Lithuanian Bonus Relic Damage Should Only be plus 2

I think it should give max +2 in castle and max +4 in imp.

Why does it need to be nerfed?

Lithuanian Knight with 16 attack only kills pikes in 1 less hit (5 to 4).
Lithuanian Knight with 16 attack only kills pikes in 1 less hit (5 to 4).
Lithuanian Knight with 16 attack only kills pikes in 1 less hit (5 to 4).
Lithuanian Knight with 16 attack only kills pikes in 1 less hit (5 to 4).

1 Like

and seeing as the attack upgrades are actually rarely up to date in castle age…

1 Like

Esta bien hací como esta, ya que los malies incluso pueden tener hasta +5

It should be plus 5 and effect all meele units, but remove blast furnace tech so effectiely +3 you got 5 relics.

If you got 2 relics it means free blast furance and also available in castle age.

If you got 0 or 1 relics it’s like you have not researched blast furnace yet like byz paladins.

So you can end up either with op paladins or in most cases with good paladins with blast furance free with 2-3 paladins, but you can also end up with slightly weaker paladins.

Currently worst case you have FU paladins which is not much of a worst case if you ask me!

1 Like

What about +1 for first relic, and +1/2 for each after. Or is that too complicated? Keeps it strong, but makes it hard to get +3, though at least +3 is possible.

And what’s the difference between 21 or 22 attack paladins, in all cases kill halbs in 4 hits, while with 21 attack is worse vs Knights, and the extra attack is only strong vs other Knights, Champions, Siege and Buildings, all of that is the purpose of the Knight

why does a deniable bonus need to be nerfed?
like seriously - the winrates, even in team games, where the op said it was a problem, are balanced.

they have literally only 3 bonuses total, one of them pertains to defensive units, one is an eco bonus that has no impact on anything past the early game, and the other one is THE ONLY DENIABLE CIV BONUS IN THE GAME.

2 Likes

It’s as deniable as the aztec relic bonus…which is not that much, really.

1 Like

true. but the aztec bonus is a TEAM BONUS and not a CIV BONUS.

So what? It works in 1vs1 all the same.

2 Likes

the difference is that team bonuses aren’t neccesarily intended for 1v1 play. after all look at the spanish team bonus.

civ bonuses are designed for the civ to use in all game modes. but even so. as you pointed out. which is a bigger impact on the civs strength.

Lithuanians denied relics becomes a very mediocre civilization at best.
meanwhile Aztecs still have an insane economy and faster military production with solid eagles, archery range, and siege.

2 Likes

They are for a lot of civ, actually. Think about teutons without conversion resistance…it would screw them up really badly. It’s an additional layer of complexity, not all civ need a strong bonus, but some others really do.

My point anyway is that the lithuanian bonus is not an “all or nothing” bonus. You can get a couple of relics and you basically have a 2nd blast for free. It’s really, really hard to get all relics stolen by an opponent, unless you are not even trying to get them in the first place. +4 may be challenging, +2 should be almost always doable.

2 Likes

i’ve literally seen viper and other pros shutout lithuanian players on relics time and time again. fact is, Lithuanians are basically completely reliant on that relic bonus for their entire gameplan. and yet its deniable.

2 Likes

Yes I agree, they are not too strong and I never said that. But balancing a civ with one super strong bonus isn’t good either. As you said, after early feudal in TG its the only one thing they’ve got going for them which is why it should be altered.

They can be compensated with a weaker fourth bonus, and then retain their current strength and not be dominant in TG.

Look at the win percentage you say? Yes that is smart, though they are picked often in 4v4 (not as strong in a 3v3 or 2v2) resulting them being on both teams - meaning 50% win rate. Also it means they are frequently picked, also by people that don’t know how to use them as well (yes Franks are popular too, though are more streamlined and less mistake punishing. Balancing booming, knight production and collecting relics isn’t easy and needs quite a few games to get right)

2 Likes

they aren’t dominant in team games though

yes because that is totally what is going on. they are being on BOTH sides of the match and losing and winning at the same time.

by the way - the pickrates show that there is no way they are being picked enough to be on both sides. they would need a 25% pickrate for that.

Not really. I didn’t say they are always on both sides. I just said often. So they could have a lower pick rate.
And anyways, it obviously depends on the map. People don’t pick Lith for socotra or scandi.
I also said they don’t get picked as often in a 2v2 or 3v3, further lowering pick rate. In a 4v4 a single civ on only one team also has the least statistical impact on win probability, also nudging the value closer to 50%.

by the way - a weaker 4th bonus would have to be the equivalent of +1 attack on knights/leitis line for them to retain their current power.

enough for them to maintain a 50% win rate by continually playing each other? you’d need a pretty high playrate for that. and they don’t have that high of a play rate.

those two maps have an insanely small playrate as is, so much so that it would be laughable to think that they are even affecting the overall winrates.

Honestly how often are you getting or going up against +4 paladins? Most of the time i get 2 to 3.