I’ve played USA a lot but definitely not my main. USA is strongest because of specific things like Texas, New Jersey, and California strats.
I’ve seen your decks for USA and all of them have Indiana for Age 3, and the only Age 4s I’ve seen you take are New Jersey and California. Vermont is bad, Oklahoma is bad. NJ already got nerfed, though I think it needs another nerf. California needs a nerf. I’m not against these. But not buffing the weaker parts of the US civ because of the broken parts is not something I agree with. Carbine cav suck. US needs better age 3 options. And Age 4/5 options should be more balanced.
Trying to balance for treaty is a sisyphean task. The game simply was never meant to be played that way. Some civs were just designed to be strong in lategame and others were meant to wane as the game goes on.
Because many new or inexperienced players were uncomfortable with the fast pace of supremacy and needed a grace period to get their economy together.
It clearly wasn’t optimized for long games because it devolves into a repetitive slog if you get 40 minutes to max out your economy and drop down 10 layers of walls.
Because players were gonna play treaty by basically doing Gentleman’s agreements on not attacking each other for X amount of time. So devs decided to cave in since people would keep doing it anyways and allowed people to set treaty as an actual thing you could choose if you want to.
I totally agree I have to add that Hausa Fulani archers are the worst skirm of the game in the imperial age, they do not cost-effective, and they do the same damage as a Russian strelet for this reason they can’t kill properly powerful heavy infantry.
Yeah, the Ethiopian javelin raider has almost the same stats as a dragon without cards costing 1 pop and less resources.
Italian Bersaglieri do good damage but are too fragile, and expensive. Papal bombard is garbage, bad stats for an 8 pop cannon: 1,17 of speed, 645 of damage with 4 of area, they can’t escape of culverins.
Playing treaty is getting frustrating because many people only play or México, Ethiopia and USA.
While he is yes, one of the founders, Victor Emmanuel played a bigger role and was the one who completed the Risorgimento and became the first king of a united Italy. He is the most obvious choice for Italian ruler, considering he actually was an Italian ruler.
Garibaldi is cool in his own way but it doesn’t make sense for him to be the leader of Italy when Victor Emmanuel was the actual leader of Italy.
hausa dont have very bad train time, or explain why please, tell me:
1, what unit
2. age
3. time
i use lifidas and they are created in aprox 7 seconds in age v
Yes and in case you don’t know treaty is the 2nd biggest game mode and the treaty community is growing constantly unlike other games like AOE2 Or AOE4 where DM comes next. So, you can’t ignore the second-best game mode in the game. Basically, after Nilla, the devs decided that the treaty is doing better than DM so they added the option there but there was not much implementation on it and then the treaty community made the treaty patch so they make the treaty balances there. Then DE came out and then at the beginning treaty implementations were mostly ignored probably because there were more important things they had to consider such as implementing the game and performance. And at last in the past 8-9 months with the constant growth in the treaty community, the devs are considering the treaty balances in every patch almost because it’s directly connected to supremacy (mainly team supremacy). Now days almost all treaty types are being played (TR20, TR40, TR60) so once again you can’t ignore 1/3 or 1/4 of the player base which is growing at the same time.
Coyote has better pathing tham hussars and swarm better, and the’re pretty cheap too.
If i’m up against aztec I prefer pikemen to musks. I’m guessing you’re neglecting the card that boosts coyote’s range resistance
eh what? they’re don’t have a lower multiplier vs counter-cav.
and counter-cav have lower multipliers vs coyotes.
But if you’re thinking about heavy infantry Jaguar prowlers are king, they are surprisingly effective, cheap in coin too.
Coyote’s are the main massing unit for aztec and skirms can’t dent them and musks despite being a counter underperform. They will need to go either cav or melee infantry.
That is even more true if you give them covering support from eagle runners or slingers.
It’s hard to balance either one by themselves let alone with the other game mode. It is simply impossible. Some civs will always dominate a certain mode others will be terrible. No avoiding it.
Ha ha ha good luck massing coyotes vs a mass of skirmishers behind a wall, or 2, or 3. Neither without walls, aztec need a terribly amount of effort to just counter a unit, losing a huge eco in the process while skirms are one of the cheapest units to spam. Add some canons and you are done. (Laughing in dutch).
After the last update the situation is like DE never existed as mortars arent worth it anymore. They were the only option to take down walls to send coyotes. That wasnt a very efficient strategy, but was the only one available.
Me too, malta is fine. I cant say the same for italians, but genovese are in a good spot. Its not coincidence that the civ good in sup is bad in treaty.
