Hera's viewpoint on new PUP


New PUP is overall good direction of couple of good changes but some changes are unnecessary and may cause unintended issues. I found that my concern is similar to what Hera point out. So I want to share what Hera think about some changes.

  • Eagle cost nerf was solid nerf to Meso civs. While meso civs are strong, infantry buff is already indirect nerf to eagle that militia line now become more common and eagle is heavily countered by that. Eagle cost nerf should be implemented after how the infantry buff is effecting meta.

  • Chinese start change looks dumb. It is not bad to have one civ having different start which is difficult to master. (I also think that it doesn’t help beginners to play Chinese overall. It is just nerf.)

  • Sappers buff to make vils good vs Ram is really necessary? Ram is not really a meta unit (BBC, treb is more common anti-building seige). It pushes Ram even more useless and maybe some game can become stalemate because seige is just crushed by vils. It feels just random change to some rarely used tech but very wrong direction.

  • Lithuanians change is also looks unnecessary and weird. It is fine that civ without mid-game bonus like mongols and strong dark age bonus. It completely change the design of civ which is unnecessary and Lithuanians are solid spot now and don’t need mid-game buff. This is just due to the broken state of Lithuanians in 4-lake? Then there should be another way to address it without completely change the bonus.

-Also, it is just my opinion (Hera don’t say it is necessarily bad), Dravidians changes are really strong and fearful that they are already top civ in hybrid map and 400 extra wood until castle age AND seige unit wood discount feels too much. Now I fear Dravidians close to Auto-win in some hybrid map. Hera also talking about they will become top-tier. Seige unit wood discount should be given to Koreans, They are much worse spot than Dravidians right now.

Those are the things are not in a good direction. but I think overall good. What do you guys opinion?


I think Hera made a very good first impression of the changes.
I also agree with most of the things he says, but mote importantly he shares his direct and unfiltered perspectives and opinions. Based on a consistent set of values and preferences.
Something that isn’t very comon to see these days.

I also want to mention his reaction to the new “gambesons” tech. Which I also though of but wasn’t sure enough to post here. But it indeed makes the militia line now ############## skrms which it didn’t before.
It’s not that I say this shouldn’t be. But I am a bit sceptical to that.if I’m honest.
It only really applies to the very lategame when there’s no gold left to make some other ranged units to counter the militias, but i think peronaly that this actually outweights the meta changes in the midgame. Caus I don’t think Gambesons are enough to make militia viable in the midgame. Might be wrong with that, but it’s my honest opinion.

Agree totally. Just think about what mesos can do now when they did an eagle rush countered by militia. Transition to archers? Well, than you need a lot to catch up the numbers mate.
Better wait with that eagle nerf.

Opposed opinion: Chinese start is now even harder to master.

Yeah also weird to me.I kinda understand what devs had in mind, but Rams aren’t in a “good spot” anyways.Yes some of the archer civs don’t have like “super good answers” to a lategame siege ram push. But man, you need res to make this. Soemthing must have gone in favor of the ram pusher already before.

Idk if i’d call it “unnecessary” cause it was OP on certain settings. But the change itself besides looking not like “super strong” at first glance actually is exactly that. Lithuanians are now one of the best booming civs (behind cumans) and have a super strong initial bonus at the same time.
And hera is definetely right with the assessment that it will change the identity of that civ entirely. Cause Lith always had this weird midgame transitional phase in between their super strong early and lategame. Tbh I now see like not a single phase of the game where I would consider them “below average”. They have super eco and strong military at all stages of the game.


My thoughts

  1. Eagle change is really good, a very nice and indirect nerf to meso civs. Militia line are going to become slightly more common in the mid game. People still have to get three different techs apart from blacksmith upgrades and need a lot of food for militia line. Except for a few like Dravidians, Malay, Bulgarians or Slavs, other civs have to open with something like crossbows, knights or skirms and then do longswords. So its still a good change and not an overnerf imo.

  2. Chinese - I don’t really see how this is a nerf. Its a zero change for pros on RM and DWL and a nerf only on Warlords type start where you don’t get any additional food penalty. Even the biggest pros like Hera, Liereyy and Viper get atleast 20 seconds idle tc after loom. This change just modifies the first one minute for Chinese.

  3. Lithuanians are ok as of now and probably don’t need a change but when you buff a dozen other civs, an average civ might get incompetent. Maybe its not needed but I don’t think it makes them too strong or broken either. Especially because of having a gameplay reliant on gaining relics soon enough right now. Since this change offers an alternate game plan and comes with a nerf at the start, its quite good imo.

  4. Dravidians will never be an auto win. Right now they’re nearly an auto lose on non-water heavy maps. The set of infantry changes and siege discount might probably compensate the lack of knights, CA and monk techs to make them a decent option on more maps.

For me the best and meta impacting changes were for Vikings, Slavs, Incas, Malay, Portuguese and Spanish. Most unnecessary and bad changes were for Sicilians, Gurjaras, Bohemians, Bengalis. A few specific to Burgundians, Huns, Vietnamese, Japanese are okish but don’t think would change much to their current state.

I do think -33% wood for Dravidian is just ridiculously overpowered, sure it doesn’t affect their siege elephant and they don’t have siege engineer but damn, -33% is just too much, they already get buffed from barrack unit buff and elephant archer buff, why do they need siege buff? and if so then why a wooping 33%? I think it should be around 20% to make it at least consistent with Korean.

1 Like

Most of his points sound very fair. I feel he is overreacting on some of them, but it maybe that I do not fullty grasp them:

  • Eagles nerfs + milicia buffs: while I agree that a double buff/nerr is dangerous and hard to assess, I feel that the change is fine because we should never fights LS with eagles in the first place even in the current patch. Everyone usually say “easy, do fight them and do raid, they cannot follow”.
  • He made Malays buff look OP, but he described at late game scenario (transiting from xbows/arbs to halberdiers), which do not cover theirvearly game struggle unless infantry becomes really meta in feudal (no balance change) and castle (probably low buff impact as Malians LC are not used)

I do not think it is a very good buff, I think it has too much impact at pro level and too little at lower level, especially on open maps where the lack of knights i appearant.

For closed I dont know how strong they currently are. I hope it is fine thanks to the lack of SE and the present of better civs imo like mongols, celts, turcs, ethiopians, koreans, portugeses,…

Whenever a bonus with a big number shows up, it creates the illusion of being overpowered. Siege discount already exists for Slavs. Resources wise its nearly the same net discount for scorps and mangonels. Apart from getting free supplies, they also have knights with bloodlines, husbandry and good monks. Inspite of all these bonuses, neither the siege discount nor Slavs are OP.
This type of bonus will be too powerful for a civ that has great early castle age bonuses like Mongols, Tatars, Franks, Magyars, Bulgarians, Aztecs since they can push more effectively with their strong military. For a civ that neither has cavalry nor good monk bonus nor something for crossbows, the siege bonus is just a decent support tool.

And lastly Elephant archer isn’t a buff. Its going to continue to be a Black forest TG unit. A one time expenditure of 1000f or 800w has negligible impact when you’re fully boomed with 100+ villagers.

Exactly. Malians already have that exact bonus. If you do longswords upgrade today and scale mail armor, you get the exact stats as compared to what Malay would have in future after that new tech.

In general whenever a new patch or a new civ comes in or is about to come ### ###### initial opinion on some changes has been so far from reality. Koreans put in A-tier in 1v1 arabia tierlist in 2020 after the armor upgrade buff, Bengalis in A-tier and Gurjaras in B-tier during DLC release, Hindustanis in S tier in the most recent Arabia tierlist even after the nerf.

ya forgot that Dravidian also have FU arbalest, that’s why I think -33% is just overkill. Let’s just say EA is just a team game units, fine, but having strong barrack + FU arbalest + -33% w discount on siege is just too much, also why the wood discount shouldn’t be consistent through out the game?

Another thing is Dravidian have bombard cannon and the slav don’t, so most of the time slav’s discount only works on siege ram (which is falling out of meta) while dravidian’s discount works on bombard cannon, that’s huge compared to slav. I do know that Italian got even better discount but that civ overall land military is quite underwhelming anyway so giving them that kind of discount is fine.

Honestly i never saw Eagles being countered by militia in High levels. Eagles are only getting 5 food cost more, not a huge nerf, and they are simply and incredibly strong unit, even after this nerf.

They are faster than militia, and faster to get going since they need 1 upgrade in Castle age while militia needs 2, and militia can’t catch them, thus why people often go knights to counter them.

Also the only things militia got was gambisons, which does not effect the Eagle matchup at all (cause 5 seconds faster LS upgrade is not going to change anything)

So i think Eagles will be more than fine, at least imho


Eh tbh Ethiopians are quite similar except their archers and siege are stronger instead of having cheaper siege.

And trebuchets as well. It’s quite a massive early imp buff imo

All those units are generic. Its not like Japanese or Ethiopians or Mongols with faster rof gold units, to be overpowered with a siege discount for an early push.
Dravidians aren’t a monk civ to do the low eco quick imp into monks siege type gameplay either.
In general when you reach imperial age get an expensive UT for infantry, all upgrades on ranged units and siege, you already have a lot of economy. At that stage stats like speed, hp, rof, range or area damage are the powerful ones on siege. Like Houfnice, celtic siege, torsion engines, double ballista scorps.
Generic siege is not a mass produced military type like other units for a discount to be OP. Mayans, Berbers might do hundreds of their discounted units in a standard 1v1 but you won’t be producing hundreds of siege units. Suppose if it was 33% flat discount and not just on wood, that’s powerful in late game when gold becomes limited. But as of now its a very mediocre bonus in imperial age.

Italians, Slavs these aren’t typically seen as OP siege civs while Britons, Bohemians, Turks, Celts and Ethiopians are.
The discount is still good for the weak Dravidian castle age mid game but since they are one of the worst civs during that stage, its going to be useful but not overpowered. Suppose if they had knights, Shrivamsha riders or lancers with some bonus or monks like Aztecs or very strong ranged units, or Some day if Elephant archers become a meta unit then this bonus becomes OP.

1 Like