Ehh…Vikings is solid on Arabia with positive W/R. You could add pre 2023 Portuguese.
1 Like
Oh. No idea why some guy opened a thread to buff them. I just noticed that they weren’t getting picked in tourneys anymore unless there are water maps.
So Koreans is almost objectively the worst civ in the game right now.
Latest SOTL video.
###################################
4 Likes
Maybe rewatch the video.
The have the lowest winrate on arabia. That does not make them the overall worst civ. SOTL even mentions this caveat (“lacking a definitive list”). See bohemians who are also in the worst civs for arabia 1v1, but overpowered to the point of needing a nerf on other maps.
1 Like
Rewatch the video too.
They are also bottom 1/3 in Arena and that despite being a Tower civilisation.
They are a little better on water though.
As long as 60+% of games are played on Arabia it remains the most important map for balance.
Also you can give a civilisation an early game buff and while giving them a late game debuff at the same time, helping them in open maps while preventing them for getting too strong in closed maps and team games.
1 Like
Maybe I should have added “Land maps”. Even SOTL mentioned the “Naval” focus of these civs and made a point on that.
It is more likely 65%. But anyway. Also 20% on Arena. So Koreans are arguably the worst land map civ now.
1 Like
Koreans just need almost a major rework, the civ is simply not even great on any map, even on closed maps where they could get into their deathball many other civs are simply faster and better than Koreans.
No need to - i know that there are more than 2 maps in the game, and more than one game mode.
Im not even saying that koreans are in a good spot right now. But its just wrong to watch at stats from 1 map and glance at another map and conclude that they are
Thats just not how balance should work. If a civ is horrible on 90% of the maps but op on the other 10%, its still a civ that needs (well targeted) nerfs because on the maps it does see (tournament) play, its OP.
Again, im not debating that Koreans have huge problems on arabia and might need a fix there. But whilst discussing that fix, lets not forget they actually do see competitive play on maps like islands or nomad, so any buff needs to be carefully calibrated to not overbuff them on those maps - and flat out stating they are the worst civ seems like throwing that caution out the window.
1 Like
Their changes were in the wrong direction imo - WW nerf with negative archer armor and getting archer armor is free. But I don’t think they need a major rework.
Yeah but Koreans is not top in 10% of map either.
Of course we shouldn’t buff areas where a civ is already strong. But seeing competitive play only in 2 rare map types does not mean they are too strong and will be OP if buffs are given. I don’t remember Koreans performing really good in tournaments even in water and nomad maps.
1 Like
On which map Koreans are OP?
Koreans can be good on very closed maps and water maps.
But even there they are usually one option of many and many others are usually chosen over koreans in most cases.
The weird thing that the WW nerf was demanded by the Arena players. But seemingly Koreans never were really top tier on Arena. I think some of the Arena guys are just extremely prhibitive against any new type of clownery unit that isn’t one they already “accepted”. Regardless if the strats are really that successfull, only that they are there seems to be enough to demand nerfs.
I agree this statement for not being OP in other map, but Koreans are not top-tier in other maps. Koreans are slow start for these maps and civ like Spanish, Malians, Persians, Portuguese are fairly better than Koreans. They are not good in every setting except very specific case of Empire War water map.
WW nerf was never be insisted by Arena players. At least no top Arena players argue that Koreans are good Arena civ. Only Arena player picking Koreans in competitive Arena match is Daut.
It was insisted by just Vocal minority who just don’t want to train monk in closed map (which is one of most common unit in high level Arena.) However, it’s worth noting that War Wagons are extremely vulnerable to conversion, and the Koreans don’t have a good unit to counter monks (their Light Cavalry line is particularly weak). The recent nerf to War Wagons seems unjustified, and the Koreans haven’t received any compensation for it.
4 Likes
New eco bonus for Korea:
Towers:
- -25 Stone but +50 Wood (100 Stone, 100 Wood)
- Towers function as drop off for Wood
Remove the Stone gathering bonus.
This way Koreans can protect their Wood lines with Towers.
Towers also become more affordable in lategame where Stone is rare.
But it’s a pretty useless bonus for Tower Rush, it even makes Tower Rushes harder because 50 Wood is harder to get then 25 Stone in Feudal Age.
Towers basically only cost 100 Stone when you place them in a Wood Line.
Considering you start with 200 Stone that means you can build 2 Towers instead of Lumber Camps in Feudal Age.
It might be worth it to only build one Lumber Camp in Dark Age (since you can’t build Towers yet).
This helps Koreans survive eco raids a lot better. They now only really have to focus on defending their Stone and Gold mines.
This is pretty situational and kind of a noob trap. Removing the stone mining bonus in favor of this is a sizeable nerf to Castle drops especially.
IMO the best place to start with Koreans is to extend existing bonuses. Applying the wood discount to siege is obvious and has been suggested often for a reason. On top of that, I would consider:
- Mangos -1 Minimum Range (TB) → Siege Units -1 Minimum Range (and you could even throw Skirmishers in there if Incas ever get a more useful replacement for Andean Sling).
- Stone Miners work 20% faster → Stone Miners and Repairers work 20% faster.
Even something like extending the villager LOS to all economic units (+Fishing Ships, Trade Carts/Cogs) might be on the table, although that’s far from necessary and has some functional overlap with the Malay bonus.
Other options would be to revert the WW nerf or add something for their cav (not a fan of this, but it would raise WR).
5 Likes
Bohemians had highest win rate across 5 patches on closed maps at 1600+ while Koreans are a bottom 10 on closed maps, bottom 15 on hybrid as well. Solid evidence they’re the absolute worst closely followed by Dravidians. And even if you consider 1200+ level or 2k+ level, its the same story.
First of all Koreans aren’t a top-5 on any map. And this notion can be valid only if those 10% maps constitute atleast a sizeable fraction of games, maps commonly played by the community. You can’t say a civ needs nerfs and no buffs because its great on Mangrove terrain maps.
Secondly water tech tree, bonuses and strength don’t matter. Water doesn’t have any variety with eco, defense or military. There’s no water siege before chemistry comes in, no constructible sea walls or gates or towers, 1 type of economic unit for 1v1s, 2 types of military and 1 building. A less than 0.5% of the community plays water. Less than 0.2% of the games played are on water maps. So the whole perspective of seeing a civ as “fine” as they are now because of strength on water is deeply flawed. And in case a civ is very strong on water, the water aspect should be nerfed while land getting a buff similar to how Italians were addressed.
Similar to Italians, Vikings, Japanese, Byzantines and Portugese civs MUST be quite decent on land apart from any water related bonuses they have. It could be either focused more on closed or open or somewhere in between the two.
3 Likes
I don’t like giving them a bonus that would make Tower Rushing easier.
Tower Rushing is a boring strategy and 90% of the community hate it.
It thought about other things like giving Towers housing space but that wouldn’t stop them from using them offensively.
Moving the Tower cost from Stone to Wood would make them more affordable in late game while not making them cheaper in early game.
They could me made 75 Stone 100 Wood or something like that as civilisation bonus.
That would make them kinda more expensive for Koreans in early game since they have a Stone mining bonus.
Expanding the Wood bonus to Siege would be a very natural change, especially with their siege bonuses.
Maybe expend it to all land units including trade carts. That wouldn’t change their 1v1 performance at all but would be a small help in team games.
Maybe even expend the bonus to fishing ships too but then the bonus should probably only start at Feudal Age.
They aren’t that strong on water for a supposed naval civilisation.
Improving Korean win rates via tower buffs will prove difficult, and lategame is (mostly) not where they need help. I’d definitely focus on buffs that help their early and midgame.
Regarding towers though, I’m intrigued by the possibility of reintroducing some of their previous strengths via a proximity (“aura”) bonus. Which TBF much of the community is not a fan of - and I’m generally not myself - although I think it presents a worthwhile advantage in this case. For example, towers built within, say 10 tiles of a TC are constructed 33% faster (and maybe gain a small firing rate increase). This would give them an advantage when towers are used in a defensive capacity without making for an oppressive Trush. I don’t know that the devs would ever go for this, but I like the opportunity it creates for an exclusively defensive bonus, which are rare in AoE2.
I had considered that as well, but think it would make them too oppressive on water, and it overlaps with the Italian bonus, being a stronger and more expansive version of the Italians’ 15% cheaper fishing ships. Starting from Feudal is a possibility, although that still seems too strong given that they already have an almost Viking tier ship (wood) discount as well as Shipwright. I’m not a water player though, so I don’t really have an authoritative take on this. Giving their fishing ships +3 LOS seems like a safe but situationally useful buff. And buffing Turtle Ships is another possibility (although again, I can’t speak as to whether that’s needed).
I think you guys are getting too swayed by the latest SotL video. I’m not saying Koreans don’t need ##### ### this thread could turn Koreans into the new Portuguese 2.0 (after wood bonus). Just have to be cautious
Edit: … not saying Koreans don’t need love // However (but) this thread could … (profanity filter working overtime)
tbh. I think that should be the case for the towers all civilisations.
Castles and TC boost the construction speed of nearby Towers in a certain range.
That Range should be pretty large.
20 tiles at last.
Then we wouldn’t need those other artificial changes like Towers having less HP in Feudal Age.
Towers right now are too weak in comparison to Castles in general.
(There is a reason why the only race in Starcraft that doesn’t have building limitations is the one that can’t build a tower.)
That is true.
The Portuguese 20% Gold discount also applies to ships and even trade carts.
So why does the Korean bonus exclude Trade Carts/Cogs and Siege units?
Kinda ironic that Portuguese have a similar bonus compared to Koreans.
All units cost 20% less gold.
Which is obviously stronger in lategame.
They also arguably have the better water unique unit.
I like the Portuguese berry bonus but I wouldn’t be against reducing it to maybe 25%.
1 Like
Possibly. But this has been a topic on peoples’ minds for quite some time.
I think most of us overestimate the influence of our own suggestions. But yes, point taken. Best to take a measured approach to buffs and nerfs.
The devil’s advocate argument for why not is that those units have a proportionally larger wood cost, so Koreans would benefit “more” in terms of total resources, although of course gold is more valuable long term. But yeah, I don’t see a problem with extending the Korean bonus to siege and trade units.
1 Like
Trade Units only become viable to use when Gold is already running low and they are being made to bring in Gold so reducing their Gold cost is worth more.
For siege the Gold cost is nearly as high (Mangonel is 160W 135G) or equally high (Bombard Cannon is 225W 225G) so that would also not really be an advantage.
Also Wood is collected faster then Gold.
Though I agree that Fishing Ships might need to be excluded.
2 Likes