If you want ram speed militia-line or spear line is enough, why would you spend a ton of extra food on gold on Teutonic knights. Arambai definitely have more utility than such a maneuver. You can kill vills, hit and run, kill a lot of melee units. Its again the price that doesn’t make much sense for their current stats. 75 wood 55 gold made sense for the OG unit that had 17 base attack. Maybe cost should become something like 60 wood 50 gold.
Cost reduction makes sense. But training time is already the fastest among all the CA UU along with Ratha. I think they can get 5 or even 10 wood cost reduction.
You’re not supposed to use Teutonic Knights in isolation. Of course you would typically go with cavalry/monk/siege but Teutonic Knights are situational and can absolutely work well if you make a balanced army comp to compensate for their weaknesses. E.g. Ironclad Onagers or Heavy Scorps to counter ranged units. Teutonic Knights are the perfect choice against heavy Eagles. Or when you’re up against Goths.
Not only do I want Burmese to have Elephant Archers, but I’m kind of surprised no-one’s mentioned this yet:
Their Team Bonus is useless as a TB.
Currently, it gives line of sight around Relics. This in itself is fine, but since the global buff to team LoS, it’s become functionally redundant since it would give the exact same effect to allies as if it were a regular civilization bonus.
So, what I want alongside EAs is for the relic LoS bonus to become a regular civ bonus, and for their TB to be something new, preferably something that benefits Monasteries/Monks, such as giving Monasteries extra HP, LoS, etc.
3 Likes
Do you think the Monastery tech discount is too strong as a team bonus? They can always nerf it.
Burmese are a very solid civ in every aspect: good eco bonus, a bit predictable ideal opening with MAA play, and solid late game with BBC, good Halbs and Hussar/Onager with SE/Elephants.
Really they only struggle vs Archer/CA civs in the midgame and I feel that’s fine, since they are solid in basically every other age.
1 Like
I think it might be too strong, and I do not want to nerf the monk bonus for Burmese 1v1.
I like the idea of monks +2 LoS.
Besides that, given the current balance for infantry in team games, it may be fine to decrease the infantry attack bonus from +0/+1/+2+/3 to +0/+0/+1/+2 (similar to the Teutons melee armor bonus) and have a new team bonus “infantry +1 attack”. It is not like eagles or infantry units are oppressive in the knights+xbow meta, and the worst that could happen would probably be to help the Goths condo strategy.
In both cases, the current relic bonus would be moved from team bonus to civ bonus.
Pretty meh. Elephant units +2 LOS would be stronger if you want a weak bonus while not going out of their design.
1 Like
I agree. Monks already have so much LOS that +2 wouldn’t mean much. +2 LOS for elephants is much better, since they can see their counters coming better.
4 Likes
And civilization bonus “Battle Elephant +1/+1 armor” changed to “Elephant Archer +20% HP”.
Reason is I hate a civ getting same bonus twice.
I don’t know why everyone hates that. You get part of the effect early and then pay for the rest of it later if you need it. It’s a good way to do things. Sure, maybe it’s a tad unoriginal, but splitting a tech in half and making the first half free is a lot more balanced than having the full effect immediately or later on as a tech.
Repeating and uncreative.
Sicilians is underperforming. Let’s give another effect to First Crusade that boost the bonus damage reduction from 33% to 50%.
Bulgarians is boring. Buff Stirrups by removing the stone cost of TC completely.
Redundancy is an extremely advantageous and useful thing in AoE2. Techs that are redundant with existing techs are always useful, even if they seem uncreative. Useful techs that are boring are better than creative techs that are useless.
I know that I tend to stick pretty well to the “function over form” civ design philosophy, which may make my ideas uncreative at times, but they almost always have useful things. It’s when I start valuing creativity over usefulness that my civ designs start to falter.
The new DLCs conform to the “form over function” philosophy, where creativity is paramount and usefulness is an afterthought. Because the devs mostly shy away from redundancy for the sake of creativity, we get increasingly gimmickier civs.
Don’t want gimmicks? Embrace redundancy. You cannot eliminate both.
Ok. Great. Sicilians Knight +1PA new civ bonus confirmed. Hauberk nerfed from +1/+2 to +1/+1 in the next patch.
I can if I be creative.
That’s not to say that every UT should be partially split into a civ bonus, but I wouldn’t say that we should shy away from redundancy if it’s best for balance. Pavise and Fabric Shields are redundant with Blacksmith techs, yet no one has a problem with them. For some reason, it is only redundancy with civ bonuses that people have a problem with. Curious.
You certainly can try, but it’s harder than it looks. I should know. I’ve tried it. Civ design isn’t easy; creativity and usefulness are basically mutually exclusive unless you do an inordinate amount of testing and tweaking, but even then, it’s a delicate balance. Don’t blame the devs for taking the easy way out with redundant tech splitting, because they have a lot to manage at any given time. Redundancy is the easiest and most balanced way to design civ attributes, and when you have 45 civs and counting, creativity becomes harder and harder.
Maybe because generic techs and civ bonuses are different. Maybe because civ bonuses are meant to be unique and special.
Yeah, but there are only a few examples of the latter. Maybe they could be removed, but that might affect balance, like how the Saracens were changed and now they might potentially be very strong. It’s hard to know these things.
Right now there is only one. That is Burmese.
Stats say they are fine.