Hello everyone! I’m u60cf28, a China main who was 1400-1450 elo before the most recent patch, and now hover in between 1350 and 1400 elo. I’ve played about 800 games at this point, and I think 90% of them have been with China. And since we’re about two and half weeks out since the patch, I thought it would be a reasonable time to discuss China; its current playstyle and balance. As most people know, China got hit with the hardest nerfs last patch, with both siege being nerfed in general and Chinese siege being hit particularly hard. In this post, I plan on putting forth my ideas for what changes need to come to China in the next patch, as well as provide a space for others to discuss.
This post will have three sections. Feel free to skip any section, as this post will be a bit long:
Section 1: The case for China buffs
Section 2: Possible China buffs and changes
Section 3: Conclusion; My preferred changes
Thank you all for your attention
Section 1: The case for China buffs
The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth. - Lao Tzu
I think the most convincing case that China needs buffs can be found in the winrate data on AOE4 world. As of the writing of this post, here are the following winrates and pickrates of China at what I think are the most relevant elos:
Elo | Winrate | Pickrate |
---|---|---|
>1600 | 39.9% | 4.7% |
>1400 | 43.8% | 6.2% |
>1200 | 45.4% | 6.4% |
A side note on this methodology: I believe that an RTS should primarily be balanced around its most highly skilled subset of players - that being high elo 1v1 players. This is because the skill ceiling in RTS is so high that only the top of the top can fully utilize and exploit the various strengths of their civs. Balance rarely affects the games of most players below a certain elo; any imbalance in the lower elos can usually be overcome through better macro, micro, or gamesense. That being said, to focus only on >1600 would both greatly reduce the sample size, and possibly ignore bad design that overly affects the lower levels. That’s why I’ve picked these three elo catagories: >1600 (best of the best), >1400 (approx. top 1000), and >1200 (where players are generally competent enough for balance to begin to affect their games)
A quick comparison with the other civs makes it clear that China is indeed the weakest civ in the game right now. Now, there will always be a weakest civ, and there is nothing inherently wrong with China being the weakest, but the winrate is still too low. I looked at pre-patch winrate data and the civ with the lowest winrate then, Abbasid, still had higher winrates than China does now in all three elo categories. The pickrate is also a concern. China has by far the lowest pickrate of any civ in the game - and also lower than pre-patch Abbasid. This low pickrate means two things: one; Chinese winrates are inflated, as the only people picking Chinese are likely diehard China mains like myself, who play mainly China and have the most experience with the civ. And two: any possible “hidden strategy” out there for China is likely to remain undiscovered, as there simply aren’t enough people playing the civ to discover it.
The low pickrate also seems to correspond with China’s tournament performance - basically nonexistent. Now, I don’t have the statistics (and if anyone does feel free to provide them), but I’ve watched a good amount of the N4C qualifiers, and I think I’ve only seen China picked, like, 4 times total. The civ is clearly not in a healthy state, and the pros know it.
One last note on team games - I know that the stereotype is that China is/was oppressively strong in team games, much more than in 1v1. But the statistics simply don’t support that. Looking at both pre and post patch winrates in team games , China is either the worst or second worst in all but >1600 team games (after the Fire Lancer Nerf). And if you look at those 1600 elo team games, you can see that the sample size of such games are tiny - less than 20. So I really can’t seem to find any evidence supporting the idea that China’s much stronger in team games than 1v1.
Section 2: Possible buff ideas for China
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle. - Confucius
An important note concerning this section: There are a lot of possible buffs listed here. I in no way intend for all or even a majority of them to be applied, especially not all in the same patch. In Section 3 I give a plausible balance patch.
Also, please note that there are only two buffs to China siege listed in these ideas (and both of them are relatively minor). I do not intend at all to undo the effects of last patch in general; I believe that the siege meta should not return, and these changes are in no way intended to restore Chinese siege to its pre-patch strength
Ideas:
Dynasty Landmarks cost 25% less
This is by far the number one buff I want for China. Basically all of China’s unique civ bonuses are locked behind building a second landmark per age, which makes them terribly inaccessible in most games. Even pre-patch I rarely saw pros going past the Song Dynasty, especially after the Fire Lancer got nerfed. Yuan and Ming both definitely need to be more accessible. And reducing the cost of Song Dynasty opens up more options for China. For example, right now the Zhuge Nu ram push hits too slow, considering the investment into Song and rams and that Zhuge nu have an effective feudal counter now in the form of the horseman, necessitating spears. Often by the time the Zhuge Nu ram can come in the enemy is already near castle, and both MAA and Lancers will shred Zhuge nu. This buff creates more room for China to experiment and actually use their civ bonuses
Imperial Legacy - If all seven Chinese landmarks are built (and none are destroyed), gain access to all Chinese dynasty bonuses
A cool idea I had to compensate for China’s lost lategame strength last patch. The combination of Yuan and Ming will make Chinese infantry very potent. Counterplay exists, as the opponent can just blow up one landmark to get rid of the bonus
Imperial Official supervision production bonus returned from +150% to +200%
For those who don’t know, last patch the devs “accidentally” nerfed the IO supervision from +200% to +150%. They claimed that this was balance work they were testing for a future patch and that it was not intended to be in this patch. Regardless of their intentions, I think this change was terrible and it should be returned to its original bonus.
China gains early Crossbowmen in Age 2. Possibly locked behind Song Dynasty
A historically accurate way to help cover for China’s traditional weakness to both early Knight aggression and fast castle MAA/Lancer aggression. China ideally wants to boom, but right now any boom gets shut down super hard by maa/lancer, especially from Mongols and Delhi right now.
China starts with one less villager but with an Imperial Official. Starts with 50 less starting food
A way to accelerate the slow Chinese early game, and what I believe is the best way of implementing the old “China starts with more villagers” idea from the beta. An IO supervising a resource dropoff is equivalent to an additional vill if there are 5 workers on that dropoff, and will be worth more than a vill if there are 6 or more. The decreased starting food is to compensate for the food savings of the IO; I think -50 food would be the best balance, though this does mean that China essentially starts with +50 food. -100 starting food would also be possible
An important point of comparison is the Mongol Ovoo - which, for 150 wood, grants the Mongols 2.5 more vills from Dark age permanently. A starting IO would not provide that, but it would do something similar for China, which is why I think one needs to be careful when considering this buff
Fire Lancer: Bonus damage vs ranged is returned
Let me be clear that I approved of the fire lancer changes, and that I’m glad both landmark sniping and repeated AOE charges are no longer possible. That being said, I disagree with the devs that Fire Lancers should essentially be useless in combat against all units. I think that fire lancers should be, like the horseman, effective counters to archers and crossbowmen, and this buff is to help return them to that state. This buff I believe in no way makes landmark sniping more viable, nor makes them as oppressive as they were with the AOE charge, especially with their now increased cost.
Landmark Buffs
Barbican of the Sun:
Small Buff: Vision increased to match that of an outpost
The Barbican is a glorified outpost anyway, might as well give it the vision of one
Large Buff: In castle/imperial age, can pay 400 stone to upgrade the Barbican to a normal keep. Boiling Oil and Emplacements still need to be separately researched
This idea is to make the Barbican remain relevant past the Feudal Age, as it really is just a glorified outpost right now. Now, you can buy a keep for half off, assuming of course that the Barbican is still in a relevant position for defense and that the nearby resources aren’t going to mine out soon.
Imperial Academy can now also train Imperial Officials, and acts as a tax drop-off point
One of the most annoying parts of playing China is that you have to waste vill training time to make an IO, which is especially annoying if you’re in Song Dynasty and thus not taking full advantage of the decreased vill production time. This buff is to alleviate that, and make killing China’s IO’s less of a setback for the China player. The tax dropoff is to encourage smarter base building, and increase the efficacy of tax collection
Imperial Palace now also increases the max number of Imperial Officials from 4 to 5, and acts as a tax drop-off point
The Imperial Palace itself is terribly underwhelming, and you only ever get it for Yuan Dynasty. This change makes it give an actual economic benefit by itself, and like above, the tax change also helps with increasing the efficacy of tax collection.
Astronomical Clocktower: Can now be supervised. Clockwork HP bonus reduced from 50% to 30%
While I, like many others, thought the clocktower did need to be nerfed, removing its ability to be supervised was probably the worst possible way of going about it. Despite being a siege civ, I as China am now regularly out-sieged by Abbasid and Mongol in castle age, thanks to their ability to build siege on the field, and I am also unable to beat HRE or Rus siege in Imperial nowadays. I think a straight nerf to the hp bonus would have been much, much, cleaner and better in terms of nerfing the Clocktower. Since the movespeed and bombard nerfs remain, and the hp is reduced, I do not believe that this change would recreate the siege meta.
Spirit Way
Small Buff: Now also unlocks previous dynasty buildings
A quality of life buff, because it is annoying as hell when I’m in Yuan Dynasty and my villages are burnt down by a raid
Large Buff: Discount now applies to all Chinese unique units. Discount reduced from -30% to -20% cost
Most importantly, this would now discount the Palace Guard and Nest of Bees. However, it is important to note that the new discount is only the same as the French keep discount. That being said, this change is a bit dangerous, and possibly overpowered
Great Wall Gatehouse now also doubles the heath of Stone Wall Towers
Before people knee-jerk react and think this will make stone wall tower rushes stronger, please note that this does not affect stone wall towers in feudal or castle at all, which is where the rushes are the most problematic. Rather, this makes Chinese towers actually relevant in Imperial, as stone wall towers in general are invalidated by Bombards.
Section 3: Conclusion
The empire, long divided, must unite - Romance of the the Three Kingdoms.
So what would I do, if I was in charge of the balance team? Personally: these would be my preferred set of changes:
Landmark Discount
IO Supervision (re)buff
Fire Lancer Buff
Barbican Small Buff
Imperial Academy Buff
Imperial Palace Buff
Clocktower Buff/Nerf
Spirit Way Small Buff
Great Wall Gatehouse Buff
I believe that these set of changes would return China to its pre-patch stats as a mid-tier, lategame focused civ, while not allowing siege to be as oppressive as it was prepatch. Rather, these changes give China more flexibility and adaptability in terms of their gameplan, and make their civ bonuses much more accessible. One last point to note is that I do believe the grenadier might need to be nerfed if, with these changes, getting Ming Dynasty becomes routine in most long China games. It is probably the only overpowered thing left in China’s arsenal, tho it is currently limited by the price of Ming Dynasty. If I were the balance team, I would note that we would be keeping an eye on the grenadier and making adjustments if necessary, along with further adjustments to China’s balance.
Feel free to comment your thoughts and own ideas for China changes below. I will try to respond to as many as I can.