not only that, theyré coupled to incredibly strong civs… unlike the GC…
but still say the italian late game is fine, so what if the GC isnt amazing, you can still train arbs AND GC together, and the GC dont need to be upgraded since they do so much damage to cav as it is, just having them support an arb blob is enough to rek cav
It would be good, do not take me wrong. My point is that there are so many reasons to prefer (or to add on top of 20% cheaper age up) SE:
And it would not be OP, since Portuguese have the same gold cost, while having also a UT for them
Oh sorry, I was comparing the 20% cheap age up with ethiopians and lithuanians bonuses, not with SE.
In my opinion they can get both, meaning that either one or the other if fine, and that even if they get both they wouldn’t be broken OP.
Even a cheaper/earlier uni would be a fine and interesting bonus, but it take the third place after 20% cheap age up and SE.
Yeah I agree. But you should also consider that Italians also save on the wood cost, meaning that they actually can have a “free” BBC every 4.
Italians also get hussar, but I guess it’s balanced by portos having halbs.
33% is nothing. I suggest 50% and Siege Engineers. To be honest who cares of techs other than Chemistry, Ballistics and Siege Engineers? Chemistry doesn’t matter because of the super long research time and they dont even have Siege Engineers.
50% it’s not necessary, and it would be a huge buff on water. The lack of SE hurts, but chemistry does matter, it’s crucial for archers and gunpowder civ, and Italians are both.
Masonary and architecture so cheap also come in handy…
clown evil laugh
I am very skeptical about a buff which does not help in feudal, but this could be a pretty acceptable solution
I think it’s a great change thematically, and a step in the right direction to balancing Italians as well as giving them more of an identity aside from hard economy boom in water maps.
Some other changes that I think could be cool would be transforming their Silk Road unique tech into a team bonus (with reduced values most likely), and substituting for something more useful in a solo encounter. I also am not that huge a fan of, in concept, spreading gunpowder bonuses outside of dedicated gunpowder civs (I think it limits design for buffing the actual strong suits of the civ), so I’d be totally fine if that bonus became something more useful to their archers, navy or foot-units in general (like Pavise). Most of all I’d like to see Condos reworked (to Italian only) into being a more useful jack-of-all-trades unit, rather than just a niche of a niche in countering gunpowder. Something closer to the Sicilian Serjeant (kinda weird how a unit clad in chainmail and gambeson has so much more armor than the full-plate of the Condo) that Italians could rely on as a body of infantry in Castle/Imperial would be really cool. Make them cost more gold for being elite mercenary infantry though.
Honestly, in truth I’d like Italians should have a focus more on “foot-soldiers and navy” rather than just foot-archers and navy, which would reflect buffing the Condos a bit. Italian identity could be really cool if based on giving their foot units stout armor, like Pavise does. It’s similar to Teutons, but affecting archers and infantry rather than infantry and cav. Still, this is more an aesthetic desire than anything else, I doubt it would be easy to balance and implement. Just having the Condo be a generally useful unit to complement their archers would already be really cool.
It’s true that SR has and effect only in TG, but it’s also a tech that come in only in imp, so it wouldn’t be too useful to Italians. Unfortunately no all bonuses or UT can be used in 1v1.
I think the countrary, that having gunpowder civs doesn’t make sense, since most of the time the few gunpowder civ uses standard units. Also for Italians the cheap BBC is really useful to support their archers vs enemy siege.
But to some extent I also agree with you, for example I really don’t like the new gunpowder burgundian bonus.
I think that in general, when they call the Italians an “archers” civ they more likely meat an “foot ranged unit”.
Condos are already a jack of all trades, in the end they are a champ with 4 less atk, but with 10HP and 1MA more, that it’s also faster and that doesn’t require any line upgrade. That makes them really flexible.
Even if you just need a fast emergency unit to defend, or if you need a fast switch in unit type condos give you that, and the fact that shares pavise with the archers also help.
Well, historically, do not confuse southern Italy with northern Italy (and in general even the north wasn’t a state but more a patchwork of states).
The focus on xbows and gunpowder it’s correct, since in some cities like Venice and Genoa, the use of the xbow was mandatory, to have any citizen ready for war or to defend the merchant ships on where they work. Later to the xbow was added arquebus, since it was even easier to use and manufacture. So I like that this is reflected in the game (cheaper gunpowder, cheaper uni techs…).
The use of small cannon was also common during the renaissance, since the mountain terrain of Italy made them preferable over the big bombardas that the turks for example used, so probably that why the have a cheap BBC but with SE (even though for balance reasons they could get it).
Heavy infantry was used but wasn’t really the bulk of their forces. Venice often used mercenaries from the balkans for that role. There was also several Italian groups of mercenaries that fitted that role, but was reathat much heavy armored.
I don’t really like it, since it would have to come at the cost of something else.
50% it’s a lot, in castle age it would be a direct buff on water. 20% cheap age up and SE instead is more balanced, but even this one should be implemented in different steps.
First see how italian works now, then in case implement either 20%AU or SE, then in case add the one left out…
I don’t think Italians need Siege Engineer as Italians are doing fine in imperial age. Besides, every civ has their own weakness. For Italians, siege is the weakest military branch. No need to make Italians all rounded.
I would argue that the lack of kalbs is their biggest weakness. Siege is somehow fine, but with 33% cheaper uni it’s a pity to lack SE.
A huge one. Especially because it could give a clear game plan to the civ: you survive in feudal age (with a 15-20% age up) you are ok in castle age because of discounted ballistics, and you can definitely recover in early imp by BBCs.
You prefer SE over granting halbs?
I tried a couple of games this morning vs the extreme AI, since e you can’t play online when they call you a million times in a hour.
I was vs malay first and mayans after. I used the cheaper age up to click for feudal a vill earlier, then go heavier on wood and gold for drush into archers.
Until that nothing new, but then in castle age, I delayed a TC to rush a uni with 4 vills and I had ballistics 2 minutes into castle age.
Granted that this was vs the AI, but still it can work online too.
Yes, because the lack of halbs is Italians’ Achilles heel, and every civ needs one.
Byzantines lacks crucial techs like BL and BF, chinese lack BBC and BP to counter onagers, portos lack hussars, mayans and persians have terrible militia line and so on…
If Italians would get halbs they would become OP, and the GC would become even more useless.
While with SE they would still be balanced. Originally they lack SE because the idea was of “quantity over quantity”, but that concept didn’t really work out…
Considering that BBC are the only good siege unit of the Italians, it wouldn’t be OP if they get SE.
The samurai literally gains 4 attack, 20 health and 2 bonus damage for that upgrade cost and many think ghry need buffs.
Thd Genoese Crossbowman gets 5 health and 2 bonus damage.
I agree. But, when we talk about an archer, we have to be very carefull, because only by giving them +1 more atack or +1 more range can be the difference between balanced and op.
Right now, I don’t think GC need a buff, but in case they need it, it better be a little one, because they are not bad at doing what they are made for: being the only anti-cavalry archer.
One good option to make a small buff is to increase some hp: so they are still vulnerable to ranged units, but more resistant to melee atacks.
imo
It is not just this. In addition:
If people think it would be OP, just to have an idea, atm Italian BBCs are good, but better than others in some situations, while worse in others. When you are pop capped, or in closed maps where range matters, Italian BBCs behave like weak BBCs.
Several other civs having buffed BBCs have a much better siege:
All the aforementioned civs have also more pop efficient options like paladins, SOs, buffed CAs…
Their goal is being the only anti-cavalry option for Italians. And what @MatCauthon3 is saying is that the upgrade is too expensive for what it does, so you can also fix it by a huge cost reduction
I mean, more HP never hurt, but that would be the least of my favorite buff for the unit, and the one that would help them the less, since it doesn’t really address its problems.
Instead I would prefer to further reduce the gold cost, making the GC at least a better cost efficient unit.
They are cost efficient for what they are supposed to do. They deal literally twice the damage against cavalry compared to arbs and take the same amount of hits from a cavalier. I think you can just accept that the elite upgrade isnt worth it, and they already have arbalest level base attack in castle age.