How would you balance Bulgarians if they got paladins back with stirrups

As it stands. Stirrups increases attack rate of cavalry by +33%

However given that Bulgarians has no real eco bonus or even crossbow upgrade (free maa can only do so much, -50 stone tc is situationally good but not top tier, and you still need a castle for stirrups anyway)

Also despite having FU Siege Ram, FU Siege Onager and FU heavy scorpion but no BBC. They dont get any bonus for them. Other civs that have this kind of siege tech tree: celts, slavs, mongols and i guess ethiopians (the latter gets bbc though) have a siege bonus in form of either a civ bonus or an imp ut (or both if celts).

Relying on Konniks entirely isnt always ideal. And that +1 PA paladin get over cavalier doesn’t offset it attacking 33% faster.

There are some situations paladin is better and given that I’ve pointed out Bulgarians weak points. How would you give paladin back without making them too OP?

Stirrup paladin in its current state is out of the question. That puts their attack rate from 1.9 to 1.425 which is a big yikes. But if Paladin were to say go from 1.9 to 1.7 or 1.65 at most then that could be reasonable.

Hussar and Konnik damage would remain unchanged but Knights and Cavaliers would be a bit slower in comparison to attack rate if paladin was given back.

On the topic of bulgarian changes. One idea I liked is siege workshop techs cost 25% - 50% less.

Bulgarians have a hard time against most match up like teutons and chinese and other powerful arb / camel / halb civs and I just want to see them being brought in line more.

Again if any of this sounds ridiculous that’s fair enough but I think it would at least give bulgarians an edge vs other paladin civs out there.

Reminder that Bagain 2h is not always a better champion (esp vs range units) which is where bulgarians seem to struggle most. Their elite skirms even miss final armour.


Civ with no real eco bonus and falls off fast after its free man at arms thanks to no good followup

Struggles vs archers esp with current pathing

Actually has good siege but rarely gets to it
Relies mostly on krepost and konniks

Struggles vs most other cavalry civs and infantry civs (especially ones with better economy bonuses)

Only asking for small tweaks to get them more in line without changing their civ identity too much


Have stirrups not affect Paladins? It gives you an interesting choice as to whether it’s worth to research Paladin

1 Like

I’m not a big fan of differentiated effect between units, it doesn’t feel as clean in term of design.

To me, Paladin should stay out, unless you’re planning on something like removing Blast Furnace. Which, although interesting, would too negatively impact their 2hswords to work in my opinion.

As for the rest I certainly agree. The 50% cheaper siege workshops upgrade is a change I’ve been wanting to see since the beta, it would suit the civ very well.

Additionally, I wouldn’t mind some levels of an eco bonus. One free villager in feudal and additional one per TC in castle ? Sounds interesting to me.


They would have to lose Stirrup. Paladins with faster attack would be the best Paladins in the game by far, and would need to have no Armour or Weapon upgrades, no Bloodlines, no Husbandry, and Bulgarians eco nerfed to the ground.

Paladins should only be used in civs where there are no other real options, like Cumans, Spanish, Franks, Teutons or Persians.

No, it would always be worth it to forsake Stirrups and go for Paladin, it is an overly-efficient unit that is criminally overpowered.

Do not forget taht Halberdiers were added to the game because Paladins ahd no counter in AoK.

in 1v1, its rarely worth to go Paladin so you’re wrong


It is always worth it to go for Paladins if you have them, except for Celts, which lack 3 upgrades and have no bonuses.

It takes almost 3 minutes to research (from cavalier to Paladin that is), needs 1300f 750g to be floating around. And then halbs and walls stop their push so its not like they’re an unbeatable unit after that kind of investment. In TGs you can overcome all these shortcomings because of the pace of the game and teammates. Their spammability is what makes them effective and that doens’t apply in 1v1


Sounds good :slightly_smiling_face:

Bulgarians historically were quite experts at Siege, cheaper Siege techs would suits very well.


Yes… I am Bulgarian, I wanted to get the game because of this new civilization (someone recognizing our long history, that we even do not know to much before year 600)… However, I never picked Bulgarians for a serious game, because somehow they seem to be a very weak civilization in its current state…
In our history of fighting the turks, we fight even with guns using cherry seed as ammo, yet in the game we don’t get hand canoneers. Ancient Bulgarian castles have an amazing architecture, even all ancient cities have strong walls and serious fortification (check the first capital called Pliska) yet hoardings and fortified wall is unavailable. During SSSR we used to provide the soviet union with so much wheat from our crops, due to the north east region, yet we have no farm bonus.
I feel slavs is somehow what Bulgarians should have been in terms of tech tree. Considering the fact " The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is the oldest Slavic Orthodox Church"
Hope something will eventually be done to balance the civilization… Even if it’s not so accurate historically, make it a civilization that people would like to chose. Not one, that is to be avoided… After all, Bulgaria is one of the oldest countries in Europe (and this is only the documented “official” records, while it’s history can be tracked way before year 681).

1 Like

This is a game, not a simulation, so civs have to be balanced in comparison to other civs in the game, not real life.

If the game was realistic, China would be the only viable civ for any game that started in the Dark and Feudal Ages (Halberdier, Cavalier and Crossbow + Platemail and Plate Barding in the Dark Age); and Spain and Portugal would dominate Land and Water maps respectively, in the Imperial Age, without other civs even having a sliver of a fighting chance.

Also, real life Aztecs and Mayans did not have Blacksmiths or Siege Engines, Incas did not have Markets, Samurai were Horse Archers, Woad Raiders and Throwing Axemen are from the Iron Age, Berzerkers did not have horned helmets, Fire Ships would not attack one enemy at the time, Galleons are not Medieval, Medieval naval combat was mostly about boarding action, Knights did not use Swords as primary weapons, Obsidian Arrows were known for cutting deep into flesh but not as Siege Arrows…

It is a game, and it makes loads of abstractions on purpose.
Huns never built anything, Caravels in the game are nothing like they were in reality either, and Turtle Ships(Geobukseon) actually had Flathrowers and Rockets instead of a Cannon weapon.

This is done for the sake of balance.


I would love me some low dps big 3/4 AoE range fire ship :smiley: (maybe like a treb with slightly faster pack/unpack and small delay or attack animation)

Low DPS? More like instant decrewing of a few Galleys.

For the sake of balance, since you mostly go with more than 3-4 fire ships. Stacking high AoE dmg would be too much. Armor of ships would need to be revised for balance, but that’s about it.

That is why games cannot be realistic. Reality is not balanced, and real warfare was never about fighting on equal footing with the enemy.

Games have abstract warfare, where things from the real world are given statistical numbers to compare them with other game elements.

If the game was realistic, it would not be a game at all, and would be a brutally stressful experience. Like actual combat.

I dunno, multi-player can be pretty stressful


Imagine if it was realistic!

Imagine a Byzantine Dromon just barging in and setting fire to 5 ships at a time, and they immediately stop responding to orders, as the waves push them back towards their own fleet.

You not liking the civ design doesn’t make it bad. Plenty of people like the civ and it gets played a fair bit. Your opinion is not necessarily a consensus.

The civ has an emphasis on infantry, light and heavy cavalry, and siege. Sounds about accurate.

You complain about the lack of hoardings and yet Bulgarians have Kreposts to represented the fortifications built throughout the country.

The rest of your claims are random and out of timeframe so completely irrelevant.


I feel a lot of people took my comments too personally. After all this is my opinion and feeling regarding the tech tree of the civ., others might not think like that. And after checking online, yes somehow it is considered tier B, luckily not the weakest tier C.

Blockquote JonOli12

Blockquote That is why games cannot be realistic. Reality is not balanced, and real warfare was never about fighting on equal footing with the enemy.

Agree with you mate.