What are you implying?
all these discussion is great and all but real question is when will a real balance patch come out?
the last major patch was DoI which was released on april 27th. since then they show whats on roadmap, some bug fixes here and there including mangonel deletion bug and fixing ratha melee/range bug.
aside from those some other bugs but rarely noticed and nothing… already in august.
3 Likes
Nobody knows. Some of us expecting after TTL is finished. My prediction is August 23.
Yes normally the patch come after 3 months of DLC. It should be around this month
Its just the “new” factor and resistance to changes to the game. Suppose if tomorrow a DLC releases with Franks, Britons, Mayans as the new civs people will be losing their minds and crying nerfs. Because those civs have been around for 23 yrs, a lot of people are used to playing with and against them and it gives the illusion that those are normal. This is why you’ll see a lot of people defending nerf suggestions or balance changes to those civs. When a new civ potrays a challenge to some of these popular and commonly played civs, people want to get them nerfed so that they can continue playing in their comfort zone.
I do think removing halbs might be an ok suggestion.
BTW BomberGriffin spot on with the suggestions man. Your exact proposed changes are now in the August PUP.
You could say the same for many civs like Poles, Sicilians, Berbers, Malians etc. They don’t have halbs or halbs are less effective and not sufficient to fight against the cav/camel spam without enough gold.
1 Like
Partially disagree. If Franks, Britons, and Mayans were introduced today, Franks would have hussar, Mayans wouldn’t have 50 food penalty at start and both of Britons UT would be cheaper. DE civs never have any bonus trade off.
Meanwhile if Burgandians was introduced in 1999 - Apart from the UTs, their TB would give only 10 or at best 15 food per relic.
2 Likes
I’m saying IF those civs released in the exact way as they are now, they would still be considered OP because most of the other civs (the ones other than those three) would be having bonuses of comparable magnitude.
Definitely not. If you’re implying that the 1999 civs all had moderate or balanced bonuses. you have no idea how the civs were when they released. To give you an idea Chinese only got -150 food, no other extra penalty. So you’d be ahead by 3 vills instead of 2. Plumed archers had a much lower base cost which made them cost 36w, 36g in castle age. War wagons costed something like 80w, 60g and had 6 base range. And fully upgraded Korean siege onagers used to have 8+4 range. Conqs didn’t take extra bonus damage from skirms and with the stronger tower rush Spanish were a very popular pick on all maps in the mid 2010s. Huns had this ridiculous -25%, -30% discount for CA and were almost the only civ played in all Arabia tournaments before HD release. And in AOK there was no bloodlines or halberdier and Franks got +20% hp on knight-line.
Even now the most picked civs in ALL the tournaments in DE and HD are the 1999 civs. Only a few civs from post-1999 are regularly seen in all tournaments, otherwise they’re very format specific while the old ones are powerful across all formats.
So the tradition of introducing a bunch of very powerful new civs and some very weak new civs didn’t start from DE, it’s always been there.
Oh, that’s for sure. 11