The winrates from aoestats are “outdated”. The website is still using the info from several patches ago. I think they are mixing the new matches with the old ones, thinking we are in an old patch.Thus, we cannot see the winrates of both sicilians and burgundians. Also, we cannot see the effect of the last buffs to koreans or italians. For example, franks remain top tier despite the nerf.
Having said that, in my opinion, the archer-armor buff was very needed, but it is not very helpful against heavy cavalry civs like franks.
Extending the wood discount to siege could be helpful or OP. In castle age, it would be useful for HOANG rushes, but slavs are a better discount (15% for both gold and wood) for siege and they arent OP because of that.
In imperial age, siege with wood discount would be very useful for halb+siege onager combo. Or for transitioning to SO after massing WW.
Finally, maybe the recent changes to cav archers, combined with their wood discount and free archer armor are helping for cav archer raids in early castle, like Daut did in some match (Even before the Cav archer buff). But we cannot see that in the stats
i think the siege discount helps them vs archer civs (which is fine and i dont think its OP)
but it doesnt help them vs melee civs, same for the armour bonus
i agree to some extent, but the korean armour buff was before this last patch, so we already have a very good idea of how badly they are performing… even if franks are weaker, it doesnt mean koreans will suddenly do that much better, as low as 30% win rate vs melee civs.
they dont have blood lines or PT, yes CA are better, but its not their wood cost holding them back, and korean are already incredibly subpar as far as CA go…
those were all weird matches starting with established towns, making CA already more viable, as opposed to the “rush style” arabia which dominates the meta…
Well ignoring their lack of any real eco bonus, they have a generic military other than towers and their Siege onager with extra range (which both now require UTs). Both these are resource consuming and also situational. They lack two blacksmith upgrades which is bad design IMO for a civ with zero (no the free armor and wood discount don’t really count as) military or eco bonus
War Wagon has always been a hit or miss for me, sometimes they’re strong, in others they’re just underwhelming. They take forever to mass, and when you get to a mass it’s often too late because now the opponent can field trash easily, go halb rams. Or if it’s heavy cavalry, they’ll do terrible with their slow fire rate. They’ll trade okay vs skirms in small numbers until you realise wow the enemy has a lot of skirms and you’ll have to rely on your terrible light cavalry to deal with them. SO upgrading and massing is both expensive and time consuming for which Koreans don’t get any help from their bonuses
yeah they are the top contender for the best SO, but it is completely impractical in arabia… and i wonder if its even achievable in arena, only in something like BF which is almost a meme map now in comparison to open arabia
yeah even though people pay for the armour tech its usually with excess resources, and the wood discount is so minimal its practically negligible. if they arent going to add another civ bonus, they could at least extend the value of this discount, and even then wood discount on a unit is literally the worst discount, compared to flat discounts like mayans or berbers, or at least gold discounts
i like the idea of trying to keep identities between the civs, so maybe somehow they could expand on the towers again?
because a possible easy solution would be to give them bloodlines, but thats a very generic fix
I think Korean towers nerf and Korean archers buff make Koreans lose their characteristics and more specialized in archers. Though tower rush is not hard to counter, many players complain feudal tower rush is too boring to play and counter. So I thought tower buff is not possible. But soon Sicilian can perform Donjon rush.
I thought of returning stone cost of tower upon destruction before but it is not possible to happen. Perhaps, War Wagon buff is a good idea (faster speed/smaller collision size to enable hit-and-run?). I wish to make War Wagon like Castle age power unit for Koreans, which is somewhat like Spanish Conquistador or Burmese Arambai.
sic donjon rush is arguably easy to counter, its just that its new so it seems hard, but its easier to counter than an incan tower rush
but i never said improve koreas twr rush, i said improve their towers… this can be done differently, for example, as a civ bonus their towers fire an extra arrow per age (similar to the donjon) so it would actually give a reason to take the stupid expensive UT. and i think its a harder counter to cavalry than simply improving damage.
yeah thats definitely also an option… smaller collision size will already help immensely, you can stack easier, more units can get into range (atm they body block so half of them wont even be in range) and of course your mobility improves.
i also like the speed increase. it would have been really cool if they could fire while moving (albeit at a reduced rof like even +1) you would still catch them with cavalry because their speed is low but i guess its hard to balance, but i guess if anything that idea could go for the elephant archer since its so slow it would be less oppressive
Mmm koreans are always a bit of a problem, because on one hand, they have a really powerful UU, the war wagon, which is backed by 3 of their bonuses:
Cheaper wood cost
Free armor upgrades (on a unit which already has hight base PA)
Faster stone gathering, which helps on putting down castles
So their WW meta is already strong, the problem is that this makes them a “one trick pony civ”, (maybe 2 tricks, because their tower rush is still strong) which most people don’t like.
Their archer rush isn’t that strong, but I think it’s not bad either, saving 5w helps with your early eco, and having free armor help you counter other archers civs. The problem is that it falls off after a bit, and then civs like britons or mayans will overpower your bonus. Still, I think that archer rush into WW is a strong strategy.
As for the wood discount extended to siege, it would make them strongher vs archer, it wouldn’t help them against a civ like franks, and with walling meta ever more nerfed, they’ll weak against such civs.
They save a bit on spears, but that’s not a big deal. Still, I think that against such civ, they should simply try to wall in and use spears and skirms to defend untill they can mass WW. Or maybe they could have a small bonus that palisade walls cost stone instead of wood, so their turtling would impact less on their eco, and their only eco bonus would help in this direction too, but you would burn the stone that you may need for castles and TC in castle age. Giving the last cav armor may be another idea, but then even without BL their combo of hussars/cavaliers and WW may be too tough to deal with.
I think that they are mostly fine for now though. Maybe people still have to figure out its meta.
it could be true, but across 5800 games, the average is still 44%… thats from 1000 to 1650+
yeah its good, but you need to mass them… its not like a cav UU that is still good alone, and they still lose cost effectively to cavalry, and you can neither kite not stack them like CA or foot archers.
although its unique, i think its still fairly situational, and they then run the risk of being towered (due to spending stone on palisades) and even then you are still spending vil time on those walls.
well we could argue the WW price was simply adjusted, like lowering the cost on a khmer ballista elephant.
reminds me, i need to check the math, it might actually make a difference when FU vs knights… but generally armour on ranged units only really swings ranged combat
i think that could work, or could start off at something like +2 per tech to see whether it would be too oppressive, and increase it if it still doesnt help enough(as +5 is +15 in imperial when lumber camps are more spread out so boosts them even more in a trash war)
But i think even that patch is not included in aoestats, if i am not mistaken.
It would help against cav civs mainly in late stages, when you want to make a halb_onager deathball, which can be good enough against cav civs. Less wood per onager or BBC always help.
However, the tricky part is reaching that stage…
I said early castle age. At that stage, partian tactic is not available, and the lack of bloodlines is buffered partially by the free armor upgrade. Sure, they may be subpar, but they are 8w cheaper. After that stage, you can transition to war wagons, which need the same upgrades as CA does.
I only would make CA for quick surprising raids, my overall strategy would be massing crossbows,a usual.
I dont like that because it is a bit weird, but I like your approach of buffing their turtling. I would give them free fortified wall tech instead (in line with their free tower upgrades), or make their UT eupseong transform their pallisades to stone walls.
That’s true, but they do have 9 base attack, a CA for comparison have 6.
Yeah, but since it’s pretty much their only option vs cav civs, and since I don’t think that a bonus for walling would be ever impremented, since the direction is to nerf walling. At least this way they wouldn’t have to spend wood to wall, they would use a resource that they would regather faster. Like the celts can wall easier thanks to the wood bonus. This way koreans would have to choose between Trush and turtling.
Yeah, that’s true, but still, they have 150 HP, that’s about 10 hits from a knight. And the stone bonus allows you to get the castles up sooner.
Meh, they already save on the halbs. And they already have arguably one of the stronghest onagers, having them cheaper too it may be too much.
I mean, they could get that, but what would do? The problem isn’t in mid castle age, when you usually get that tech, but in late dark and feudal age, when walling with stone walls usually takes too much resources and time.
yeah i guess so, they still die faster to skirms than CA with BL + 1 armour upgrade, and have a very poor shelf life. franks field a better CA in comparison. not saying you are wrong, just seems pretty situational… on top of them dying much faster to melee units.
this is crazy strong though… 5 stone per wall, and how many palisades do we normally put down? but not a bad idea… would just need to be balanced, if anything it could save on vil time and player management, but i think its too open to cheesing/oppression, especially in closed maps. i would build 1000s of palisades and then take that tech
yeah thats true… with a higher rof though. ill have to check the math again, guessing they are much better vs higher arm targets like knights
at a huge cost though, its almost like the cataphract, the cost is almost too high to achieve in a normal arabia game… at least furor celtica affects a wide range of siege, and is cheaper, and they already have a bunch of bonuses for siege…
2 RoF of the CA vs 2.5 of the WW, not that big difference, and they get TR.
True, I don’t know though, even just -1 minimum range is good. Still, I’m not against extending the 20% wood discount to the siege, it’s just that I don’t think it’ll solve their problems, so it would be an unnecessary buff.
I think that some civs, you may give as many buff as you want, and people still won’t want to learn how to play them, unless you give them a crazy OP bonus.
Their winrate is genuinely confusing - it fluctuates between 40% and 45% without any direct balance changes even though there is theoretically enough data to make winrate calculation consistent.
Wow what did you smoke to come up with this? In feudal age they would be better of making stone walls since they are so much better and aren’t that much more expensive or longer to build, and if you need to make palissades in dark age bye bye double TC without taking stone.
