USA oppressive to play against, very strong civ
2 Likes
How would you take down a US player as Japan
Imo USA is a bit too strong. But when you go calling it âopâ and/or âS tierâ people will automatically think of Italy a while ago, Swedes at release, Inca when people were abusing the fort garrison, Ottoman Delis after they were first added and had insane DPS, etc.
I think a cost of 200 wood should be added to the advanced homesteads card (two Homestead wagons and mills support pop). That will slow down the German Immigrants mill build.
I would support giving Sharpshooters a 0.9x or 0.85x vs light infantry. They are already unusually good against light cavalry and very good against heavy infantry. No need for them to be as good against skirms as they are.
And of course revert the 5 owlhoots that come with that army of sharpshooters.
If we nerf sharpshooters slightly I think it helps Carbines not to really be a big problem. Itâs the combination of the two units that pair so well that I believe is the cause of the issue. Carbines are good for sure now, but not really out of line with some other strong goons.
3 Likes
Two words - âPearl Harborâ
Define mediocre?? because it does not have a mediocre win rate, nor is the win rate the most accurate tool, perhaps those thousands of games played do not make up the broken ## ## the US, it has approximately 50.80% win rate on average so we do count all the elos, this mediocre is quite far from being the ideal adjective. Not long ago, Spain had (53 - 55)%, nor does it mean that it is strong because there are good players who precisely won with Spain that raised the win rate, it is something relative, the Time will prove to me that the US is strong, I would also say that there are few players who use the carbine because they have the perception of the carbine from the old patches.
All my discord colleagues have the same opinion regardless of who the rating is. I donât understand how the people on this forum are not able to understand by looking at the unitâs statistics and denying that it is strong.
Recently there was a player who argued âbecause the chasqui was brokenâ with the statistics with the card and there were still people denying the statistics, I really donât understand it.
I play both 1v1 and in team, although in reality I play more in Team and there the difference would say that it is much stronger, surely in that mode it has a much higher win rate than USA,
2 Likes
i get really tired of hearing âwin ratesâ as justification for anything. Your elo will drift to where youâre winning 50% of games. win rates will trend to 50% if everyone sticks with one civ. Its how playerâs elo goes up or down with different civs that actually shows the power levels⊠and thereâs no really good way to quantify that on large scales.
I have no idea if USA is op anymore because most players Iâve encountered tend to bot a single build - - I think the civs excessive and overwhelming complexity means most players tend to justndo one thing they know well and adapt poorly when forced into a corner. Its an outlier to me.
1 Like
Itâs not all important of course because as you said your elo will increase and youâll get tougher games as a result. That being said looking at past data you can see that civs that were too good like sweden and china had the highest win rates by quite some distance, with sweden in particular having over a 56% win rate across many patches until recently, same story with china.
As long as a civ is with a couple of points of 50% itâs ok, 49-51% ish allows some room for error.
Also if you looked at current patch data(once more games have been played) youâd expect to see a civ have a higher win rate if it has suddenly become more op as many claim usa has as more people try and abuse it, so I guess weâll see if usa dramatically increases in time, my suspicion is that it wonât.
Anyway Iâd like to see more discussion of buffs for other civs, malta is in a terrible state, ethiopia got overnerfed for no reason and now sucks and italy is just bad, other than the free fort cheating people are doing the civ is abysmal.
2 Likes
The last time they were broken in treaty, it took them a year to nerf it.
3 Likes
Tora Tora Tora xdâŠ
1 Like
Wow 
, That didnât end up too good in the end though.
you are wrong here there is only one card and thats at age 3 one they dont have age 1 russian immigrants
1 Like
thinking about the carbine cavalry, there are probably 2 direction this unit can take now, I think there has been a lot of changes that has kinda mask what the unit has kinda become.
When it was released it it was billed as slightly cheaper then goons, is less durable but higher DPS
as it stands right now, the unit is less durable but has DPS out the wazoo (it has 18.5 but attacks 33% faster, so about 12%). So its the same as having a dragoon with base 24 dmg, with 14 range
trading 10% HP for 12% more damage and 2 range is a decent. It used to only do 18.5 dmg a 2 part volley at 2.5 rof (so it used to do about the same DPS as dragoons at base) so that was bad, but now its very much overtuned.
so what are the 2 way forward for the unit I think ?
1- nerf a stat - if we want to keep that cheaper but higher DPS theme of the unit then to keep the cost of the unit some kind of stat has to be nerfed. it doesnt have a lot (only 1) upgrade card so I think nerfing the range back down to 12 is reasonable, that was a recent change anyway.
or tune down its HP even further , trading 10% HP for 12% dmg might be too good, but 15% HP could make it actually fragile enough to be balanced, something like 160 base HP.
To put out comparisions, of the light range cav units that doesnt have the base 12 range, they either pop inefficient (war wagons, not to mention have wonky fire animation), or have lower DPS (yabusame for example have 18 DPS and also cost more, also more gold weighted)
2- keep the stats but change the cost - taking the unit for what it is now, then the cost of the unit needs to go up. From the example of the yabusame, it needs to cost about 10 res more then dragoon for its stats to start making sense.
edit: got some numbers wrong, adjusted
7 Likes
Carbine cav has less armor then other cav what about that?
1 Like
that doesnt matter by age 3 since the card in age 3 gives them armour parity
3 Likes
But you need card for it
1 Like
yeah but US can FF very freely and have lots of shipments ready
In addition they have extra range so in early age 3 fights they can are less likely to even take hits
Maybe they should get range bonus with card like ports do and they should have normal armor
No sniper goon on the cassprowlers fort spam artillery spam civ, that would just be blatant powercreep and op. Well moreso than now.
1 Like
yeah they really should not have both ( haud only have longer range skirms while port only have longer range goon) though I do wonder if its possible to make them so fragile that artillery spam is a viable counter
Surely the DPS has to be reduced, but they should also do something with the range, the unit can be obtained at age 2, 14 range for a goon is a lot. In itself, most of the goons were obtained at age 3 and You can improve range at age # ## by getting the snail upgrade from the arsenal
US can obtain goons by card in age 2, in age 2 there are many units not available, among other long range skirmishes and goons
Assuming that the rival has musketeers, a unit that should win in population proportion to the goons, but in this exceptional case, you have a unit that is capable of hitting to run comfortably because it has more range. Something similar happened to the javelins. Africans, received numerous nerfs because they obtained good DPS to the point of visibly beating the musketeers even though they should not win, it is common for the dragons to beat the musketeers, the fact that the unit has 10% armor is a key disadvantage, but yes For the benefit of combat, it is much more advantageous to obtain range and dps than to be fragile in any composition.
The sharpshooter is not far behind how broken the carbine is. In my opinion the unit also has many advantages,
I can understand that it has more range but at the same time obtains a better multiplier, the truth is that that is a gift,
The unit is not that it has bad exchanges against light infantry in practice, but it has a much better exchange against heavy infantry and light cavalry, especially light cavalry if you already obtain the advantage of having better range, because you must have better multiplier, better against light cavalry. Maybe if it had only been against heavy infantry, it would be fine, but because it would also be much easier to massacre light cavalry, if it has the same base damage as the conventional European skirmisher but with more range and a better multiplier, it seems to me. This is very crazy, offensively there are no other skirmishers in relation to their cost and population that do worse than him,
I would like to understand that it is good because the unit obtains a very low base life but in any case I do not understand it because the carbine is so strong that if I force cuirrasier they fall like flies
1 Like