My Proposed Changes for the upcoming balance patch

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
326

I’m a big fan of some crazy changes. This makes player more excited to play the civ and the civ become more unique.

For Portuguese:

  • Gold and stone mining does not need mining camp anymore. (first mining camp required) - same effect like Khmer but for mining.
  • Free Ballistics
  • Carrack 1/1 to ships and siege units.

Turks:

  • Gold lasts 25% longer. Each tile 1000G instead of 800G
  • Bombard tower costs wood instead of Gold (100W, 125S) and +50% projectile speed.
  • Artillery change cost 500G, 450S To 600W, 500F

Koreans:

  • Stones lasts 25% longer
  • Free Fortified wall
  • Castle build 100% faster

Byzentines:

  • Tower upgrade gives +1 extra Arrow shot (Guard tower +1 arrow, Keep +2 arrow)
  • start with two a free houses, already built but need a Town center like Nomad map

Tatars:

  • Free Bloodlines
  • Flaming Camel avaible after reaching Imp, no tech necessarily, training cost change to 60F, 30G

Cumans:

  • no more access to Knightline units
  • Steppe Lancer cost - 15%/-20% Castle/Imperial age

Same as Indians Camel, force to go for Steppe Lancer, while SL are strong in mass, cost discount is a huge buff.

Saracens:

  • Blacksmith and University -100W (why only market?)
1 Like
327

omfg no… how many times do we need to explain to people this is NOT the same as the khmer farm, since that STILL needs to be built somwhere, and is not a very rare resource specifically spread across the map…

1 Like
328

There are people don’t like Khmer farm but I like it and I like it in that way.

329

ok just ignore what i said and give justification to something else… read what i said

330

theres a lot here i think might be cool, like this, the tatar one, and the cuman one (although that heavily nerfs their paladin potential it gives them a viable reason to spam SL with their UT)

this might be too erroneous or too much coding for a simple balance change? to now have 2 houses that dont contend with other map parameters? but then i might be wrong

imo this buffs saracen archer rush but doesnt help them where they are weaker (no knight/EW equivalent) so makes them strong where they might already be strong(thanks to market selling stone etc), and doesnt help where they are weaker (vs archer counters)

331

but the point is. with the farm there is an investment and they have to stay at the farm.
with your proposed change i could literally send my workers off into neverland and fine a mining node and forget about them.

332

This is a stronger version of the intended one. I was saying free armor is better because it affects skyrms and it is more useful vs melee units.

Anyway Italians are so weak that you can even give +1/1 armor as bonus from feudal age… they will have a viet like archer until pavise… but weaker eco

333

I would prefer +1/+1 to archers and HC. Then pavise on top of that and you get +2/+2 overall bonus armor, which should be reasonable, considering that italians don’t really have much going for them right now, at least from land combat.

334

these are unneccessary

this is a very big nerf. cumans would be totally useless

@MatCauthon3 had better ideas

make mining upgrades available in the tc, but this bonus is unneccesary for portuguese

1 Like
335

You see the problem. People won’t go for SL when they can go for Knights. This is not a nerf because you make SL are pretty cheap. Probably you need to balance more.

Eco upgrade for Portuguese what I propose give this civ new fresh game play since I don’t believe this is a huge buff, people still built a TC next to gold or stone to protect their villagers for raiding attacks.

336

This nerf is a because steppe lancers would be still crap, even with the cheap cost. Paladins are MUCH better against everything

2 Likes
337

Yes, I knew, I only suggested another variant of a possible bonus.
+1/1 for archers since feudal is a possibility, but even only +1PA for xbows and skirms from feudal (or even from castle) is a good and balanced bonus in my opinion.

Free archer armor tech isn’t a bad bonus, but it doesn’t suit Italians play style that well. Yes it’s on theme, and yes it let them save some time and resources, but over all their archers would still fall behind a lot of other archer civ.
Free armor would be a good bonus for strong archer rush civs, which italians aren’t.

1 Like
338

That is untrue. At the start of aoe2 DE, SL especially Cumans were OP since the developer overnerf them.
And they are not trash, I like SL, they are just a bit too expensive because you need to mass them.

1 Like
339

they are cheaper than knights but still lose vs knights with equal resources

and being worse against everything than a knight

cumans would be crap against every ranged civ and would be never picked in team games

340

I do not love the idea of +1 PA for archers only. For instance it is not that great vs knights. It is ok but nothing more

Some variations I like more:

  • A +1/1 armor as civ bonus is better since it is basically a free archer armor for just archers.
  • +1 PA to archers and skyrms is also nice
  • free archer armors and no extra armor as civ bonus. But pavise gives +1/2

The third one is my favorite tbh, since pavise is underpowered right now.
Still I agree with:

341

Then u never play with SL. They are situational and better to snipe enemies like Archer units. U need to micro a bit. SL have another game style than Knights.

Same why I compare with Indians. Camels are not designed for raiding. A lot complains the missing Knight Line for Indians though they don’t need Knights to be strong.

342

you don’t snipe archers better with SL than knights

Steppe Lancers have 40 (!) less hitpoints and 1 less pierce armor. They are almost as garbage against archers as camels

Elite Lancers have 80 less hitpoints 2 less pierce armor than a Paladin. They are terrible against Archers

1 Like
343

+1 (pavise only) or +2 MA (bunus+pavise) have the same effect, they take the same amount of hits from both knights/paladins and hussars, it would be better only vs pikes and camels, which are units that are already bad vs xbows.

Yes more MA it help occasionally here and there, but I would prefer more PA (+1 from the bonus and +1 from pavise) and maybe sacrifice the MA for extend the bonus to skirms (they would receive only the +1 from the bonus, not the +1 from pavise).

Yes that’s what I was proposing, however anything would still be a huge step forward, and better than nothing.

Yes but if you improve the unit (xbow) with another bonus it would become a very good tech.
Basically you would get half bonus for free, and half for a price, but overall it would be a very good bonus.

2 Likes
344

I’m pretty sure your not the only one to complain about this. But yeah why you don’t play with Franks or Teutons? They have stronger Paladin. SL would be nearly as cheap as Infantry units! They used to be OP for a good reason.

345

No, they are used to be OP because the cost (you mentioned), the damage output (damage + fire rate), mobility and very small collision box

Cuman pocket with Paladins are commonly used because of their strong economy and Imperial Age Kipchaks are significantly worse than Castle Age Kipchaks. Cumans might make the most Paladins in the game

1 Like