The number will be quite complicated and hard to attain balance. If the number reduced is too big, GC is not that effective against cav, losing uniqueness. Why produce GC over arbalest then? Besides, Italians lose the only tool against cav as they do not have halbs. If the number reduced is too little, GC can be expected to be strong vs both cav and arbalests. This is too OP in team games.
I don’t think similar bonus will be given to Italians after taking away from Lith.
It was taken away from lith because it was considered OP on hybrid maps.
But this can’t happen if it’s not allowing to get the dock down way faster.
It’s only “similar” for the most basic feudal openers, but it isn’t as flexible as the Lithuanian bonus.
So even on Arabia it’s not the same, as it doesn’t allow for the super fast militia openers or forward vills to lame the opponent.
Not necessarily. Mongols and Lithuanians goes for scout opening most of the time. Thing is in Dark Age, with some tweak in BO, you can pretty much any food bonus into wood bonus and vice versa.
I think Italians can get a small defense bonus like their neighbour Sicilians. Keeping their discount theme, the bonus can be towers cost -15% or -20%. Or Tower cost -60% wood.
ofc it’s more complicated. But civs like Lith and Mongols also have very strong archer openers.
It’s kinda uncommon to see them these days, but historically i’ve seen and played archer openers with them.
Ofc it’s not setting up well for the long run as these civs have not the best archer lines, but it’s a viable opener.
On the opposite spectrum we see civs like Vietnamese and Dravidians opening Scouts all the time, empowered by their wood bonusses.
I think italians have enough discounts. I don’t want to give them a completely new bonus, just a small tweak to make them feel “balanced” in most settings and matchups.
[quote=“casusincorrabil, post:42, topic:254867”]
Some time ago I would have liked to “fix” italians by splitting them in 3 civs.
One focussing on Cavalry (+ gunpowder) (possibly milan), one on archery (+ counter units, trade) (possibly venice) and one focussing on monks/research (possibly papal states).
But with Sicilians and Romans in the game this just doesn’t make sense anymore.
[/quote] I don’t see how Sicilians would make a difference, they were a part of Italy, but I do understand the issue with Romans. They shouldn’t have been added to the game in the first place, since Italians already existed (basically the issue I see with it is that they lived in the same area.)
(Don’t know what happened, the quote glitched.)
The Italians already have all the monk tech except Heresy, so maybe just give them Heresy.
After removing the Portuguese gold discount from affecting monks, perhaps it would be possible to allow the Italians to train monks at a cost of 80 gold.
But maybe they don’t really need a new power unit.
I still think that improving Italians’ Archer line can improve them. If their Archers can be more useful particularly in the Feudal Age, then they will have enough strength in the land map. This is why I’ve been wanting to transfer the free armors to them. More easily aging up → free first armor → more easily aging up → free second armor → more easily access Ballistics → Pavise. So wonderful. Even making University technologies (mainly about Ballistics) no longer cheaper would be a worthwhile trade-off.
Your quote marks were diffirent font.
So making GC more generic is your solution?
Also GC aren’t "mass to win " unit. They have plenty of counters including skirms, seige and without massing them Italians die to strong Cav civ due to the lack of halbs.
It won’t be a big problem for Italians having heresy. But do they need heresy?
Besides, buffing their monks means further buff in Arena. I dont think this is a good idea.
Could full Fortified Wall be a viable play for Italians that was not explored by the community? Fortified wall cost only 3 spearmen for Italians. Instead of house walling behind palisade, you use stone wall and then Fortified Wall after reaching Castle. Then try 1 TC fast Imperial Arbalester+gunpowder?
I think this tech can be available not only to Italians, but also include spanish, sicilians and Byzantine.
I didn’t say the better monks are really necessary to them. It’s just to reply others.
I said they don’t really need a new power unit.
It might be an interesting strategy in Arena, but I don’t see it could work so well in open maps.
Upgrading the walls is cheaper but the walls themselves are not cheaper. People may just gather other resources and train more military, or spend the stones on a castle, rather than walling.
If the Fortified Wall upgrade is free the motivation for walling could be highly increased, but the civ definitely should not have it free.
A simple and effective small military bonus in the early games, especially in the Feudal, should be enough.
Italians have cheaper University techs. Their defense is very great, having no problem at all.
I don’t think these civ could be acceptable to have fixed access to Fortified Palisades.
I think @smum suggestion is referring to early defense?
He emphasized the cheaper Fortified Wall upgrade so he probably meant that it might be worth considering more actively using the strategy of super turtling with Fortified Walls and rush to the Imperial. He said that use stone walls and Fortified after hitting the Castle so it was not referring to early defense, at least not as early as the Dark or Feudal.
Or basically all low tier Arabia civs that are weak because they are slow. I’d exclude Byzantines and add Bengalis, Bohemians, Celts, Teutons.
Yeah. I recommended this for a potential new civ long long ago.
Back when Italians didn’t get the university tech discount and had 50% discount on dock, I suggested reduce it to 30% but add blacksmith techs to the discount. Devs were a bit closer to the proposal. 11
I would not give it to any existing civ as long as it would have fixed access to them in the tech tree.
some civs just have to and deserve to basically have a weaker start in the open maps since they are stronger in the closed maps.
I would suggest the Revetments to be a feature of a potential new civ.
Like the Nubians, whose archers had had a lot of defensive conflicts, skirmishes and battles with Arabs in open battlefields of wild desert. It could be a team bonus, allowing the Nubians and their allies to research Revetments in TCs in the Feudal or Castle Age at a cost that not cheap in the Feudal but acceptable in the Castle, and the Revetments could require Loom and become the part of Loom line.
A Team Tech? Interesting idea.
Allowing revetment wont make civs a lot stronger. Yeah, it will be harder to break fortified palisade but it is still costly and time-consuming to have big wall.
I think it would. Walling with palisades is not a big deal. It does take more time if building the palisades longer but the palisades is cheap, and the time difference is just a little bit and completely affordable when it could always have access to Revetments. The player could just drop one or two more palisades easily at the point scouts are attacking, with the Revetments it would become almost equal to two or four original palisades. Actually, the player even have no need to build a longer wall. They could just wall the base like how they currently do, stacking palisades between houses and other buildings, and the effect of Revetments would still be obvious.
The only way you could balance it is the cost of Revetments. If it is a default part of the tech tree, the price should be heavy. But anyway such a effect do not need to be and should not be a default part of the civs which are supposed to be weak in the early open maps.
If it is a team bonus of a new civ, then the balance work could be easier. The civ could be designed around it, the team could specially develop a strategy for it, and the fortified palisades would not be so strong in the team game than in 1v1. Just like the +2 attack against archers for knights and +20% effective stable are acceptable as the team bonuses, but that would not be a good news if they become accessible techs in the tech tree.
Main question is where it would be placed. If on palisade wall (similar to AoM), then it’s a nice buff to defensive play. If university, then it’s too late for the tech to be particularly useful in early game (so the tech could be dirt cheap). If in TC, then it would compete with Villager build time, which makes it good for defensive play, but only a situational buff (good when you’re under pressure, and would be great for Cuman 2TC feudal, but otherwise not something to go for even if it is dirt-cheap due to opportunity cost). Having it in the TC in Feudal would likely be the best place to put it - I’d prefer university in Feudal (since that’s where other defensive techs are, excluding town watch/town patrol which are in TC), but university isn’t available in Feudal (though I suppose you could have university available earlier with Revetments available as a civ/team bonus - the cost of the university would then need to be factored as a practical cost of the tech).
Regardless of where it’s placed, the effect would be weakened by the fact that houses and other buildings are typically included as part of the wall. But it would still be useful as a tech since you can re-wall behind places that are under attack, and gates are often a target for breaking in. And it would also have situational use on maps like Hideout where you start surrounded by palisade walls.
Walling can be a bit costly, but the safety from raids is enough of a benefit that players typically do so anyways. Even when players break through, there’s still some value in knowing that your opponents can only freely move through the hole they made.
SOTL posted a video on GC today.
He didn’t really touch Italians. But his conclusion summarized the problem of GC. Elite GC is just too weak in Imperial Age compared to Arbalester. And in Castle Age the +1 attack despite being very good, -1 range make things almost even. As a result, GC is hardly trained.