# Nerfs to the evergreen universal S Tier civs

I suggest going to a logics class, I literally wrote that these villagers offset, YES YOU GET EXTRA VILLS but since they are working on lost resources, they might as well not be there until you break even.

Likewise for pop space, what matters is only when you must build a house, which is right away for generic civ, and after 1 villager created for Chinese… so in a sense, you get 1 “free” pop or 5 wood “back”… not 25.

If you write this on a piece of paper, with scenario A generic civ, scenario B chinese, and do graphs for both until Chinese break even (which tbh is not in Feudal, but around late Dark Age min 10 or so…) it will all make sense.

I suggest you to make sense, if it’s Frank that produces the 3 vill (150f) they have to work on lost resources as well.

Should I write it this way,

• Chinese: -50f, -25w, the first 3 vills and 1 house are created instantly,

…or is 1500elo meta to not create more than 3 vills in game, @Green4uu ? 11

Small error you got is that the villagers are worth resources. 3 vills more than other civs = 150 food more than other civs, so theyre only missing 100 res and they only need to gather that to break even.

Let me put this to you a different way: In AOK, the Chinese bonus was +3 villagers, -150 food. Are you arguing that the bonus in this case, would be free? Or, are we agreeing that it’s a clear bonus of 3 villagers pre-produced at the cost of 150 food upfront? Because the bonus is clearly that you are skipping the time it takes to make the villagers, not the cost of said villagers.

The same exact rule applies now, except now they’ve properly nerfed a three villager advantage to be slightly less overwhelming by adding an extra 50 food and 50 wood to the cost of the bonus. The cost of three villagers, pre-produced, plus a house worth of pop, is now 200 food / 50 wood.

Yes, the net result, raw resources, is that the Chinese lose an extra 50f/25w to the cost of the bonus. We don’t need complex arithmetic to understand that, you need not explain it. The fact of the matter is, that’s not the point of the bonus. The bonus skips the training time of the initial three villagers to give you a population lead. That is a lead you spent an extra 50f/25w for, that is continuously becoming less valuable as you continue to fail to make villagers as your TC cannot work without food.

The bonus does not cost 50f/25w. it costs 200f/50w, gives you 150f/25w in value, and gives you an immediate 75 second advantage in TC work time which you must attempt to save as efficiently as possible. You aren’t spending 50f/25w on three villagers. You’re losing 50f/25w in upfront payment for the 75 seconds of TC advantage you’ve started with, in addition to the upfront costs of the units themselves, and that loss becomes more painful the longer you fail to get production going, as that’s recoupable only before that 75 second time-window, and the longer you take to start paying it off, the thinner the eventual return shall be.

2 Likes

I guess that is the definition change then.

For me the cost is relative to other civ,
so:

Imo it is just 3 vills created instantly at no cost. The “cost” here does not imply that vills have no cost, but rather, the act of instantly creating vills have no cost. Because imo that is what matters when we compare civ bonuses - how does this bonus compare to other civs? (civ bonuses in 1v0 game is pointless)

As you said, the “value” of three vills are 150f, so we should not care (only) about “net cost” (200f 50w) but rather the total value (net gain - net cost), as we will always create those three vills anyway.

(the TC idle time is around 25 seconds after build order, it has been researched extensively so it is not meaningful to discuss how should we avoid to make TC idle either, it has been known already, so the profit here is “fixed” in Arabia and a lot of maps with 4 sheeps)

Nerfing the technology discount bonus will make the Chinese tasteless.
The starting resources nerf will not affect them much… just make them less appealing to noobs.

Dude.

Britons need that +1 extra range in Imperial. It gives them their power spike… and they need it for FREE rather than by researching Yeomen. That’s also why they lack thumbring.

Also, what you’re suggesting would make the difference between an Elite Longbowman and Arbalest huge. Right now, it’s +1 range, +1 attack, +1 pierce armor with -10% accuracy.

As for the TC bonus, nerfing that will take away a significant part of their strength.

Pick any ONE. Not BOTH.

I agree with this change

Actually, horse shoe collar is the most important of them all. No need to nerf this at all.

Make it like Stables for 50% faster on stuff that affects Knights. As in Husbandry, Cavalier and Paladin tech… creating knights… butt NOT on the scout line.

IMHO, the thing that needs a nerf with the Franks is the Castle discount.

1 Like

Dude.

That range is what makes britons completely broken in TGs because other archer civs can’t compete with that, and makes one sided too advantaged for britons but too bad for the opponent.
Besides, i like the idea to push people towards longbowman as the true long ranged archer and no boring OP arbalest, like how the Lithuanians lack of blast furnace works.

2 Likes

There is some truth to that. Also, in team games… at least late game, the British player should be able to tech into Elite Longbowman more easily. 12 range Elite Longbowmen with Warwolf Trebs is strong. Some would suggest removing the range buff from Yeomen but that would make Britons weak… and would also nerf their Skirmisher.

In 1v1, Mayan archers are better but in team games British archers are the best. Even Hera said so.

Only disadvantage is that the Longbowman requires Castles to mass. Not a problem in long team games.

Not a correct comparison. The Longbowman is the better archer in all situations when compared to the Arbalest. +1 attack, +1 range, +1 pierce armor is huge… especially when dealing with units that have 7 or more pierce armor. The 10% less accuracy does not hurt the Longbowman much… it might even help in large numbers… by mitigating overkill.

Leitis vs. Paladin is different. Leitis is better vs. melee units. Leitis tends to be a niche unit that’s good at taking out Teutonic Knights, Boyars, Knight line… basically melee units that don’t have attack bonus against them. Leitis is good against Franks, Teutons, Slavs… civs with weak ranged units.

Paladin can take more arrow fire and so, does better vs archers and buildings. Paladin is the overall better unit.
By the way, Blast furnace was removed for the Lithuanians because
#1. They gave them winged hussar
#2. They increased the Leitis base attack to 16 (I think)… so, it does 18 damage with 0 relics anyway
#3. Paladins are not normally seen in 1v1 games… they’re mostly in team games and in team games, you should easily get 2 relics… minimum.
#4. Their infantry isn’t great. Their Halberdiers are good… but missing 1 melee armor and 2 melee attack is not nice but ok since most of their damage comes from their attack bonus vs. Cavalry.

Except that by the time longbow becomes more relevant the britons already have a huge mass of 11 range arbalests, at that point why you even want to go for longbow? If longbows are that good then why are rarely seen in games that can’t allow britons to build enough castles to go into the unit.

And even after all those changes leitis is barely seen, even vs melee civs. Also, halbs without blast furnace need 1 more hit to kill cavalry.

Power spikes are for civs that don’t get any other eco advantage. Britons have huge bonuses in dark age, castle age and double bonus for military. That’s already a lot. If suppose they missed one of those four bonuses completely then yes they would need that but not right now imo. And you’d still have a huge advantage in the castle age with +1 range on xbows and even arbs would have that same extra range than generic ones.

The whole point was that both -30% in imp and 15% longer lasting resources in early game is a LOT. Compared to resources gained or saved by other civs this is huge and thereby makes mayans super powerful on most maps.

Heavy plow is +5% working rate on farms and delays reseeding by 6 mins. If you don’t do it you’ll be getting lesser food per minute than Frank opponent and if you do it, you’ve invested 250 resources in castle age which is quite a lot.

That’s a big buff for TGs.

well that too but imo toning down the cavalry related group of bonuses would be more suitable.

Still never made except maybe in Black forest or some Arena Tgs. The investment into castles is not worth it in Arabia. Atleast with +2 range, it might push players to go for it.

Ya that’s exactly what I thought.

1 Like

Two option about nerfing Britons
1- Remove Ballistic from tech tree and compensate with a civ bonus that make the range units better without ballistic but worst with ballistic
2- Nerf the entire archer line to be more in-accurate in general and make the Thumb Ring the same way is right now

Gives them +1 carry capacity AFAIK.

They are the knight civ afterall.

Yeah. It’s more in closed maps. Well, yeah… in Arabia… +2 might incentivize investment into those.

Too extreme

That actually sounds good… but wouldn’t that end up nerfing all civilizations that lack thumbring? Like the Aztecs, Bohemians, Vikings, Sicilians?

Like how do you do that without making the Franks weak? Right now, the Franks are too predictable. Scout rush into Knights… and Castle dropping. Maybe make the Chivalry tech cost more?

I also think making the Knight HP bonus apply to all cavalry units was a bit of an overbuff.

3 Likes

I guess one way to ensure that is to let the Britons create their unique unit from the archery range… just like the Goths and the Huns. You’ll get a Castle to get the Unique techs, Elite upgrade, Conscription and make Trebuchets anyway. Might sound OP. Maybe replace the Yeomen tower buff with this. Yeomen is pricy anyway.

that translates into ~5%.

Exactly. They are THE knight civ. No other civ has multiple additive bonuses that favor knight production like Franks do.

Someone suggested cavalry hp applying from castle age, that might nerf feudal a bit. But honestly slightly reducing the extent of eco bonuses is the best imo.

1 Like
1. Ballistics needs to be there for every civ, without that archers would do nothing to moving units. Its even difficult to kill villagers.
2. Its an interesting idea but might make the game knight-eagle only then. Nerfing entire archer line would also render certain civs nearly useless.
1 Like

Dude. I’ve literally had people dodge arrows from Elite Longbowmen using Villagers (generic, not Berber ones)… and these were fully upgraded. This is how it is evenwith ballistics. Imagine how useless archers would be without it.

True, that.

Out of curiosity, neenga tamila?

Bro. Ballistics is not just about archers. It also affects your defensive buildings and galley line. Stuff like ballistics, murder holes and chemistry exist for all civilizations for a reason

4 Likes

Then the competition between longbows and arbalests is even bigger.

Cagey is not joking, the extra damage ought to encourage Longbow use, but at further distances Arbalesters are much more reliable for damage. This means that Paladins can get the drop on Longbows. Arbalesters are not terribly reliable at dealing with Paladins, so there is that.

Is funny because I just played vs Britons and only went for arbalests despite having 3 castles, which is just enough to go for longbows 11.
And wtf to compare, Plumes see far more use than longbows just because the unit is in fact a straight up better arbalest in all aspects except attack (Plumes are actually OP).