In pro team games, I saw Cumans, Berbers, Burgundians, Huns, Lithuanians as much as Franks. Burgundians can be more common than Franks even. In lower levels, Franks could be stronger than these, Devs should think of why Franks is OP in lower levels. However, in high level, Franks is no different than other Paladin civs.
Viper’s fails quickwalls a lot and loss villager. Other vllagers takes 1-2 attacks from boar while Berbers doesn’t take. That’s why I think Berbers faster villager is very strong.
I remembered that it benefit resource gathering more, I checked SotL video, I was wrong. However, villagers wander a lot in the game. If this bonus was weak, every player would finish Berbers off before Castle Age because Berbers is only civ that has neither eco nor military bonuses other than faster villagers until Castle Age.
+4 hp for Paladin isn’t that big buff. It is buff for Knight and Cavalier.
Franks is go to civ because it is better scout-play in Feudal Age than these Cumans, Huns and Teutons. That’s why I am proposing to nerf Franks Feudal Play. After early Castle Age Cumans, Huns, Teutons and Burgundians are better than Franks.
It would be 86 hp (+10% hp) Light Cavalry. I want better Light Cav for Franks. I don’t like that Franks Light Cav is garbage. All function of Franks is eco bonuses which irriate me. Franks feels eco civ rather than Cavalry civ.
please, every pro worth their salt can quick wall, and they STILL drush them. people still drush viper and he’s the one who popularized it.
Wood and gold is negligible, as you should be standing right next to your camp, or not too far away. seriously. at best your 1 tile away. 10% faster movement for 1 tile is laughable. farming is 3% at MOST.
so explain their fairly middle of the road stats then? and that’s strictly knights. 2 relic cavalier is nothing.
furthermore you literally know they are going for them. deny them. it’s not hard.
uh mid castle age? no you said when bloodlines is researched they get 10% hp in castle age. guess what? most the time you research BL on the way up to castle. that’s not a mid castle age buff. at best you make them weaker in feudal (but they still have a better eco then the others), only for them to hit castle age and instantly be better then others. 10 HP might not sound like a lot to you, but they absolutely don’t need such a buff. they already are one of the two best cavalry civs as is.
Why would they need late game buffs?
So tell me - if this is even true, why is it that Franks are the go to civ?
you forget that their light cav just went from 72 HP up to 86 HP, which is a pretty massive buff.
and yet the stats say that Franks are winning more often. the Pros even consider them better. you want to know why you see them all roughly equal in team games? because draft exists and you can only use them 1 time per series.
So if by your estimation Franks is on equal grounds as other cavalry civs at the pro level, why would you buff them, making them better then the other cav civs? shouldn’t the desired effect be keep them balanced, and thus a detriment to that?
And +14 HP for Light Cav. Again. WHY DO THEY NEED A BUFF?
except you really aren’t. yeah they lose the immediate +9 HP, but they still have an insane economy and could easily use the saved resources from farm upgrades + the extra food from berries to afford bloodlines behind it to make their scouts 65 HP in feudal. not so easy for any of the others.
yeah? and? they are still one of the best civs in the game.
Again, you ignore the pertitent question.
If Franks are equal, in your estimation to other cavalry civs, why do you buff them?
shouldn’t the goal be to leave them as is by your reasoning?
“hey guys, all of our top cav civs are roughly equal, how about we buff one of them to make it better then the others, instead of maintaining the balance between them”.
It’s been a while since I played aoe2 or I had discussed its balance, but since I’m bored at home thank to a certain notorious virus, I might as well share my humble opinions…
I like it, I always find it weird that the britons used the arbs more than the longbows (historically speaking) but I don’t know if this will help it…
Considering that as britons, by the time you have a castle up, you’ll already have a huge amount of xbows, and I don’t think that this will anyway incourage people to switch to LB, since they are more expensive and all in all they do the same thing as the xbow/arb line.
Won’t it become too hard to afford it in castle? Maybe a middle of the road 40% would be better…?
Yeah probably… I remain convinced that it could transform xbows into HC, and allows the flamish pike in barracks, maybe they would need to change the name, but it’s still better than having vills transformed in a mix of pike/champs.
That’s a lot of extra attack in castle age against archers, for both knights and LC, it might throw all balance out of the window and become the ultimate anti-archer civ…
Maybe if the UT is REDUCED to +2, then it could be ok… of course you should also reduce the price.
Arambai needs much more in my opinion…
To all franks fans out there, the HP bonus could be divided into +10/20% more HP in feudal and castle age, so to find a middle ground…
But personally I agree with you, the bonus could start even just in castle age and it won’t be that much of a problem. If franks keeps their berries bonus, then their scout rush will still be strong even without the extra HP, but I would give it a chance to just +10% in feudal, so to find a compromise.
Yeah incas do have a problem… and their eco and eagles are pretty much standard…
With your bonus, and the new EW cost, they would save 7 resources for each EW, which isn’t bad considering that you might want to swarm your enemy with them, but is it enough?
Personally, I also always liked the idea of supplies affecting spears and skirms, I don’t know if it would be balanced for incas, but probably this bonus it’s better on a civ that completely lack the scout-line.
I don’t mind this bonus at all, italian archers would end up with +4/1, which also give flavor to the civ, but is it enough…?
Italians main problem on land maps will always be the eco, would it be broken to let the 33% discount on docks and uni affect the ranges too? Considering your suggestion on increasing to increase the cost of the xbow upgrade, the Italians would be the only civ to pay for about the same price of before, but they would still have terrible eco, and also take more time to research it like the others.
Personally, I prefer the melee armor bonus on archers, but I don’t know if it would help them much, except for that case time to time when you squeeze some xbows between trees to fight knights, but then the enemy can simply ignore you…
Both bonuses might be too much right…?
Nothing wrong with that.
Definitely nothing wrong with that…
Just one detail, the longer lasting resources might have to be adjusted on the singular resource in my opinion, since 15% might be broken on a boar for example, but not on a tree, so consider this.
Mmm ok, but I believed that what makes the +5% on dark was the effect on the TC, not on the dock…
Anyway, any idea for the new UT?
Of course yes, but might I suggest to change other names, like the Italians might be renamed genoese or milanese too, or lombards, probably better, still an umbrella, but at least a more accurate one.
Definitely yes, let’s make spanish less blank to play…
Mmm ok, but I still fell that something should be done for their TB…
I think that something like all TC techs are researched 80% faster could do it or some kind of farming bonus, but I don’t know about that…
Mostly are not that big sudden changes, so I’m ok with it, and they go into buffing the infantry over the archer line.
Just one thing, cavalry will be the big winner of this potential patch, and by cavalry I mean knights, since they are still powerful and they are basically unaffected.
Maybe you could increase the cost of some techs for them, like husbandry could have a gold cost, instead of costing only food, that would at least help reducing the mobility for the early castle age without killing the knight meta.
Not an expert on elephants or the new civs, so I’ll not comment those too, but if you have ideas, don’t be afraid to share them, even if they’ll end up proved wrong.
Remember, the people who makes mistakes are the people who works (not sure if in english this saying makes sense…).
Persians get +2 as a team bonus. Maybe more like +4.
Considering cavalry are still heavily impacted by pathing im not touching them. Furthermore pikeman upgrade was made cheaper which does impact cavalry.
Mmm true… but the persians bonus affects just the knight line, this one would impact LC too.
Anyway if +2 it’s too little, I would do it +3 initially, and then eventually buff it to +4.
True, but cavalry still give you map control even if it doesn’t make you auto win engagements.
Generally, knights and xbows gives you map control, the former for its speed, and the latter for its range and mass.
With your change, you are making it harder to mass xbows, both for the cost in resources, but more importantly because a range will be idle for more time.
Having cheaper pikes helps, but only to defend, not to gain back map control, that’s why I suggested a nerf that at least delay the speed upgrade.
But those are mainly speculations… maybe you are right after all…
I think the cost is fine. The time is too high.
Also the unit they counter, archer, has way cheaper upgrade cost. This probably makes some people believe that E.skirms upgrade cost is too high.
Sometimes they feel like that. On second thought, even with +2PA they won’t be that great against Arbalester. 13 shots vs 17 shots. So maybe it is okay without changing Arambai stats.
True. Very well thought imo. Spanish weakness is Feudal age imo where they basically have no bonus. Faster building helps for walling and saving some villager time but that is probably as insignificant as Berbers 10% faster villager bonus. If anything we should buff their feudal play a bit. I proposed Bloodline (And Supplies, Arson) cost no gold.
This brings me to the concept I mentioned in an earlier thread. It’s an unlikely idea, so don’t take it too seriously.
If we really wanted to train Longbowmen at Archery Ranges, we could replace Crossbowmen and Arbalesters with Longbowmen and the elite ones, giving the Britons unique upgrades in the Castle age and the Imperial age, which would be: Archers → Longbowmen → Elite Longbowmen. It seems to be more accurate than being the UU.
Concomitantly, the stats of Longbowmen and the elite ones would need to be re-evaluated to maintain balance, and the cost of upgrades will likely not be the same as existing Crossbowmen and elite Longbowmen. However, the range improvement of Yeoman only needs to serve this line so the balance would be easier.
The new UU at Castles, which can be Billman, an infantry unit with an English billhook, like a kind of halberdier with special abilities or effects. Or it could be the Organ Gun, bringing this unit back from the Portuguese, which had nothing to do with it, to Edward III of England, who actually used them for the first time in history. (Of course, for that, we need a new UU for the Portuguese, perhaps Explorer to maintain the characteristic of gunpowder UU.)
Since the power of revolution has dropped due to the update, I have been hoping that they can at least give Villagers a -50% training time (i.e. +100% training speed) after the revolution to help players restore economic sustainability as early as possible.
Oh, let’s pray it gets a new name. El Dorado is more suitable for the Muisca.
Maybe it could be Pitz (Mesoamerican ballgame), because sports make people fitter and stronger, or it could be a title for the leadership of an organization like Batab, Halach Uinik or Ajaw, etc.
Also, rather than increasing the cost, I prefer to weaken the effect, such as changing to +30HP and +5 attack against cavalry.
Now we have Winged hussar instead of Hussar for 2 civs. So your idea is not that far off. The problem is Britons is one of the oldest civ and everyone is more conservative on AOK and AOC civs.
I’m talking about replacing xbow/arbs with longbow upgrade. That will be pretty different from UT. In fact current Briton UT can remain same after this.
Still, they would need a new UU after that, which make this proposal a bit more complex than just reworkimg the longbowman, yeomen and britons range bonus
What if Kamandaran affects CA as well? 85 wood after the tech.
Edit: Ever since DOI, I’m thinking to bring back Camel +1PA bonus for Persians. This slightly fits with their TB. Although part of me wants it to be reserved for a possible African Camel civ with no knight.
I want to address these 1 by 1 because while I generally agree with you some ideas are a lot better than others.
“Crossbowman - Upgrade cost increased to 200 food and 100 gold. upgrade time increased to 50 seconds.”
Yes, this is far overdue. Crossbow is silly easy to upgrade into, and it pushes feudal archers to insane levels because the cost of keeping with them is so very low. Probably the most important change here. Pathing is obviously more important but this would be after that.
“Skirmisher - Elite Upgrade cost reduced to 175 wood and 100 gold. Upgrade time decreased to 30 seconds.”
If crossbow cost is increased, I would like to try that on its own before also buffing skirmisher upgrade. It’s not a bad idea on its own but could be a problem when combined with the above change. Change too many variables at once and it can be easy to overshoot your goal. Instead, I’d like to see archer move speed decreased a little bit to champion level. The pathing in this game is so awful that crossbows can kite knights, and that’s really silly and unrealistic.
“Spearman - Pikeman Upgrade cost reduced to 175 food and 75 gold.”
Interesting, but I think coming at the problem from the wrong angle. I would instead prefer to increase spear movement speed or perhaps base damage.
“Eagle Warrior - Cost retuned to 30 food and 40 gold.”
Not sure why this would be needed. Meso civs are generally seen as quite strong as is and the Eagle is a big part of that.
“Militia Line - THS upgrade reduced to 200 food, 100 gold, and 50 seconds. Champ upgrade reduced to 600 food, 250 gold, and 75 seconds.”
Again, like with the spear line, I’d rather just see an improvement to the functionality of the unit. No use in rushing to 2HS if the unit is crap anyway. Swordsmen are slow, and only have a melee attack. Their core stats really ought to be higher in my view. The virtue of improving the upgrade costs and time is that it makes switching into swordsmen late less of a chore. And that’s very reasonable, but in my view does not solve the issue that at a fundamental level infantry just isn’t there.
“BE/EBE - Gain +10 Elephant Armor”
Very similar to my idea which was to create a War Elephant armor class so that BE and EA are not shackled to the unreasonable bonus damage that is scaled for the Persian unique unit. This one gets a thumbs up.
“EA/EEA - Gain +5 CA armor (to -2) and +2 bonus damage vs Spear Line.”
Sure. When DOI released they nerfed the worst UU in the game, so partially reversing those nerfs seems reasonable to me.
“New Elephant Upgrade - Mahouts - Increases Elephant unit speed by 10%.”
This one is the reason I logged in today to comment. Probably the best idea around here. I’ll bundle this with your Khmer changes of free Mahouts instead of the civ bonus because I think this is such an elegant approach to the current problem.
“SL/ESL - Food cost reduced to 60, gain +3/5 Damage vs Infantry, and ESL cost reduced to 500/400.”
This is too much imo. But I agree with 2/3rd of the suggestion. The unit is on the weaker side but it doesn’t need 3 buffs at once. Look at the Ballista Elephant- got a single buff last patch and is now very solid within its niche. You don’t need to layer on 3 buffs at once. Food cost reduction to 60 I have suggested myself. E steppe lancer cost reduction is also very much needed. Bonus damage vs infantry isn’t. Infantry already suck and I’d rather experiment with the cost reductions before adding extra bonus damage.
TLDR; yes, no, yes.
“Britons - Yeoman changed to allow the creation of Longbows at the Archery Range.
Longbow/Elite gain +1 Range”
I don’t think FE will tinker with Britons much as they are a fan favorite civ and the playerbase is extraordinarily averse to change. I wouldn’t oppose this per se, but you should see how the changes to archers and skirms settle before making changes to a civ very much dependent on those units.
“Burgundians - Stable Techs cost 33% less instead of 50% less.
Flemish Revolution needs changing - just not sure what to change it too.”
Not needed in either case. Burgundians are not a particularly overpowered civ. Flemish revolution is fun for both players. There, I said it. 11
“Burmese - Howdah and Manipur Cavalry switch ages
Arambai benefit from PT”
I’m ok with this as the Burmese Lover around here, although I don’t think it’s that needed. What’s needed is buffs to elephants and infantry, Burmese may become quite powerful after those changes plus archer nerfs. Arambai get PT is the right call however. Totally agree.
“Franks - Either the HP bonus is moved to castle age or the Berry bonus is removed.”
Don’t know how to best nerf Franks. If you removed the berry bonus I’d like to see it moved to a different civ. Don’t feel strongly about these.
“Incas - Gain a 10/20% discount on eagles in castle/imp”
Why do incas need a buff? They seem perfectly fine so far. If anything, I’d like to see fabric shields applied to their Champion line, so that their status as an “infantry civ” is a little more borne out.
“Italians - Archers and GC gain +1 MA per age, starting in Feudal.”
Great idea, Italians are supposed to occupy the melee armor section of the archer niche opposite rattans. I would be inclined to start it in castle though, as +3 MA arbalests could be quite ridiculous.
“Malians - Wood discount returns to farms.”
I don’t see this as necessary, Malians are an almost perfectly balanced civ as is and the wood discount applying to farms overlaps with the Teuton bonus.
Repeating myself a bit here, but applying too many changes in at the same time overshoots things. Hit archers first, then mayans. Not archers in multiple ways, and mayans in 3 ways. El Dorodo cost increase makes total sense, but I wouldn’t touch the other variables.
“Persians - Town center and Docks bonuses Split.
TC gains 5% in dark age.
Mahouts baked into Elite Upgrade.
Mahouts replaced with a new UT.”
Persians need a complete redesign. The civ is just not interesting and suffers from multiple design problems. Without going over all of them I’ll simply say that a Mahouts replacement is needed as per your mahouts idea and leave the Persian discussion for another time.
“Spanish - build bonus doesn’t apply until first TC built.
Build Bonus is doubled on Economic Buildings and Houses.”
Yes, this is sorely needed. If they want to remove sicilian bonus for nomad, they should do the same for Spanish.
“Vietnamese - Unique Techs Swap positions
Paper Money gold cost replaced with wood cost (does not benefit from civ bonus).”
Agree with Paper money cost change, but disagree on switching the positions. Having elephant techs available in castle helps with their viability for rushes a bit and I don’t see a good reason why they need to be restricted to imperial. Leave Chatras and Howdah where they are.
“As said before I also think Gurjaras and Hindustanis need nerfs - not sure how to go about it.
Dravidians, Bengalis, and Goths needs buffs - same.”
Hard to say with Bengalis until elephants have been buffed. I would give them a new team bonus: Scorpions have no minimum range OR Scorpions are affected by ballistics. This gives them an actual halb counter unit which they sorely lack at the moment. Additionally, I would give Bengalis Hand Cannon. Their current team bonus is hilariously pathetic and should be replaced. Another suggestion I like is moving Shatagni over to Bengalis and off Hindustanis.
For Dravidians, I would give them redemption. They currently have NO way to handle onagers, and that could seriously help. I’m also open to giving them husbandry. If the devs are committed to having them miss the entire stable and also EBE then fine, but at least let them have crappy cavalry with husbandry in an absolute emergency where mobility is needed. Would also be open to a small buff to Urumi move speed to accomplish this.
Like I said, mostly good ideas here, but wanted to offer my 2 cents on each one to support / critique you where needed. Hopefully the developers will see this and consider it.
I’m surprised this one has taken so long to implement. The problem we have is Spanish superiority on nomad maps, makes their overall WR look better than it is. So if we nerf them on these maps we might finally see some buffs on open maps
I like all these changes, what’s interesting to note is the buff to pikes helps mesos specifically, since of all the civs they’re some of the most likely to make pikes, which kind of in a way balances with the nerfs to eagles.
I really like this. Persians could even have it for WE. And maybe some BE civs might not have access to it, if required. For example if it’s seen Bengali (with the new armour) and civ buffs, might lack mahouts.
Huge buff for them, especially considering the discount in imperial with the already lower gold cost. Interested to see how it works out. Really like the idea.
I really wish they would buff them already. I think Mongols need to lose their civ bonus for SL. It’s currently holding back cuman and Tatar prospects of buffing. It’s just silly. Like trying to balance a knight when a civ has a 30% hp bonus.
TBH I think Steppe Lancer at this point is just underrated, I ve started to see pros going to them at 2k, Mongols for instance need the HP bonus to be used, otherwise they are trash.
Do you see cumans and Tatars using step lancer? In decent numbers or only in early castle to get early vil snipes (the only case I’ve seen outside of Mongols)
