Archer armor class?
1 Like
My point is the dip in ladder performance of these civs has nothing to do with buff to Rathas. These 3 civs didn’t suddenly dip in ladder performance this patch and Ratha buff wasn’t the only balance change in that patch. And I never said Aztecs and Berbers are weak but they have a weak early game. That’s there in the stats - Berbers, Aztecs. You can see how these 2 civs have poor winrate in early game. It means its not just Rathas or Bengalis but most other civs beat them, probably due to a timing advantage against these civs. I don’t know if most of such losses are against all-ins but if you don’t want these civs to lose to all-ins, you’d have to nerf market or improve the early game of these 2 civs a little bit. Not nerf Rathas. They’re not conquistadors or other gunpowder uu.
No. But since you have units which in 5-6 numbers can deal more damage to 30+ EA, its better to go for those units instead of scorps in closed map TGs.
I believe he implied Bengalis were rarely played outside closed maps and in closed maps when they were picked, players almost always went for EAs not Rathas.
Niche games happen. People can lose playing Mongol lancers or organ gun and they can win playing shotels or urumi swordsmen. Probability of winning with some unique unit is never 100% or 0%. People even lost games with broken OG Cuman lancers. You can’t infer anything about the balance from a few games like that. In general a unique unit has to be strong and have a purpose that suits their civ’s tech tree, otherwise a player will opt for generic alternatives. If a unit was very strong the civ would have been picked in some category of maps and the unit would have been produced very often in such games. That wasn’t the case with Rathas.
Its ok if trash units killed a uu after 1 hour when gold units can’t be replenished but not in early-mid imp. And it wasn’t Lithuanian, Mayan skirm or Imperial skirm. Expensive units from castle that need a good boom shouldn’t be that fragile to die against skirms without armor. That’s not good balance.
This is a matter of strategy. You have to play the game in a way that your opponent does not want to go into skirms or does it too late. The videos I linked showed that pros can manage it. Pros also mentioned they only want a separate hotkey for melee and ranged mode, not more stats.
If you play full monks, your enemy will never want to go for skirms (espicially against the monk armor), so you can prepare Rathas behind and surprise the enemy.
Mamelukes are based on camels, so it doesn’t make sense for skirms to counter them. Skirms should counter camel archers, not mamelukes. Also, Rathas cost less gold than knights while mamelukes cost more gold than knights and still cost food. Mamelukes also have slower training time than Rathas. Mamelukes do still have a counter - arbelest, which makes sense since arbs counter camels as well. Mamelukes don’t have a balanced issue, Rathas do now.
Agreed in general, but you could go Rathas in some cases. At DOI release, EAs were much more expensive than current, and they were getting countered by a small investment in skirms - this was bad. However, Rathas already get bonus damage vs skirms and trample damage against the skirms’ minimum range weakness.
EAs should be the go-to unit for Bengalis, Rathas can be a niche unit. The civ is designed to encourage elephants, which becomes unnecessary if the Ratha is good vs skirms in most cases. So, they should not get more melee and pierce armor. Even if skirms are really that much of a problem, give them cav archer armor instead of pierce armor which affects other matchups as well.
Aztecs get 50 gold, extra production speed for all units and faster farming in early game, I would not call that weak.
Bulgarians are a fairly balanced civ but keep losing rank due to other civs getting buffs for Arabia. Portuguese and Malay, other closed map civs, are doing better than Bulgarians and Berbers on Arabia.
You are right - it is not just Bengalis, but Bengalis are part of the pattern of buffs we have seen over the last few patches. It is time to stop buffing closed map civs for Arabia. It is fine if Bengalis stay bad on Arabia since they are top tier on closed maps and even get picked for water maps.
Market has not changed in ages, Rathas changed recently. Rathas being too good on Arabia is the reason they should be nerfed since it led to Bengalis jumping 18 places in Arabia rankings.
Which is perfectly fine, not all UUs are good in all situations and no civ including Bengalis should be good on all maps. Bengalis are already winning in tournaments on closed maps and water maps. Being bad on open maps as a tradeoff is good balance.
War elephants, Teutonic Knights and Jaguar Warriors and not always used, neither should Rathas be always the right play. These days, even Mongols don’t go for Mangudai all the time. Opting for generic options - in this case elephants, does not make UUs weak. In the case of Bengalis, it is actually good that they focus more on elephants since they see so little play outside of this civ. As long as they have their own niche, they are fine. I would much prefer separate hotkeys for melee and ranged modes to any stat buffs.
Yet people want to nerf the Bengali EA despite these existing options. I only suggested adding an extra option. Scorpions have the advantage of less micro (easier for LELs) and also killing melee units when massed. This is harder to do with SO/cannon even when you have many of them.
Rathas had knight-like stats at less resource cost than knights, cost wood instead of food and a ranged mode to counter pikes. That is why skirms need to counter them so well. Skirms still took a lot of damage from the melee mode. Now, they have even better stats than a knight immediately without upgrades.
I see a lot discussion about the Ratha.
But I don’t see the Ratha as a big problem.
If there was one unit that can sometimes feel “oppressive” against feudal is the organ gun.
And I think it’s to big parts to the current micro ability of the unit. I would just spread the bullets over time, leading to the same possible dps, but only if the unit holds the ground and isn’t moved.
Imo it should be more of an support unit, good against trash. Atm it’s too good against units it shoudn’t be (cavalry) thanks to the microability.
3 Likes
Yep, and rathas are much easier to convert than organ guns, since you have to research redemption, and not every civ gets access to redemption.
1 Like
(Sorry if my English is not correct)
I’m really enjoying the game right now with the unique units and everything else in it. If Hera ruins the unique units forever just because of her opinion, I’d be very sad about that…
Hera is a guy, and the reason his username is Hera is because it’s a shortened version of his name (at least, from what I understand). Also, he’s not asking for unique units to be removed, he’s asking for them to receive changes so they aren’t too much of a powerspike for Phosphoru strategy users.
1 Like
You mean nerfs. Please be accurate.
And then I want to ask who is winning all the Tourneaments atm? And with what strategies?
At this point for me the Hera development studies look to me pretty much like gatekeeping.
He has a very high reach and uses this to constantly push down all strats and playstyles he isn’t proficcient himself.
Look at all the balance Changes that were initiated by hera, like wall nerfs archer nerfs and the Monk changes. All stuff he claimed to be OP or Broken. Meanwhile he wins all the Tournaments with stuff that is basically untouched.
Something here is off and we should maybe first wait to see of the phosphoru strats are really that problematic and unstoppable as the claims are.
I also just watched the Showmatch between Hoang and RedPhosphoru - and the games are really fun! I wouldn’t mind seeing some more of it at the highest level.
The only UUs I currently see as “potentially problematic” are Organ Guns, Conqs, Jannis and Monaspas. They all have in common of having a really high and consistant damage output. Which is the main reason they are on this list. And only one of them is actually a viable “phosphoru” UU. The other Phosphoru strats are mainly based on the general tech discrepancy between feudal and castle age - and that in order to be a viable “switch” option UUs need to be strong from the getgo, not having any extra upgrades to make them “viable”. And ofc not costing too much food. If there wasn’t for the xbow, thumb ring, bloodlines and [put in various infantry techs] we would see archers, CA, Knights or militia instead. Ofc there need a solution for the protection of a castle, as shown in the last showmatch - otherwise counterrattacks deal too much damage to your little eco. But that’s also part of the “tech advantage” in castle age, which is just too big against feudal - that there is nothing to counter castles in feudal, except you are Cumans ofc, but even their feudal rams need protection against the vills beside it…
We’ve seen various FC strats in the RBW qualifier where players went for the “power units”. Most often it was Archers or CA becaue the lower eco investment (don’t need food). But we saw also Knights. Only specific UUs, mostly the named above.
TL:DR : The “problem” is still maiinly the Castel Age powerspike itself and not the UUs. Yes, some UUs are “problematic”. But the main Issue why this is viable atm is that there’s nothing you can do in Feudal against FU castle “power unit” + Siege.
And I refuse to only specificly change a few UUs because they synergize with this imbalanced powerspike too much. For me it’s looking like a try to find a sacrificial lamb - whilst the main and still super successfull “timing meta” remains untouched. Which BTW I had seen coming several years ago. And said it will become problematic if it continues like this unnerfed. As at some point if it becomes too dominant on the ladder it will get to the state of “gatekeeping”. And it looks to me, we are already there.
At that stage I think I proposed an increase of the Castle Age research time. Which btw would also now do a lot against the phosphoru strats.
RN I would actzally prefer to a) add some stuff to feudal, so it’s more competitive. Stuff like extra TCs, Rams or whatever. AND also nerf some Castle Age timing related stuff. Like putting a small tech before Knights and incresaing the cost/research time for XBows just slightly. The phosphoru strats will be sufficiently nerfed by just giving a little bit of tools to feudal, especially feudal rams available to any civ should open enough of an extra option to deal with it. Hopefully not to completely shut it down, but enough to at least give it a Chance with a more Feudal focussed play. (Cause atm, this is what Hoang showed, it’s really you need Castle yourself to deal with it, and as you are slower, you will have to fight against the tech advantage for some time without a big eco lead. If you could stay longer in feudal as you could invest in useful tools, you could use your economic advantage way better, forcing the phosphoru players to also defend against your feudal counterattacks, so the game isn’t “one sided aggression” anymore. Which is probably the most annoying thing about it, that you can’t really counterattack against it cause you need to get to castle and defend.)
I do think there is merit in looking at UUs that are overly strong. Not only because of this strat, but also because such units can make civs lob-sided on design, making them one-note.
This isn’t “X needs nerfs” but that some just should be studied to see if it’s needed.
3 Likes
This is exactly what I mean, these are the units that need balancing (I didn’t say nerfs because they should still serve a purpose, and not end up being like the TK and berserk). However, there is one you missed: Hussite wagons. Why can’t we convert them without redemption, while ballista elephants can be converted without redemption?
Out of those Monaspas aren’t broken at FC-UU strats so why you mention them here?
I think it’s to follow the logic of being able to convert living things, but Siege Weapons need Redemption.