How I would "fix" poles - 3 little changes

Here is example of an awesome game where the “OP Poles UT” was not even used to win the game. And these players are clearly know what they are doing too. (The Point is that Poles don’t have to revolve around making Knights at all)

4 Likes

Yes I like the versatility of poles.
That’s why I didn’t want to nerf the folwark bonus.

And btw have you read my other posts about poles were I state exactly this, that I like this kind of comps poles can make with the obuch?

The Szlachta Privileges nerf is one that makes a lot of sense. The other ones I disagree with however. I think that although going down to a 1:3 gold: stone mining ratio would be good, I think that it still might allow FC into castles straight on the field, and then masses of either Obuch and ranged support, or Szlachta cheapened knights. I think that a 1:4 or even 1:5 might help balance this better. The Lechitic Legacy changes that you are proposing I totally disagree with however. Even with Szlachta Privileges being nerfed, Cavalier doing splash/trample damage would be way to OP. That being said, it could be a possibility, but only if the Winged Hussar stat increase that you have included wasn’t included. This would give Poles two knight line UT’s though, and it might actually be better to stick with the current version, but maybe give Winged Hussars the bonus against Cavalry Archers you are suggesting, and also possibly a bonus against villagers if you want to make them better raiders. Although the team game Lechitic Legacy version is an interesting idea, it raises 3 problems that I can think of. A) What happens with civs that get normal hussar, does it get replaced by Winged Hussar, or can they create both? B) This would make Lechitic Legacy probably have more effects than any other Unique Tech, or even just any tech in the game. C) Receiving 15 gold for every Winged Hussar created by an ally is simply too over powered. With three team-mates, all mass producing one of the better trash units, Poles would totally ignore the very concept of trash wars, and gold tributes would make trade unnecessary. That’s just my take on your suggestions, some of them are nice concepts, but I think it would make Poles the only civ that anyone would ever play, especially in team games.

Szabla -Polish Sabre
HorsePick - Nadziak
Winged Hussar Lance
Koncerz- Polish Estoc

Sure It was not unique.

Winged Hussars changed their weapon depending of enemy.

1 Like

Polish used Turkish “Karabela” sword. I also see generic Turkish sword and shield in this illustration.

Famous wings and leopard skin are firstly used by Ottoman “Deli” Cavalries as well. Hussar unit firstly used by Serbian inspired by Ottoman Light Cavalries. Polish added plate armor unlike Ottomans. By the way, historically there is no original unit. Eveyone used same tactics, equipments etc. Better trained, high morale side won the battles.

Poles currently have 50,8% winrate according to a FE dev

1 Like

50.4%, not 50.8%. but otherwise accurate.

1 Like

The proposal wasn’t supposed as a “nerf” thread. But more a thread how to unbound them from their current state as “insane mid game” civ that falls of heavily in the lategame - especially as a cav civ this is bad. You already see it with berbers, but poles are even more bount into this role.
(Berbers still have camel archers, but what can poles offer in the lategame?)

What makes them very weird in TG. Has anyone have made good experiences in TG with poles?

If the civ ends up being too OP on mid game, just swap the UTs and give them halbs/SE/last archer armour (if needed)

4 Likes

Yes. Pretty sick tower rushes on the flank

1 Like

Why I’m not surprised by you doing that? :smiley:

1 Like

I could not agree more with this.

1 Like

Poles have too many power spikes:

  1. Very powerful trush with easy transition into castle age due to gold from stone.
  2. Super cheap knights giving them full map control from mid castle to mid imperial.
  3. Very strong late imperial because of insanely strong hussar, bracer skirms and wide choices of gold units (arbalesters, CA, bombard, siege ram, obuch).

This makes Poles more versatile civ than Magyars and Magyars don’t have any eco bonuses to pay for versatility.

My special concern is Szlachta Privileges. Let’s make unit cost comparison in Castle Age.

Normal Knight: 60f/75g (135 total)
Normal Camel: 55f/60g (115 total)
Berber Knight: 51f/64g (115 total)
Berber Camel: 47f/51g (98 total)
Byzantine Camel: 41f/45g (86 total)
Szlachta Knight: 60f/30g (90 total)

Pole knights are 2nd cheapest cavalry unit in castle age. But byzantine camels don’t have bloodlines. And camels are pure counter unit which cannot raid opponent’s economy.

Berber knight spam is already considered very strong. But Szlachta knights cost 22% cheaper than berber one and twice less gold cost.

From this comparison I’d say Szlachta knights should cost at least 60f/50g.
May be even this discount will be too strong considering how strong Poles trush into castle strategy. And how versatile Poles in post imperial fights.
But at least, it’s reasonable starting point.

2 Likes

But this comes at a cost. Every other option you listed was free.

Their units aren’t even fully upgraded and rhey lack paladin. Lacking plate barding armor is probably the worst possible thing they could do in imperial

4 Likes

Oh and I can make the exactly same comparison between the Persian Croosbowman, Generic arbalest, Korean Arbalest, Portuguese Arbalest, Mayan Arbales, total resources doesn’t tell you how units are balanced in all cases.
Also the Szhachta privilegies is almost the same case as Kamandaran, you alsmot never research it in Castle age because not only the cost, but also the fact that gold isn’t scarce at that point.

Aslo, imagine saying that when Malay have 40% discount on Battle elephants, costing just 2 more than steppe lancer, and they don’t need any tech for that (plus they advance really fast).

3 Likes

But kamandaran only reduces the absolute cost by 10, in terms of “investment” reduction it’s maybe about 20% as wood is gathered much faster.
Szlachta Privileges reduces the vill time spent to make a single unit by 33%, even if factoring in the initial investment of the farms.

It’s a way bigger difference in reduction than kamandaran offers - and the poles cav actually scales way better in the lategame than trashbows.

And kamandaran also doesn’t really fit into how archers are played btw. Maybe you could try drush fc into castle kamandaran, but… You lose a lot of momentum going for that, and archer thrive by momentum.

You can kind of consider kamandaran xbow useful as a support unit. Just so that you can spend your wood on something as persians. Your main units will most likely be cavalry → food and gold, so instead of stockpiling wood forever as it used to happen before this tech, you can use it to add more numbers onto the field. Don’t think Kamandaran xbow is often useful as a main fighting force, but it has a few niche uses (it performs very well against Kipchaks, should such a match-up ever happen)

They’re also not too bad as a throwaway raiding unit, they’ll still pose a threat to villagers on exposed woodlines and neutral gold/stone.

(I personally consider this as one of the best UT in game in terms of design, because it really helps the civ to fill a hole that it used to struggle with)

Yeah I think the main prob of trashbows is their extremely bad lategame scaling. They even can’t shred TK to pieces anymore, one of the weakest units to archers.
And in castle age the total savings are way less plus you lose momentum with going for that.

Ofc it helps as support as it counters the main counter to cav, pikes and halbs so well just because of the bonus damage against them. I never heard of kamadaran being used as a weapon before, it just doesn’t make sense in the whole context.

This man is spitting truth. The Poles’ strongest game no doubt is Castle Age, but they are weakest and most lacking in Imperial.

I’m a bit surprised poles haven’t taken over the ladder yet. I thought time would bring more sophisticated buildorders with them to exploit their midgame power - especially in open maps.

Maybe the folwark bonus comes with a too big tradeoff. NOt only makes it the farming eco too exposed, it also takes a lot of attention to place the farms perfectly around the folwark - apm you’d like to use otherwise.
Maybe szlachta privileges indeed is too costly for a castle age tech, allowing the opponent to either mass army or go up to imp before you can make full use of that tech. So accordingly reducing cost and effect of this tech seems still the right choice to “fix” it imo.
Maybe it is just the weird lategame that holds the civ back, with no power line fully upgraded and missing halbs. The obuch is nice, but maybe not just enough to fully carry the civ then.
I’d like to see in the stats at some time why poles aren’t as good as prognosted, when they lose their games. I expected them to have an average early game, very strong midgame and about average lategame winrate. But maybe I overestimated their early and midgame strength a bit.

Still, I don’t know if this alone can explain why this civ doesn’t dominates the ladder right now - and as my proposed changes might actually be a slight overall nerf to them poles could actually be even worse with this set of proposed changes. Which I made expecting poles to become one of the strongest civs in the game. So Maybe the Idea of reducing the stone to gold ratio was a bit too much. But I actually would propose to leave it at 33 % (from the current 50%) but instead increase the folwark bonus from 10 % to 12 % to make it even more revarding to invest your actions in that mechanic. If 12 % is too much it could still be reduced to 11 or 10 % again.

1 Like