I think devs did not reduce TT of GC yet despite asking for that for really a long time is they thought that it can be OP in TG. Since they don’t have that much good eco on land, I don’t think it will be an issue. I really agree with reducing their TT and +1 range for elite.
Someone doesn’t want spoiler here. So please don’t read any further.
I think 50% food discount on blacksmith tech should be given to Italians instead of Bulgarians. Bulgarians has faster blacksmith tech (50% now, probably 80% after the patch). I’m not sure whether it will be a good idea to give a cheaper+faster thing to the same civ. Instead we can give Italians a 50% food discount on Dock+Blacksmith. Or 30%/40%/50% on all resources feudal/castle/imperial. Cheaper fletching, bodkin and bracer will help in water map too. So not the biggest nerf on water.
Janissarys deals 22 damage minus armor to infantry, HC deals 17 damage minus amore PLUS 10 bonus damage, that it’s always inflicted, so they deal a lot more damage.
You have plenty of reasons to choose one over the other depending on the situation.
But micro normally IS involved, and most of the time you also use meatshield.
The more HP and armor is useful in castle age, to further protect them from cavalry, but against infantry I would really have to pay zero attention to my GC to let the enemy infantry get to melee, otherwise number, range and bonus are all great reasons to chose the arbs.
GC also cost double the wood, and in castle age you will also need wood for a ton of other things, so it’s not worth to damage your eco to train a unit that doesn’t make use of their bonus, like in the case of GC vs infantry.
In post imp yes, in castle age it’s really important.
My goal is to buff the use of GC from mid castle age, form when you build your first castle. Right now that is their drawback. In post imp, when you have a ton of castles and a ton of resources, the elite upgrade or the TT is a problem, and if you want to use GC instead of arbs you can do, probably at that point your eco can afford that.
The main problem is to get there.
And that they take more than a cataprhact, which really makes no sense.
Not necessarily, it depends by what bonus they receive, and how this impact water play.
In general a GC buff can fix Italians only if it is very very large. Otherwise even if the GC TT is halved, Italians will remain one of the worst civ…
In that case GC may become what carries the civ, not just a counter unit. But it should be something making it comparable to plumes. Close to borderline OP, as plumes, ckn, mangudais and similar. The example of extending the bonus to cavalry and archers is a possibility…
Otherwise Italians simply need another civ bonus as the other weak civs…
Taking shameless inspiration from AoE3’s Torps, Italian Mills, Lumber Camps, and Mining Camps now automatically gather their respective resources one node at a time, at a range of one tile away, and at a rate of one Villager without upgrades.
I don’t like this either. One of favorable feature of Condos is no upgrade required. This differentiates Condos from Champions.
This one is reasonable. Italians have good archers but average cavalry, subpar infantry, one of the worst siege. It is certainly not a big problem to buff infantry. Granting halbs makes their infantry a bit above average at most. The powerspike brought by Condos is not as great as before.
I am going against this idea. This is a big buff to siege. Nearly all archer civs have bad siege, except Ethiopians. I don’t think there is a reason enough to support to grant them good siege when the other branches is nearly average for an archer civs.
Italians have a bad early eco in land maps. I prefer an early eco buff rather than an early military buff. Early Military buff may change the playstyle of Italians drastically to early aggressive civ.
I have proposed several ideas before.
15% cheaper age up -> 21%/18%/15% cheaper advancing to next age.
Free Guilds from Feudal Age
Fishing Ships are 15% cheaper -> Fishing Ships and Farms are 15% cheaper.
But the topic regarding which Italian buff should be implemented is quite disputed.
Compared to Vietnamese archers, Korean ones will do better against archers and eagles BEFORE the enemy takes the first attack upgrade, and eagles rushes are rarely used before that upgrade. After that, they are comparable, or worse than Vietnamese archers, and Vietnamese can still pick the armor upgrade. Koreans have a slight wood discount for archers, and the armor upgrade for free, while Vietnamese has a decent wood discount in the eco upgrades, which is more flexible than the free armor upgrade.
Vietnamese archer rush is not famous for being OP, so I think Korean archers will be balanced.
However, their skirms will be very strong against archers even if the enemy researchs fletching. Koreans save 7 wood per skirms. This is a very nice defensive boost against archer civs.
Extra PA for archers would make sense for Italians, but it overlaps a bit with Vietnam and korea… I think we should abandon that idea for Italians… probably Italians are doomed to be the worst civ, without any land bonus except a negligible cheaper aging up.
Don’t take me wrong, I am pretty satisfied with the upcoming patch. Overall, assuming Indians get arbs or similar, the game would present one civs only (Italians) unplayable in the standard 1v1 Arabia…
Just thinking that if it is not possible to buff Italians, it would be good to remove them from the choices (like a sort of auto-ban when you play random civ)…