My Proposed Changes

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
42

Sorry but q civ that gets cheaper infantry that is also produced insanely fast should have a weakness to them.

43

Don’t see the necessity to nerf that many civs. Franks are strong but not op. Also they aren’t really good on other maps besides open ones. Aztecs got nerfes a lot already. Eagles should cost more food and less gold imo but that’s not specifically about aztecs. For mayans some nerf would be justified and chinese indeed difficult one. I’d entirely get rid of the tb, give them one that doesn’t boost their eco. Maybe something specific for tg that has no effect in 1v1.

2 Likes
44

Mmm, but then they would be at a disadvantage against cav civs with BL


Maybe we could do like, cavalry have 10% more HP in feudal, and 20% in castle.

I would instead have some resources excluded, like sheeps and hunt.

Maybe increase the cost of CKN for now, the units is ridiculously strong and cheap.

Maybe they should lose the last archer armor too? To make them less and less strong in the late game in exchange for their strong early game.

I don’t see the necessity of this onestly. Byzantines are solid, I would just give them partian tactics to make them more flexible, instead of making them another knight civ.

I would prefer the second one.

And I would add that they gain squires.

It could be doubled for all non stone buildings (palisade excluded).

I mean, I agree on SE, but that is a huge nerf overall both on water and land.

You are basically trading 25f more on feudal age for a ton of resources less in castle and imp. All things considered it’s not worth it. I mean, ballistics is already difficult to get it early now as it discounted at 33%, if you reduce it to 25% it’ll be even more difficult.

Just add SE to their tech tree, and then a small bonus, like walls are built 20% faster.

1 Like
45

Overall I like all the proposals

This is indeed needed.

Imo you can remove the farm bonus, the berries are enough

Do they really need the archer discount? I would just remove that and tune the plumes cost accordingly

CKN is still OP, but the civ probably needs more nerfs

I like more the bloodlines idea tbh. It would be awesome and very reasonable.

Very desirable but very difficult to do

Except for SE this is a nerf. Even on land. I would pick something else. Like a bonus from Mayans (cheaper archers but also cheaper walls).

Another option is a more defensive bonus on non-scout trash which would help to survive the early stages (e.g., extra hp or smaller TT)

46

In that case just dont use it if you think it thst way because it just doesnt fir Burma.

I think that Spain getting free elite skirm would be fine since they dont have an eco bonus, it fits their identity and it buffs them against archer civs which is what they struggle the most against

47

Well I think you are the only one that doesn’t thik Burmese are weak to archers.
And you also must recognize that the free elite skirm upgrade also makes skirm play in feudal more viable for them.
And tbh I don’t see the free elite skirm upgrade for any civ that has the castle age archer armor. I don’t think elite skirms are OP or whatever, it’s just a too one-sided bonus against archery. But it would help burmese exactly there where they need help.

BBC isn’t that easy to use against arbs. Most civs have onager and still arbs are the power unit. It’s not that easy to shut down such a strong power unit even if you have reasonable counters available.

Also many civs have FU hussars, elephants are very situational and can’t force the engagement. BTW Burmese lack Heresy which is a huge problem for their Eles as they are so expensive yet slow and easy to convert. IMO What “enables” Eles is the access to heresy and only 1 of the 5 Ele civs has this: Malay. But even malay super cheap eles rarely see usage on open maps.

But I agree that with the new design of Manipur Cavalry bumrese lategame against archery isn’t that bad anymore, mainly because of the way higher dps of the hussars. (I still think they are more around “mediocre” or slightly above average at that stage of the game against arbs.

But then I would make it 25 % in Imp also. Imo Franks Palas should undisputedly be the best in the game, it’s their “Identity”. And tbh I would actually take away the berry bonus from franks to make this bonus available again for new civs or give it to a civ that needs help in the early game.

I don’t like to nerf Top Civs. I prefer to buff the ones falling behind. It’s just natural that there are some Top civs, we just can’t stop that. If we nerf the top civs there will be new top ones to be nerfed
 and we’re moving in a circle.
Nevertheless I think some of the top civs need “Adjustments” cause they only dominate because of insane Eco bonusses. It would be better if they had more “Identity” instead. Playing against civs with insane Eco is always annoying as you can’t really “outplay” the civ with your strategy. I think all civs need clear strengths and weaknesses to play around, for both players.

I would just remove the extra starting vill for 50 F. It’s an easy adjustment and makes the civ also easier to use for beginners with a standard start. Let’s make small single steps, it is very possible that this single change makes Mayans balanced already.

Completely agree there. My proposal always was to give Chinese only 2 free starting vills (maybe even only 1) and give them more food to work with in the beginning. That would make it easier to use for beginners as they would have less idle time in their TCs. For people that already learned how to play chinese it would need some adjustments of the initial buildorder but I think they are quite easy. This change would make a reasonable nerf for the civ in higher elos as it would reduce their feudal eco.

I am actually not that sure if Vikings need a nerf currently. We didn’t see them dominating on KotD and also on the ladder Vikings never were one of the “top dogs”.

I think we could easily just reduce the extra ressource bonus to 2. It would actually help unexperienced players using that civ cause they wouldn’t be forced to drop ressources at the TC as often. So this again is more an “adjustment” to the civ than a straight-up nerf.

Imo Lith are balanced. But I would like the food bonus reduced, it’s a too silly bonus imo. Especially for hybrid maps. I think it’s also not good for the game too have that kind of civ you never have to care about getting enough food in for your vill production.
I understand that newer players love this civ for exactly that reason. But then they don’t want to learn other civs and never appreciate the whole beautiful diversity of the game. And especially don’t learn that the game is more than just the opening rushes and then complain if they run against walls.
It’s fine to have beginner-friendly civs but they should encourage people to try different civs when they feel comfortable with these civs rather than discourage.
As Lith are currently fairly balanced, I wouldn’t just take away 50 starting food, I would also give something in retaliation.

Weird one, can’t really follow that. I also don’t even think byz need a buff. They are hard to master but can be very revarding. We’ve seen that several times in kotd how strong byz can be.

I made a Proposal how I would rework the Feitoria here.

Fair enough.

Don’t think Goths need any buffs really. They are just not so good on high level arabia, that’s all.

Spanish are already one of the strongest closed map civs. If you want to buff them for arabia or other more open maps you must do this very specifically otherwise you risk to overbuff them on maps they already excel in. The building speed bonus is a too general buff imo.

I actually like that idea in general. I’m not sure if it is enough to really influence Italian gameplay much, probably a swap in the percentages would make the deal there (or 25% / 15 % even). But I really like how these two bonus changes balance each other in the way that they make the civ stronger at land maps and weaker on water. That’s exactly what the civ needs.

48

Restore forage bonus to 25%.
Remove free farm upgrade.

Longer lasting resources doesn’t apply on food source and call it a day.

Technologies are 10%/15%/20% cheaper in the Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age → Technologies except unit upgrades are 15% cheaper.

Option 1. Villager carry +3 → Villager carry +1/+2/+3/+5 in Dark/Feudal/Castle/Imperial age.
Option 2. Proposed Sicilians bonus before release - Each Farm upgrade grants Farmers +1 carry capacity.

Option 1. * All ships have +10% HP → All military units +10% HP. Remove Bloodlines from tech tree.
Option 2. All ships have +10% HP → Blacksmith techs are 30% cheaper.

Loom is researched instantly → All TC techs are 100% faster.
(Someone suggested this on a different thread and I really liked this)

Gunpowder units fire 18% → 25% faster.
Blacksmith techs cost no gold → Non Monastery technologies (except unit upgrades) cost 60% less gold.

100% agree with this. Not sure if Indians need Shipwrights or not. But I definitely want to see more naval civs. I wish at least Spanish become a top candidate in water maps. And maybe Turks as well.

49

Spanish, Berbers, Japanese, Malay and Koreans should be more powerful in water maps.

50

I think the best way to nerf aztecs is:

  • The 11% fast created military units now applies starting at the feudal age, so their drush is nerfed by a lot.
  • Eagle Warrior food cost raised from 20 to 30 (Nerfs Aztecs and Mayans, Incas will need a civ specific buff to compensate).

Also were are the sicilians? they are soo poorly designed with broken cavaliers, fisrt crusade, and even the 100% fast built castles

1 Like
51

Yeah I think Both Sicilians and Poles need a major overhaul actually. They have very interesting bonusses but some of them are just weird and situationally OP leading to very restrictive gameplay when these civs are involved. It’s not neceessarily overpowered, but the design is just off.

But I actually like that sicilians have a bonus to their castle drops. If it needs to be 100 % is another question, maybe that amount is just too much. The really annoying bonus is that 50 % reduced bonus damage which makes it insanely hard to counter that civ. That needs to be gone or heavily reduced.

52

Poles main issues are the flawed design of having semi trash cavaliers and strong winged hussars, also, Obuch needs another nerf.
Sicilians 50% bonus damage, conversion resistance and Hauberk can stay as is, but then bloodlines has to go, they can’t have that super-cavaliers without a clear weakness, with that change they still will be insane vs archers but not oppressive, also, nerfs their stupid scout rush in late feudal age, give hussar and thumb ring to compensate, as well buffing serjeant attack because is soo pathetic at this point.

53

Definetely not. Sic without bloodlines are absolute trash. They would just be overrun by the power units again (as they were before hauberk). No it’s definetely the 50 % bonus reduction that leads to the

and the

I also have problems with the design of the Folwark. The tradeoff is weird. On one hand it is one, if not even the strongest eco bonus in the game. On the other hand it exposes the farming eco even more, so especially on open maps poles have a hard time getting away with it (or have to play extreme turtle mode). But I agree that the trash knights need to be adjusted. The Obuch is fine imo,e specially after the creation speed nerf.

54

I’m not saying they aren’t weak, I’m saying they aren’t weak enough to require a free upgrade for the purposeful anti archer upgrade that they don’t want to be making long term. If you are going to give them something, let it be for stables or for siege workshops or for arambai, units that they will actually want to use past early castle. What all of you suggesting literally is “Archers attack 20% faster in the castle age” for Spanish. Very similar concept.

Wrong, any archer civ dies to onagers, BBC too. It’s not easy if you don’t have 5 of them, but they are an expensive unit that does its job.

Utter schizophrenia. Heresy is only used as Celts and Aztecs to prevent conversions on the SO because they don’t have an easy way of dealing with monks and opposing siege. I haven’t once seen Heresy used in a serious game anyhow. 1000 gold for a super situational upgrade that might save you 10 elephants in the long run. Not to mention you have FU hussars that shred monks to begin with.

I have no idea what your level is or which game you are playing, but Heresy definitely isn’t relevant for battle elephants. Maybe, maybe for war elephants, but Persians have FU hussars too anyway.

1 Like
55

Seems like wiki agrees with me there. I don’t question that the cost of heresy is actually very high and that might also be one of the reasons we don’t see malay eles as frequent. But it has a reason the other ele civs don’t have access to that specific tech, obviously.
Just want to mention, I said it’s an enabler tech. I didn’t said it is worthy.

56

Cavalry HP bonus move to Castle age means Franks will be awful in extended feudal war with only 45HP scout. I would remove Berry bonus and keep scout HP bonus from Feudal and buff HP bonus to 25% in imp if necessary

Fine with Mayans change

Agree in that point overall. Just nerf Chinese make them awful in low level. Civ need to be at least playable in all level.

They need to be nerf more? They are fine with good eco but lacking good option in lategame and lacking mobility. They are picked often but I don’t think their winrate in Pro game is that impressive. Other civs like Indians, Lithuanians, Tatars have better picrate, winrate in Kotd.

Yeah. They are strong but they have nerfed a lot. Just more nerfing them make them awful in the scenario like TG.

agree with that. They are fine in 1v1 but struggle a lot in TG. Trample damage Paladin would be interesting TG unit.

Agree with Thumn ring. but Plate barding means Goths access to FU Hussar and Cavarlier and it makes their design change a lot. They are designed to go for all infantry in late game and not cavalry play. But maybe Thumb ring can be interesting to make them castle age play more diverse and their Cav archer can be usable.

Agree with Age up and dock, university discount change. but they don’t need siege engineer. They still have cheap BBC.

Aren’t those civ already have one or more bonus for water play?
I don’t think buffing 2nd tier civ in water map is good for water map balance. It makes civ with no water bonus like Bulgarians, Incas, or Cumans even more awful in water map.

I would prefer different direction- just nerfing more top water civs

Italians lose access to Shipwright.
Viking warship discount down to 10% or Remove dock discount bonus
Portuguese carrack removed and replaced with land-based UT. Feitoria reworked to not op in water map (As you suggested)

57

Reducing the bonus from 25% to 15% did almost nothing. So why do you think removing this bonus will make any significant change?

Not making BBC any stronger.

Why you want one of the top performing civ in KOTD4 a buff? I thought you want balance around pros. In current version of Arabia, they are top 10 for pros imo. If Arabia changes in future (which it probably will) then maybe reduce Cataphract cost from 70f/75g → 65f/70g. 20s TT is also very big honestly.

I think Japanese and Koreans are okay. For Malay it is very hard to give theme a direct water bonus as faster age up becomes very snowbally in water maps. Other two, yes of course. Berbers is a naval civ and most of the time can be outperformed by Mongols and Lithuanians simply by faster age up.

Is that really so? Militia TT reduce from 21s → 19.8s for Aztecs. Saves you 1.2 seconds. With regular 3 Drush, it means 3.6 s earlier. Aztecs will try 4 most of the time as they have extra gold. That means 4.8 seconds faster. Do you really think slowing down their Drush by 5 seconds will make a big impact? Maybe for Lieyerry vs Hera, it actually will. But almost 99.99% of the time, I don’t think this will make any difference.

This bonus comes handy in late Feudal when Aztecs can outnumber their opponents and the top tier eco bonus makes it even easier. The scariest part is Castle age 3 barracks continuous eagle production. Every single unit from every single building trained 11% faster backed by their eco. You should nerf their mid game.

I’m okay if Incas get 10%/15%/20% cheaper Eagle in Feudal/Castle/Imperial age. I really wish Incas become more attractive especially in TG.

58

Why? They already have a top tier paladins, the best against archers.

It would do just the second. It would kill the civ on water and then do nothing on the land. Just do the numbers, you would actually lose resources just factoring in the archer upgrades at the uni.

59

I believe jaguar warriors should have a faster movement speed as they’re glass canons, probably just under shotel warriors or just around. If it’s their early game that needs a nerf than maybe remove the +military creation speed and replace it with something else; perhaps

  1. Bonus replacing +military creation speed:
    newly converted units gain full health and are effected by garland wars if melee or Atlatl if ranged.

  2. Add halberdier, remove Arbalester

  3. Add heavy scorpions

  4. Add the last armor upgrade for archers(skirmisher)

  5. Additional bonus: all units +2 line of sight, buildings +5 los.

  6. Jaguar warriors gain additional movement speed

  7. (This goes for both aztecs and etheopians) jaguar warriors(and shotels) -5 gold to cost(down to 25 gold)

60

Jags have 20 to 25 more health then shotels and 1 to 2 more pierce armor. How does that make them glass cannons?

This just Trashes the civ.

Dear God why?

Your changes are just awful. They take a civ that is too strong on some maps and make them just bad all around.

1 Like
61

Shotels make up for their lesser nature with much faster creation speed and flood-ability.

Jaguars are more 'quality* glass canons.

Glass canons in my mind from weakest to strongest
Are karambits - shotels - jaguar warriors