Koreans Buff suggestions to add in the next patch

This needs to replace the stone mining bonus and they should get back their fortifications built faster bonus with a moderate value like 15 or 20%. That could result in some strong maa-tower or archer-tower builds.

It won’t be useful for a very slow civ like Koreans. Dravidians are a faster civ with extra resources but struggle against siege pushes and die in the mid game because of the lack of cavalry. So its a minor but useful buff for them. Koreans however are an extremely slow civ. Reduced siege just makes them stronger in Black forest TG while not adding much value on places where they’re worse.
And the bonus already overlaps partially with Slavs, so it will be too much duplication.

this is a great change too.

2 Likes

True.

How? It saves you 200 gold.

I’m happy that someone else got the bonus. Cheaper siege won’t be helpful for Koreans. I’m annoyed that Dravidians discount is massive.

Same. I just suggested an age up discount bonus.

1 Like

I’d initially dismissed this bonus as not helping them early enough, but I didn’t think of stone walling or selling it, and I hadn’t really considered tower play since the devs have done so much to discourage that. It definitely has the right flavour as well.

This is true. I guess what I dislike is that their siege weapons are basically generic until post-Imp, since the minimum range reduction is so situational.

4 Likes

yeah of course it would replace the actual stone bonus

1 Like

i mean you don’t save any res for passing to feudal age since there is no gold involved. so it would be only a bonus for passing for castle and imperial age.

that sayd, it would be a better bonus than what italians get, and people say that italians age up discount is very strong (don’t agree but still…) if you wanna give something like this to koreans then we should also buff the italian discount otherwise their bonus would be kinda worse

maybe they could do something live dravidian wood bonus something like +100 stone on age up, and remove or change the current faster stone mining bonus. that way you could have 100 stone to wall in feudal or to do 2 towers without mining stone, and smore stone in castle for TCs

1 Like

I like the idea of faster walling up. Plus one could change the stone mining bonus to what Malians will get for Gold in the new patch (mixture of longer lasting and faster gathering). In principle one could even consider a bonus such as stone walls available in dark age.

Just reinforcing what they’re supposed to be good at is in my opinion a better choice than making them more generic.

3 Likes

I liked it more than my suggestions. 100 free stone in Feudal is way better than 20% faster mining. Same in Castle Age.

I think a flat +100 stone in Feudal could bring back some Tower rushing problems. I like the idea though, as a flat new bonus (not to replace the current +20% stone mining), but in Castle/Imperial Age. Then the values should probably higher, like +200/+400 stone. Another option, if you want to make them play Towers after Feudal, is simply to decrease the cost of Towers from Castle Age. However, I am not sold any of that would solve their issues.

Personally, I am sort of fine with them now being simply a powerful late game civilisation, but they could be helped even at this stage in my opinion. I think Shinkichon should be cheaper, or have another, additional effect than just +1 range. It is powerful, but oftentimes unjustifiable in 1 vs 1, even on closed maps. I guess they could also gain access to Blast Furnace or Hoardings without becoming overpowered.

Also, I like these ideas:

In particular the former. They used to build walls faster, but that was removed for some reason. Also, this should include palissades.

As strong as the Poles bonus still is it is limited by the amount of stone on the map, Gold is a much less limited resource so assuming there are an equal amount of stone and gold piles on the map with 33% you will have 76% more stone in post imps thats the problem it will need to be 10% this will give you 23% more stone.This may be underwhelming early but there is no way too buff this without giving them an insane amount of stone in imperial age. my solution is to make this effect stone and gold miner which will only increase the total stone to 33%.

3 Likes

Although this is one of the more appropriate cases, I don’t usually like the idea of yoinking another civ’s bonus. Also IMO you’re overcompensating Ethiopians loss of 160 F and 35 Sec on the pikeman upgrade with almost 1K gold saved on Halb/Heavy Camel upgrades.

Instead I’d consider giving them the Elite Skirm upgrade for free, along with the archer armor. That fits the design of a ranged/defensive civ and still allows their Xbow/UU play to benefit from the free archer armor. This alone would be a very significant buff.

Something like spears/skirms training 30% faster is also an option. I’d almost even suggest getting the old Britons TB as a civ bonus, since it feels kind of lame to have that effect maxed out at 10% on any civ, but obviously that’s kind of derivative.

Adding generic techs, especially for cav, isn’t the way I’d go. The only tweak I’d make here is to trade Hussar for Plate Barding. Their light cav will be slightly better this way - especially vs. ranged units, but without the ridiculous price tag of the Hussar upgrade.

I don’t think they don’t need good cavaliers. If you give them Bloodlines and Blast Furnace they’ll be on par with Japanese cavaliers…which you still almost never want to make. Japanese are one of my mains, and outside of the rare situation where you go Imp with a lot of knights, it’s not worth getting the cavalier upgrade, much less training any more cavaliers after that. IMO a change that only brings one of their terrible units up to “well below average” and doesn’t fit within any of the existing themes of the civ is usually a waste of a buff. Probably the only generic tech they should get is Parthian Tactics (WWs not affected, or adjusted accordingly).

Yes.

I agree. Maybe something like Gunpowder units deal +30% bonus damage. (Hand Cannoneers +3 vs infantry, +1 vs rams/trebs, BBCs +60 vs buildings, +6 vs siege, ECGs +83 vs buildings). Or Heavy Cav Archers, Turtle Ships (maybe even War Wagons) fire 1 more projectile (1 damage). Just spitballing.

Not sure what you mean by this. I like the idea of stone from gold, but that’s more of a long, drawn-out bonus that doesn’t really help Koreans early on, and may even be a bit of a nerf if you’re going for Trush or FC UU. I agree that the effect size would have to cap out at around 10%.

You also get a stone trickle from stone miner this might be too strong and might need to be toned down to 7.5%

Ah, got it. Frankly I prefer concentrating the effect on gold alone, since that gives you more freedom to use a higher percentage that will be more beneficial early on. Being able to delay a mining camp on stone for longer would also be a small, but nice, buff. I’m all for giving Koreans more stone longevity as part of another buff, but given how strong their towers are lategame, I’d want the overall percentage increase to be pretty modest (20% max).

Something like a new kind of mine (e.g. Jade) from which stone is generated at a much higher rate, would allow for more control of the process. Koreans could start with 1 under the TC. I acknowledge that this is pretty gimmicky, I’m just massively biased in favor of new stuff like this, although not necessarily or primarily to actually solve balance/civ design issues.

There are some other obvious early-game buffs that would get the job done (e.g. Berries last longer, berries or hunt generate gold, start with a shore fish under the TC), although these are neutral at best towards the civ’s current identity, so I wouldn’t advocate strongly for them.

I am not going to make their cavaliers to be the main force.

The current Korean stable is equivalent to non-existent, so this is not just “a change that only brings one of their terrible units up to well below average and doesn’t fit within any of the existing themes of the civ”, but a change to bring them to what they should be. Even if other civilizations are equal or even stronger than the Koreans in other dimensions, their cavalry is not designed so badly. I guess, such the low strength of current Korean cavalry is more like a design mistake when this civilization was introduced in the first place.

Like the British cavaliers and the Japanese cavaliers you mentioned, I think the Korean cavaliers should be at least that level, given the level of strength of their main force in other aspects. Getting BL and BF, or BL and PBA, or BF and PBA, is to not render them useless whenever possible, including the rare situation. Getting just one doesn’t change anything, so get at least two.

Regarding Parthian Tactics, I think it is even less necessary, especially it does not affect WWs. In my opinion, their CAs may theoretically be less used than a stable unit that only gets 2 techs, even with full upgrades, since arbalesters and WWs already provide decent ranged firepower, and main force units with high mobility are less In line with the theme of this civilization.

1 Like

Very subjective take. Which you’re welcome to, of course, but it’s clear that our visions for the civ differ on this matter. I think the common ground between us is the understanding that the weakness of their cavalry is not justified given their (lack of) other strengths. But I’d prefer to double down on those other strengths, whereas your vision seems to include multiple improvements to their cavalry as essential. Surely that’s a viable avenue for buffs, I just don’t find it much more interesting than giving knights to Dravidians (beyond perhaps 1 of the techs you mentioned). I’d rather have Koreans play as a first rate Ranged/Defensive civ than a second-rate cavalry civ.

Like Cavaliers and Hussars?

Are they tough? Asyde from FU arbalest, they only have WW which are not the Power unit they used to be after few nerfs, and onagers which is a rare units to go for in late game in 1vs1

Giving them blast furnace would be a great idea imho as it would make their halbs FU and would enable at least a halbs+onager combo, but as they stand now, i don’t consider their late game particularly strong in 1vs1

I never said they just need to strengthen the cavalry. I mean, making cavalry at least not so bad should be part of their buff. I also suggest that they need to have a better wood discount, eg make it a fixed amount, and a better WW with different armor classes and projectiles. None of this makes them considered a cavalry civilization while they can still be good, if not better, in other areas.

Again, this two won’t become main force units even with 2 techs of the three.
They won’t be as potential main force units as fully upgraded CAs.

Yes, this includes palisades.

Oh yeah. Maybe only Heavy Camel upgrade cost no gold. Or maybe spearman takes 1/2/3 less damage from mounted units just like their new effect of UT. This one can be considered for Koreans as well.

Will be a waste imo. They are a bad civ because they have 33% W/R against cavalry and camel civs. Archer is not their problem. Also free armor and wood discount affects their skirmishers the most.

Will stone miners generates food be too powerful?

I’ll add last armor out of all the techs you have mentioned so that their stable will be a different from Japanese. People, for some reason complains if 2 Asian (or non-European in general) civs have similar tech tree.

Globally I agree with SirWiedreich: why should we ever buff Korean cavalry? It is going against their identity since 2000. The only ‘acceptable’ buff to me would be Blast Furnace, and only because it would make their Infantry play a tad better. However, Blast Furnace is not that necessary: Halberdiers will shred cavalry and die to anything else anyway, and Champions will kill trash and Eagles anyway.

One easy thing to overlook is their great navy, although this is far from always being relevant.

Beyond that, they are powerful in the late game, but they are not one of the absolute doom machine. I say let them double down on their identity, and give them an easier time walling (by walling faster), in order for them to decide where and when to fight.

Also, in their power units, you forgot the Bombard Cannon, although I agree this is not as relevant on open maps. But still important.

I guess Elite War Wagon could be made a little bit stronger? They are already good, but I’m talking about something small, like a shorter training time.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like