I agree with everything except gurjaras. this about garrisoning herdables is still really bad. remove that from the game in my opinion and make sth else.
1 Like
Actually, I think itâs kind of cool and it makes sense. Getting products from live stock, eggs, milk, wool, etc. makes perfect sense as a game mechanic. Lastly, itâs not complicated, garrison animals, get food. This is unlike the newer civ eco bonuses which are like, âMake a military unit stand near mountain for five seconds while at the same time clicking a villager to get 50 food.â
2 Likes
Well but it implies other civs dont eat animal produce. Make this feature for all civs then.. so you can eat sheep at start or garrison them. As you wish another rush or late game tactic decission.
1 Like
Wouldnât mind it for all civs tbh like in Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds but it would be a pain in the neck to balance.
Oh no theyâre not. Multiple tests from Ornulu, Admiral wololo youtube channels confirm its just 10% pre-wheelbarrow and marginal beyond that for Khitans once you have same number of vills on food. 17-18 f/min is extremely inferior to a farm. Even Khitan pastures would be slower than generic farmers. Maybe when you account for the extra few seconds of not having to build an additional farm and the wood efficiency, things could even out. But thatâs not good enough since almost all the civs get 150-200 resources worth advantage by mid feudal in some form or the other.
Two reasons for that - First, I donât believe pasture adjustments are the right way to nerf Khitans. I feel it should rather happen in dark age to slow them down and give an early feudal weakness. Weakening their pasture bonus will be a repeat of Poles and Gurjaras and destroy the civ.
Second, you come up with this 15% faster per mill upgrade, not a flat 15%. Castle age onwards they would have 20+% faster food collection with wheelbarrow. This is the part of the game where theyâre supposed to slowly become weaker if they canât get much value with the extra hp light cav/lancers or faster firing CA.Theyâll very easily get to Elite Mangudai or drill siege + hussar if you give an insane 20% faster food economy. Unless they lose most of their strong military options to have a tech tree as worse as Dravidians or Vikings, the suggested pasture bonus is crazy.
Right now their winrate is like 70% in feudal age and 55% in early castle age, 45% in mid and late game. Your change will make it something like 55% in feudal age, 70% in castle age and maybe even higher as the game goes on. Insanely broken. Farm rate bonuses scale extremely well as the game goes on. And civs with very powerful military and broken units shouldnât get them. Mongol hunt bonus needs to be nerfed to a flat 25% or gradually decline as they gather more food from hunt. Or they should get some major military weakness like losing bloodlines and the hp bonus becoming castle age UT or losing elite skirm upgrade.
Iâve not played the civ in a very long time ever since they became a below average civ but I can see how theyâd be worse on chicken Arabia. Obviously this is a decent benefit to improve them a bit in those Arabia generations. But just wanted to say that this is nowhere nearly enough to compensate for the overnerf the civ and its units received.
Lol. Didnât even know about this. Awful mechanic, and which civ gets it?
Power spikes for Romans: armored MAA rush (can be early Feudal even), knights, scorpions, Longswords (with +4/4 armor - very tanky and dangerous against buildings even without arson), centurions (expensive, but is basically a castle age cavalier/imperial age paladin, or can be used to support the +4 armor longswords). Romans are not forced into a single game plan and every opener is a solid option for them. And Romans can easily end a game before knights are even a factor.
Slavs also have a perfectly respectable MAA rush (scout rush makes better use of their farming and team bonuses), knights (though longswords make better use of their farming bonus), Druzhina infantry, siege (discounted, only missing BBC), monks (civ bonus for free/improved fervor, and only missing heresy).
Is there any historical justification for Scorpions receiving a bonus? Bogsveigr also refers to archery, so youâd want to change the name as well.
Even with longer range, scorpions would be poor at dealing with onagers. scorpions arenât really good for hit and run, and scorpions donât deal much damage against onagers, while onagers one-shot them in return.
Personally, I think reducing the price of Bogsveigr would be more justifiable. But I also donât think Vikings need much of a change - their late game may be poor, but not every civ should have a strong late game. Different civs have different strengths and weaknesses, and adapting to your civ (and your opponentâs civ) is part of the game.
The disadvantage is that herdables gather significantly slower than huntables (which are one of the fastest food sources in the game, only slower than fishing). That slower gather rate is why it would be a nerf. And building a second mill means its less of a disadvantage if the berries are forward. Especially since the other player is likely also going to build a second mill (downsides of extra spent wood is mitigated by it applying to both players). But really, losing the faster gather rate means no option to rush feudal by gathering the hunt early.
Would be useful for laming an opponent though (steal their chickens, or at least reduce the gather rate for them just by scouting their base out). The laming potential probably is enough to mitigate the downsides of this âbonusâ.
2 Likes
I think you havenât played them on the chicken Arabia generations yet.
The issue isnât the collection rate, the issue is to get the food in.
Was an a exaggerating joke pertaining to how complex bonuses are getting.
Not MY change. The thing you artificially try to create.
I deliberately and explicitely explained that I want the Pastures to have a lower food income because witht the khmer-like food availability effect they otherwise would just be better farms.
As far as i know the current base collection rates of Farms is a little over 19 f /min. So Pastures should have a little less than 18 to be at the same level.
Then adding 15 % gather rate per upgrade wouldnât make them broken. Especially as Mongols is such a timing based civ that they usually want to delay the farm/pasture upgrades more than other civs do. Which means they wouldnât just get fast pastures but only after they used their powerspikes and finally payed for the upgrades.
I donât hink it will be that dramatic. Especially as the current playstyle of Mongols is to only use the early powerspikes and ignore that they are an insanely strong lategame civ. With having less of an early game boost but a stronger midgame economy they should be encouraged to play more into their lategame. And with losing the super powerful steppies HP boost there is also the strongest tool gone they currently have to utilize the castle age timing.
itâs a special cohesive tweak in order to get the mongols to a state where they still have something going from their original eco bonus, but less impactful and less restrictive on map design. And get the new pastures, carry with them part of the old bonus to the new feature.
Ofc this IS indeed a major tweak to the civ and I guess I should expect that the current Mongol lovers that love them because they fit the âHamsterâ meta so well are afraid that these changes wouldnât allow for that playstyle anymore.
Also ofc the concept of the pasture tweak is inspired to be able to add them to other nomadic civs like tatars, huns or cumans. Without breaking them.
Thats the only onebyou mentioned which actually is unique and interesting
Every other one you mentioned is not a power spike, its not any stronger than any other point of the game for the civs (except Slav dark age I guess)
If the game with the Slavs and Romans is just so pasive with so few time windows that are actually noticeable, they are boring. The fact that they are mostly played as knight civs makes it even worse
Ok man âthisâ change is flawed in 2 ways - too weak for the Khitan tech tree and theyâre a weak military civ in the late game which need to gain substantial advantage. too strong for Mongols, they need to get weaker during the mid game to justify the insanely overpowered imperial age military.
If the change is modified such that Khitans get stronger farming in castle age and Mongols get an advantage only in feudal, this will fit the design of both civs.
Current playstyle is powerspike and timing based because they donât have a long term eco benefit. If you give them an insane farming advantage that will be ridiculously overpowered. Even a small farming rate advantage is extremely powerful because it has very long term and repetitive impact. Like Og and current Poles.
Farm upgrades are delayed because they benefit in the long term but donât improve food rates right away. But for Wei, Poles and this version of Mongols, theyâll pay off right away.
Theyâll be more than happy to give up that playstyle in exchange for this overpowered advantage and spam lancers, knights mid of castle age or boom very fast into Mangudai or 1 tc CA into superfast imp much sooner than Georgians.
You can calc it in your head. Take Lithuanians as comparison.
It would take at least 4 minutes to compensate their eco bonus with the classic 1 TC + 5-6 farms boom method. And then the Mongol Pastures would be close to require a reseed.
Itâs actually worse of an eco Bonus than Khitan Pastures, Slavs or Poles Farms or mentioned Lithuanian bonus.
But I feel that this âdiscussionâ isnât actually about realistically evalueating the bonus.
And btw if you look up civs that are famous for these midgame eco bonusses they usually donât even have a winrate high there. Doesnât make sense also. Their highes winrates are usually the last 2 ones. Which makes sense because to utilize that bonus ideally you want to go for more eco and/or less military at that stage,
First: You donât know. There is no objective analysiy potential when talking about preferred playstyles.
Second: Mongols have one if not the best lategame in the Gane, depending on Map ofc.
Third: Looking at examples like Mayans how often the playstyles changed there with NO change to their eco Bonus (but minor changes sometims to specific techs/units) the eco bonusses often donât have a lot of impact there actually, if they arenât playing into the already dominating meta. And btw thatâs what the CURRENT Mongol bonus does, not the one I propose. We are in a timing meta, already for some time. So what are you even talking about? Mongols FORCED into playing timing? They are picked like crazy BECAUSE they fit the meta perfectly.
All these civs you mentioned donât have insanely powerful free military bonuses like 25% rof on Ca or 20% higher hp light cav and lancers in late castle age. They also donât get an insane unit like Mangudai. You swap Mangudai and the 2 free military bonuses with any of these civsâ uu and military bonuses and that civ will become broken.
Point about late game being strong is something I agree and thatâs why I wouldnât recommend long term eco benefit.
I agree with the sentiment that Mongol early game needs a nerf but just feel some adjustments are needed in your numbers for the mid game.
What about base pasture rate of 17.5 f/min and 100 food per animal, 15% higher drop-off for Khitans and 8% faster per upgrade for Mongols along with 15% faster hunt. That way Khitans get 5% more food in feudal which is a lot lesser than now and Mongols will be 3% slower. In castle age they might become 2% faster than farms when both players have wheelbarrow and 2nd upgrade. That should decay the advantage of hunting in feudal but give a mild advantage in first 10 mins of castle age.
Upgrading the team bonus of the Franks and the Persians
Since there is a new heavy cavalry line (Hei guang) who replace the knight line I suggest that the team bonus who apply to the knight line also apply to the Hei guang cavalry line.
Franks : Knights and Hei guang cavalry have +2 Line of Sight.
Persians : Knight and Hei guang cavalry line has +2 attack against archers.
I donât think thatâs enough for mongols. I also think his is actually a nerf to pastures with only 8 % income increase. I would probably prefer to just get more food on them like normal.
Halving the Mongol Hunt bonus is a huge nerf to the civ. It needs to get some strong other bonus in return.
It might be fine if Khitans get 15 % boost to pastures if they are nerfed in this way in general. Not in terms of winrates but just to ensure their Pastures remain the best of all.
Honestly, it doesnât even need to be a production rate bonus. I think Mongols having nomads tech could get +5 population per pasture as a civ bonus which would fit their nomad tech. However, if they get this bonus, their hunt bonus should be nerfed by 5 or 10 %. Better yet, what if some civs like a Cumans, Tatars, or more debatably Huns could garrison in the pasture house? That would be awesome.
And hunted chickens (even with walking distance and occasional forced drop off) gather food faster than herdable chickens.
I went and playtested the dark age a little with both the current Gurjaras on chicken arabia and with the hypothetical bonus (on chicken arabia). Both ways it took some micro to keep the TC fully active while doing 19 pop up (no loom), but was fully doable. Really, I found my main issue was balancing the need to collect food with the need to collect wood, but thatâs the sort of thing a good build order would resolve. I suspect a proper build order would also minimize the need for forced drop offs.
The difficulty of the dark age felt about the same to me, and total collected resources at the end was about the same either way (close enough that I think noise could account for differences). Both with and without the proposed change, early priorities are finding sheep and building a mill (though with huntable chickens, I built the mill on the chickens instead of on the berries). Also needed to balance food collection and wood collection (from straggler trees) either way. Luring the boars is essential to tight build orders, so it was a priority either way. With huntable chickens, I only had 2 vils there (though 4 also seems reasonable to me to collect from two chickens at a time). With herdable chickens, I still prioritized collecting the boars over the chickens (and honestly canât fit all of the herdables into a single mill, even with the chickens taking up half a spot) - because of this prioritization, gathering from the chickens started around clicking up to Feudal age.
I think a little extra wood in the early game would be pretty helpful for Gurjaras (making them easier to play) - something like the mill costing 50 less wood (similar to Japanese bonus, but less broad) or starting with a little extra wood or pop space. Though as we saw with Georgians, a small change to starting resources can have a significant impact on their win rate. A faster food trickle rate should also make it easier for Gurjaras to maintain vil production while sending villagers to straggler trees.
I donât really play Gurjaras much at all though, and my own testing was neither rigorous nor thorough enough to make a conclusion either way as to whether the bonus was a positive, negative, or roughly neutral. But in any case, the practical effects (if there are any) did not seem all that significant on chicken Arabia.
TLDR: after scenario editor testing, Gurjaraâs dark age seems about the same regardless of whether a hypothetical bonus to turn huntable chickens into herdable chickens is applied or not.
ofc something you can do, but then you lose out on the advantage on non-chicken generaitons.
ofc this could solve the issue there but then make gurjaras stronger on non-chicken generations aswell
Well you compared it with a different buildorder that reduces the impact of chicken arabia. But I respect your effort in testing that out. I would be very happy if the change was similar to that buildorder. Itâs weaker than the non-chicken buildorder you normally go for as gurjaras but other civs would also need to place a second mill.
One concept that might actually override this is a trick i recently saw from redphosphorus where he placed palisade gates in a way the chickens could only go to âthe other sideâ by passing by at the TC and he could then hunt them there. I doubt it will become the meta, but it would solve the issue for gurjaras especially.
Imo there are some other ways to handle this with gurjaras:
A) long-distance hunt the chickens. Itâs subobtimal, but at least you get the food in
B) Oversaturate the Berries
C) Take 2 chickens with your destined lumberjacks and drop off the food at the lumber camp
D) Adjust the buildorder so you can place a 2nd mill at the chickens
E) Eat a few of your garrisoned sheep
But all of them seem to me inferior than the Bonus I proposed.
Yes its a nerf during feudal age. The build time saved and ability to add more pastures sooner should offset that the 4% slower rate a bit. But theyâd get stronger in castle age.
Yes and theyâd get like 3-4% faster food collection compared to farms after 2nd pasture upgrade.
Yes and thatâs important too imo given they donât have strong units in imperial age.
TBH i donât really care about the resulting numbers here.
I want Mongols to be in a decent spot but nerfing the hunt bonus specifically so it isnât a burden for map design anymore. But I want the civ to stay an integral part of the metaplay, it is one of the most iconic civs in the game.
And the pastures give that opportunity. I just think that mongol pastures should then have a special bonus to them when mongols lose a part of that hunt bonus.
What I know that comparing numbers from different timings can be tricky and deceiving. I for myself learned that when I thought that there would be a chance that the Lithuanian change would result in a buff. Damn was I wrong. And it wasnât even that 50 % was shifited to the castle age boom, it was 1/3 which was doubled in castle age. My proposal for mongols is basically shifting 50 % which in my opinion should be a massive nerf now since we got the experience from lithuanians.
But the reality is that we canât really predict the exact result. Sometimes minor looking changes have massive impact, sometimes the opposite.
Even devs often donât get it right. Khitans were overtuned (also thanks to that bug). Wu and Shu are actually amazing civs, Wu very appearant but Shu are actually not that far behind. Jurchens and Wei suck. Maybe the last ones were kinda predictable, shu was notoriously unpredictable but even Wu actually exceeded my own initial impression. Balance is really tough especially when changing up such influential early game bonusses.