The most famous origin of jade in the Far East is Myanmar. Just saying.
No problem. BF + PBA or BL + PBA is a good match.
The interpretation of “identity” varies considerably from person to person, especially when it doesn’t make for a fun or enjoyable experience.
To me, even if the cavalry gets 2 of those 3 techs, they will still not be the main force because they are not fully upgraded. they will still be weak, but at least in the few occasions that need their helps they won’t be totally useless, especially in 1v1 late game. This civ will still be known for the stone and tower bonuses, and have excellent archers and UUs, which are the true core identities and will not be shaken at all.
My hunch is that if the effect of quickly building stone walls is free and works in the early game, it might cause problems. Maybe having Eupseong also make villagers build stone buildings 50% faster might be decent.
Archer Civs kind of need serviceable calvary just look at Dravidians who they ended up giving a ridiculous 33% wood discount to compensate bad calvary. Britons have up to 12 range and even they are only missing Bloodline Paladin and Hussar. Ethiopians are the closest comparison but they get fast firing and 100F 100G which is must more flexible than free archer armor, good infantry, and torsion engines which effects all siege and is much better than +1 Onagers.
On one hand people are saying that Korean early game is their weakness, yet a lot of proposals are for giving them Blast Furnace and Plate Barding, which come in Imperial.
Giving them Bloodlines would make them stronger in the early game, yet make them more generic.
If you’re going cavalry, why even go Koreans at that point.
Maybe it would be good, if you draw Koreans on random civ and can better execute your average Scouts into Knights, but I rather have them buffed in a way, that plays into the identity and strength of the Koreans.
Regardless of their early game weakness, for which I’m unsure what is the way to go (there are interesting proposals in this thread) I defenitely agree with that their Imp-UT should have an additional effect, as well as their team bonus should affect all siege.
Something like that (perhaps for pikes and skirms) I’d like better for Koreans than free pike/halb.
Possibly. But I think you’re underestimating it, and may be looking at the driver of their low WR too one-dimensionally. Having a low winrate vs. Camel civs, for example, seems to defy a simple explanation in terms of mono-comp counter dynamics. Even cav civs will often go knight/skirm, which Koreans can have trouble dealing with with Xbow/Pike. Free pikeman upgrade will surely help, but it’s not a hugely impactful buff (especially in the new patch), and is a nerf in Feudal and to later Xbow/UU/Skirm play if you intend on replacing the free archer armor with it. Free halb is obviously a massive buff, yet may still come too late to save them from lackluster performance in the 3 previous Ages. BTW despite the free armor, Koreans still have a notable skirm weakness (they were given Gambesons mostly to help with this in lategame), and having a big edge on their own skirms will help them earlier on. Free Eskirm also saves more time/res in Castle Age than free Pike, where they need it more.
You could come up with a rate that would work. I just think it has bad logical aesthetics. Trickle bonuses I hope to never see are food or wood from mining, and stone from wood or food. (I would say the same for wood from food, but here we are with the Porto bonus).
Even in your own examples, it doesn’t follow that cavalry buffs are needed per se, just that higher compensation is required in other areas, which I agree with. IMO adding one cavalry-affecting tech would be fine, but going further than that just seems like “keeping up with the Joneses” rather than maintaining and improving the civ’s identity.
I don’t think they’d pick it up in the early game. As I see it, the benefit of giving them Bloodlines would be that it’s cheaper than the Hussar upgrade for roughly the same effect. Right now they pay quite a lot for Hussars that aren’t that good.
That said, Bloodlines does also affect War Wagons (or it used to, I haven’t tested recently), so it would likely come with another War Wagon nerf, which I don’t approve of – War Wagons have been nerfed too much already.
This definitely fits thematically and I would appreciate it. On the other hand, it doesn’t kick in until Castle Age and doesn’t help against cavalry.
Maybe one of their ranged options should either deal bonus damage to or take reduced damage from cavalry? Their archers, perhaps?
I like the idea of the jade mine (generally, not specifically for Koreans), but one under the TC would be annoying when luring boar, which you would definitely want to do before mining it.
Me too. Unfortunately the devs don’t seem to agree and have gradually nerfed everything Koreans specialise in: War Wagons, their tower bonuses and generic towers, their mangonel bonuses, and even archers. While I appreciate the free archer armour and wood discounts, Koreans feel like a shadow of their former selves to me. (And yet they’re still my favourite civ, somehow…)
This is why I suggested switching Hussar for Plate Barding (although I grant that just giving them plate barding would be fine as well). It gives almost as much advantage in several melee matchups as the Hussar upgrade, but makes them much better vs ranged/for raiding, for literally half the price (550 vs 1100 res). Doing this avoids the problematic (for me anyways) implications of giving them Bloodlines.
True. Either way I like it more as a new bonus than taking something from another civ, but I agree that something more targeted to cav would be better. Someone suggested anti-cav bonus damage from scorps, but I don’t like that on a civ that doesn’t get Heavy Scorp.
I like the idea of archers being cav-resistant (this was a theme in my Tarascan/Purépechas civ), although it seems a little superfluous on Koreans with the free armor. I’m open to the idea of +1 anti-cav for their archerline, however the damage of archer units in general is so finely calibrated that I’m not sure that would be a good idea. The only civ they’ve dared to give +1 to archers to is via an Imp UT on a civ without Thumb Ring. +1 anti-cav damage on skirms may be worth exploring. Or, not that Koreans need another tower buff, but, I like the concept of Towers and Tcs having a small bonus vs cav (possibly tied to their UT). But I think the safest bet that fits the theme might be to give some cav (melee) resistance to spears and skirms.
Anyway, I’ve mostly just been throwing out ideas without regard to how they would synergize with each other, but if I were to suggest a rough synthesis of the proposals I like the most, it would go something like this:
Villagers +3 LOS → Spearline, Villagers and (possibly) Skirms +1/2/3 (melee) cavalry damage resistance and LOS per Age.
Eupseong (also) adds +1 anti-cav damage to all defensive buildings.
Shinkichon (also) adds 30% bonus damage to gunpowder units.
TB expanded to all Siege units.
Gain Plate Barding. (Possibly lose Hussar, IDC though really)
They could probably get more, but I’d start with that. I really like the idea of gold miners generating stone, but given the resource distribution it just seems really hard to balance in a way that it provides more early advantages than the current bonus (which would be the only point of changing it), but doesn’t scale ridiculously lategame. Anything below, say 10% just seems much worse for getting to towers/castles than 20% faster mining, yet even that yields almost ~38% more stone under standard conditions, which I think is too much. So while the idea is intriguing, I’m not wild about it until the tools for finer calibration exist (e.g. Jade Mines, which primarily provide gold, but also provide stone at a moderate-high rate).
I guess I should have said “around,” like how the Gurjara berries spawn right outside the TC. Alternatively it could be walkable (like the “Pile of Stone” that exists as a hidden Editor object), but that might be a little strange.
If this civilization really wants to focus on achieving its theme — defense, then its strength is reasonable to be weak in the early and strong in the late.
When I play Britons, I don’t actively go cavalry, but there will always be times when I need to use cavalry, and I appreciate that their cavalry isn’t too weak to be unusable. By the same token, better Korean cavalry is not meant to encourage people to go scouts → knights as if it were a cavalry civ, but it can give players a better and more convenient experience at rare critical moments.
But yeah, it may be true that giving BF + PBA would be better than giving 2 including Bloodlines.
At this point, it may be necessary to buff their advantageous units, such as the archer line, with tougher stats than the generic one, rather than an economical bonus or something free. For example, Britons have longer range, Ethiopians fire faster, Italians have more armor, etc. But I feel that Koreans have not enough room for improvement for this. You can also see that many of those civilizations still have better cavalry than the Koreans.
I’m not saying that improving cavalry will solve all the problems the Koreans have and make other areas need no improvement. Their better compensation in other areas can go hand in hand with better cavalry without hindering each other. Although in my opinion, making the wood discounts better and making pikemen and skirmishers spawn more easily is enough to solve many problems without needing more fancy new civ bonuses which are free to access. Other than that, maybe UTs could get improvements like having Eupseong also make villagers build stone buildings 50% faster, or Shinkichon also giving WWs +1 range and making mangonels’ and WWs’ projectiles faster.
I still don’t understand how the still not fully upgraded cavalry affects the identity.
And Camel. Pikeman +2 attack bonus vs cavalry and camel (and maybe eagle). Just like Bengalis got a new bonus which is a worse version of Burmese UT, Koreans could get a new bonus which is a worse version of Vikings UT. Will be a direct overlap with Bohemians though.
Could Koreans be pushed into infantry? Like free archer armor → All infantry does +2 attack vs cavalry and camel
Free tower upgrades → Tower +1/+2 range in Castle/Imperial Age.
And Castle Age UT changed to militia line +30 HP?
Note: A lot of Naval civs are tagged as “Infantry & Naval” civs with FU or better Arabalester. Japanese, Malay, Vikings.
Very possibly, you could make a case for some kind of stat buff for their archers or other units, especially if the free armor was removed. Or an actual discount like you’ve suggested (-10 or more Wood), since the current wood discount for land units is unimpactful bordering on non-existent.
Negative space is an important design concept, even if it’s not what creates the appeal of the civ. Many civs are made interesting by having powerful units or bonuses that contrast with counterbalancing weaknesses, even weaknesses that may prove extreme or superlative in some contexts. This is the case with Turks (Skirm/Spear), Burmese (Range/Archer armor) Hindus/Gurjaras (knights), and quite a few others. Koreans just lack sufficient weight on the side of the scale that’s supposed to balance out their weaknesses (as Drav/Bengalis have until very recently, re-assessments pending). Where a civ is/has not been intended as a “flexible/open tech tree” civ, adding several buffs in areas that are not their main strengths seems strange to me, apart from the most exceptional circumstances, which IMO are not met here beyond the possibility of +1 cav-affecting tech.
I meant to say (but didn’t, my bad) “mounted units,” same as the Royal Heirs effect. Eagle is also a possibility. IDK about free “Hoof Biter” for Koreans tho. Counter, Siege and UU buffs are the areas I’d emphasize.
Indeed, a better wood discount benefits the archer line as well, but it does not affect the individual strength of the unit, which is what I wanted to emphasize. Maybe their free archer armor can be traded for the Vietnamese’s archery range unit HP bonus. Maybe.
Koreans are still in an unfair position compared to cavalry from other archer civs that aren’t a “flexible/open tech tree” too. Making the tech tree a little less biased doesn’t mean making the civ a “flexible/open tech tree”.
People seem to be too worried about “losing identity”, even though the mainstream gameplay of civ hasn’t changed at all. Even if they gain 2 techs (and lose the hussars), their cavalry is still the weak side. It is not fully upgraded, nor do it has any civ bonus or UT that benefit it, meaning it is not likely to be actively used, nor are any new strategy or playstyle encouraged. Like, we still won’t actively train Japanese or Briton cavaliers in large numbers as the main force in the imperial age. Their samurais and infantry can still be improved without making their cavalry worse.
In my opinion, precisely because better cavalry makes for a better experience on the rare occasions they are needed without making the civilization’s weaknesses or problems completely go away, other areas can get decent compensated as well, rather than excessively compensated due to the stable which is equivalent to nonexistent. Of course this is just my opinion.
That’s something I think may be excessively compensated. Villagers getting extra armor can almost disrupt the opponent’s scout rush in the feudal. It’s also cause for concern for cost-advantaged junk units to achieve this effect.
This makes their already strong closed map late game even stronger, while doing little to help on the open maps.
This is exactly why I find it uninteresting. You could make similar arguments for a dozen other civs to have their most prominent weaknesses ameliorated somewhat, and people have. But I would keep this sort of thing to a minimum while prioritizing unique buffs. Not my cup of soju anyways, but obviously this is something you find very important.
I almost wouldn’t mind removing Cavalier for Malay or Japanese right now, especially if the infantry viability push proves successful.
May indeed. But I think, where they still lack any relevant early eco bonus, this will be fine. Keep in mind that the more powerful Inca bonus (which I grant was locked behind techs) was moved to Castle Age largely to avoid annoying vill rushes/tower drops, and not (as far as I can tell) because villagers with +1/1 armor in Feudal Age trivialized enemy aggression. And this proposal exists under the current wood discount, which is pretty negligible on land units.
Yup! IMO Koreans should remain at their best in lategame on closed/water maps, while being brought up to a more acceptable level on Arabia. Their performance on Arena, Fortress, hybrid maps, and even probably islands is not so stellar that they couldn’t get a small boost like this. The villager and spear/skirms cav damage resistance will be a decent boost on open maps anyway, without being overbearing on closed/water maps.
Is it a really good thing to underestimate it?
On some maps, such as Nomad, their vision bonus is almost more important and stronger than some normal economic bonuses in the early game.
If the Magyar scout’s free and auto +1 attack is powerful (requires three fewer attacks), then the villager’s “free and auto” -1 taken damage is equally powerful (requires three more attacks).
They have/will have a cheap enough spearmen line and archer line, and possibly fully upgraded Halberdiers (if BF+PBA is chosen). I doubt we almost don’t need as many as 2 bonuses and effects targeting anti-cavalry.
You seem to get me wrong here. I meant, that gives BBCs and BBTs +30% attack, which is such a big buff that they almost don’t have to have on a map they’re already good at. While in Arabia, where they are weaker, that hardly helps.
I hope Shinkichon affects WWs as well, and possibly also provides faster projectiles for WWs (and maybe even Mangonels). That’s good enough.
I’m not sure why you’re judging my proposals on how strong they’d be if they also implemented your proposals on top of them. Either increase the cheapness/accessibility, or increase the stats, but not both.
I thought I’d answered this but I guess I could be more explicit. Yes, Koreans need buffs to make them less terrible on Arabia and similar open maps. But it doesn’t follow that all possible buffs to them need to optimized for open maps. Part of Koreans’ identity is being good in lategame and on some closed/water maps, but they’re not so great there that they couldn’t use a mild boost. Even adding some of the Imp techs you’ve suggested is much less optimized towards improving Arabia WRs than bonuses that are available much earlier. In any case, Shinkichon is a lategame tech that you’re unlikely to benefit much from on an open map, so it seems strange to be overly concerned that its additional effects “hardly help” on Arabia.
BBTs don’t deal any bonus damage where this would be meaningful, so no effect on them. For the others, it’s likely that 20-25% bonus damage would be sufficient though.
Anyway, I’m not that invested in my proposal per se, its just a rough sketch. If I was actually in a position to rework the civ, there would be benefit to further refinement, testing etc, but where we’ve kind of moved from the brainstorming stage to the nitpicking stage, I’m not highly inclined to stick around to defend propositions of little consequence.
True, but I don’t think it would be good to try to push Koreans into this mold. I like their traditional design in terms of mostly having good ranged, but bad melee units. Ofc there is more room to improve some of their ranged units based on how bad their melee units are.
I agree. But they are pushed into range forcefully imo. Their primary focus should be defense and counter much like Byzantines. Byzantines despite having a lot of options, FU Arbalester is their greatest strength. But the don’t have any direct bonus for archer play. I wanted Koreans to be something similar. Obviously siege and monk, and cavalry will still be very different from each other.
Yeah, the parallel I like most WRT Byzantines is their counter-units, which Byzantines get discounted. (Koreans too, but it’s a small enough effect to mostly be ignored). But the Korean version could be that counter units have a little more staying power vs. the civ’s biggest weakness, which is why I think something like cav resistance for spear/skirms is good. Although capping out at 2 would be fine given that it ought to be weaker than the Ethiopian tech. And it could apply to villagers or even scoutline as well.
The pairing fits the theme and makes the bonus stronger at low values, which I think it ought to be. Like if you just give pikes +2 anti-cav resistance, that’s just a more situational and limited version of Teutons’ +2 melee armor, which their militia and knightline get as well. Whereas if you try to make the bonus strong by only affecting spearline, you’ll probably have to crank up the numbers, which will make it harder to balance.
I think this would be fine, (or perhaps 15% for less obvious overlap with Vikings/Viets). I’ve already said I think the current discount is negligible for balance considerations. For example, the best showcase of the Koreans’ wood discount on land units is on the skirmisher, but even there they only save 7 wood, which is less than half the Byzantine discount on the same unit (and obviously Byzantines save much more on spearline). And for most of the game, wood is the least important/most abundant res.
Need to be replaced by free armor though. Cheaper skirmisher with extra HP + armor will be too powerful against archers, especially in Feudal Age when there is no knight.
Both of their bonuses used to be 10%/15%/20%. But they were too small. 20% will be fine. This overlap is like how both Goths and Byzantines have cheaper spear. It is not really an overlap imho.
