Whaaaaat?? A balance thread that doesn’t have super wacky suggestions that totally reinvent the game in the image of someone’s hyper-niche vision? Perhaps there is hope for the internet dot com after all.
I agree with the great majority of these, so I’ll only focus on the ones I don’t quite.
Franks are quite strong, but in general I’d preferentially buff weaker civs before nerfing strong civs, except in the case of civs that are obviously strong in too many contexts (Gurjaras, Hindustanis). Delaying the cav HP bonus would give them too much of a weakness in prolonged Feudal/scout play for a cavalry civ. But perhaps the berry bonus could be reduced or removed.
Not sure about this. GC already shred cav and this plus Pavise mean 7/5 armor, which I can’t say is broken, but it seems excessive.
Nerfing everything good about the Mayans simultaneously seems overly punitive and excessive, and gives me flashbacks to the Steppe Lancer nerfs. I agree with the last 2, as well as the global eagle cost change (net nerf until lategame). Further reducing their res bonus to half its original amount is too much, and makes the bonus very bland and hardly impactful beyond the Dark Age food benefit.
I imagine this refers to reducing Eskirm/Pike/Halb upgrades? Decent bonuses for sure, but not sure it fits Spanish identity as a cav/gunpowder civ. I’d prefer a cost reduction and/or small stat buff to Elite Conq, which is one of the few UUs that becomes substantially less useful by the time it’s available.