Do you actually mean built 100% faster? Otherwise they have a higher than normal ratio of build time to food output (at least before upgrades), which makes it unclear how beneficial this is.
Also, do you really mean -50% resources, so they also receive less from Horse Collar and Heavy Plow? And does it round up, down, or not at all?
It’s the base value. So each farm will start with 87f. And then get +75 from collar etc
Effectively these farms function a lot like Sicilians, without OP realising it.
So effectively not exactly like Teutons straight discount, as it requires the tech before the discount equates to Teuton levels of food per wood invested.
He is right though. It’s still a minor eco buff before even collar kicks in, because you need a lower investment to get your food eco running, the wood will come later, but it means you don’t need to wait for it
It’s similar to the idea of 2 workers per farm, which has been suggested numerous times, albeit on that one the big benefit is defense against raiders due to proximity.
You have some interesting ideas, most of them don’t make sense so it’s better to explain the point of them when you post them. And probably better to add the current value of something and the value you want to change it to.
For example serjeants aren’t a common unit so not everyone knows how much you want to buff them just by mentioning new attack value
Like here you could mention which units would actually be affected… and you might not have realised it, but this includes trebuchets AND BBC. Nevermind xbows and champs.
This likely makes it OP, you’re giving both the Spanish and the Celt civ bonus to Bengalis in their UT. Spanish lack siege engineers due to said bonus. And Bengalis have SE.
I like these. Celts have been suggested a few times by different people.
But I like the viking one as well. Unfortunately it does also create even more overlap between berserks and champs.
But I think it’s worthwhile, and helps their pikes in very long games, so likely won’t affect very high tier games too much, due to the cost. Especially since the civ lost TR, their imp age is weaker. But that being said the civ is still performing well.
Honestly I’d rather see two workers per farm (though that might be problematic due to villager pathing and bouncing together?), or like mostly anything else (other than old bonus) to reflect the Inca farms.
Still like the ‘farms are improved on elevated ground’ type of bonus, while situational it’s very thematic and can prove useful on certain maps. I initially thought that farms on elevated ground would have more food (say, triple), but what if farmers just worked much quicker on elevated ground?
We need these following changes to happen:
Dravidians:
*Knight line enabled (upgrades are still disabled)
Italians:
*Cavalry Archer removed
Khmer:
*Cavalry Archer and Onager removed
*Elephant Archer enabled
Malay:
*Hand Cannoneer enabled
Portuguese:
*Onager removed
*Heavy Scorpion enabled
I can understand Dravidians Khmer and Khmer suggestion
But what is the reason of Italians and Portuguese changed?
Well, trees lasting more is also a deffensive bonus against holes in your wall… But that would be better for bengalis because their feudal options are more limited than dravidians
Actually their two-handed swordmen got buffed with +1 armor with their BE discount in Imp. But yeah, the are one of the least picked and worst civs while they are fairly good but not that impressive in water map. Malay themselves were supposed to be very strong economy civilization with their agriculture, maritime, and trade power. The weakness is they relied too much on infantry while I also don’t remember they used Arbalest
this also seems an interesting idea tho. Maybe a new civilization could have it. To offset that, farmers work *% slower since they have less walking time like Khmer and safer from raiding as Incas villagers also have armor
yeah, I just added some information. Although they have tons of armor, they have so little DPS. With +1 attack, they still 4 hits kill an arbalester, but have better result against other infantry. For example, Serjeant costs 65f & 35g while Woad Raider cost 65f & 25g. In 1v1, Serjeant definitely wins, but in equal resources, Woad Raider wins since they have 2 more attack. Ironically, Serjeant loses against Obuch with that cost. The way Serjeants become worthy is only when First Crusade is researched. The way buffing Serjeant is to offset the bonus damage nerf
I honestly admit that it’s such a bad idea for me that it becomes affecting too much armies, and I got confused when I wanted to write down “Excluding siege units” while Siege Elephants are also considered as Siege weapon. I also forgot the trebuchet. However, they don’t have BBC for sure although the AI names indicates that the Bengalis civ were from 7th-16th century. Paiks itself was an economic tax system where the allocations were used for weaponry stuffs production, such as arrow, spear, lance, and so on
Yeah indeed. But the closest civ to have that bonus is Dravidians due to their settlement. Someone already mentioned they already have +200 wood bonus which is much better. So it will overlap. As you said, Bengalis have such awkward transition and limited option. Even Dravidians which have ‘nothing’ in stable still have smooth archers and pikes transition. I just don’t have idea about Bengalis. However, the monk armor bonus will help a little bit since 3 monks are guaranteed to kill 6 knights
And your archers nerf is… That they are 3% less accurate after thumb ring?
I fail to see how this makes sense.
Not to mention the BBT buff, you aren’t a BF/FFA player, that’s for sure.
you’re right, sorry i was looking at the hindu tree
oh yeah for sure, i was one of the first people to correct people when they said serjeants were like teutonic knights + huskarls.
they arent because cost effectively they dont function like that. especially the TK comparison, because serjeants are just stupid expensive and have terrible dps.(even more so for the cost)
and i think that was how the civ was designed, but he player base didnt like first crusade, so it kept getting nerfed until it stopped being viable in most cases, and the devs bowed to the knight obsessed pros(or who ever it is that seems to have such control over civ design), and turned them into a knight civ
which is awesome, but still very situational and usually map dependent (there’s still someone here that is adamant malay BE are a secret slept on OP meta that players just need to learn to use, cant remember their name, they were very vocal about it)
You can read other’s elo by their post???
yes clearly anyone who looks at Ghulam as a problematic unit and goes like “oh the gold cost IS the problem” is like 1100 elo at best.
Ghulam has many problems, among those, beating Militia-line, maybe a bit too cost-efficient vs Archers (even for a counter unit), but its price tag in terms of resource distribution is not one of the problems.
It’s like saying, Eagles are a bad unit because they cost 50g a piece, I mean Montezuma campaign I played it too and pretty much you are encouraged to do Pikes and Atlatl Skirms… no wonder people think Eagles are bad after such a campaign.
So what’s likely happened with him(green), is he said some stuff at some point in his life and was belittled/abused because of it and/or witnessed it happening to others, likely to a significant extent. (Git gud culture)
Now he repeats that trauma on others, and because he was subjected to it, he believes it is acceptable behaviour, which likely also means he has little influence from a community that does not actually engage in such treatment, therefore has nothing to show that the behaviour is not correct
I think it’s called transgenerational trauma
Thank you for coming to my tedtalk
Typical case of monster create monster 
I wouldn’t mind this as a civ bonus, actually. Brings something unique to the game (and aggressive forward monasteries into monk rushes supported by your army could be interesting too)!
But ofc not as a general change, haha.
Petards?
Yeah, Celts have become the one with that kind of new design and Woad Raiders receive some more HP and base attack.
Change feels good.
If we are nerfing cavalry, better not buff archers. Should wait 3-6 months before changing archers.
This will need some kind of new building and 100 gold cost to be added.
Yup! Gambesons things or a gold cost decrease.
Any game where as Dravidians u ran out of wood?
Nope, Franks iconic things are better preserved. May be nerf the berry bonus and make it last 15% more.
Agree with farm change. But it should be like when farms have less than 50 food.
This free gold should be utmost 20%.
No need for any of the changes.
Dude, Malay infantry is awesome now. They always did well in higher levels. Their unorthodox style of play was the problem for low elos.
Ty, I was just logged in and came to address this thread I made several months ago. Many of them are bad, but I am quite happy that few of them accidentally got implemented during last changes. In this current patch, I like some underrated UTs (especially Stronghold) and some infantry UUs finally got buffed. But I feel awkward with the way Incas get huge food discount on unit for free while Gurjaras should pay for it with higher cost than before and less food discount than Incas. Also Serjeants still feel as underrated as before since they perform worse and cost too much gold compared with other UU while most of infantry got buffed.