All right, so first, I’m thrilled, probably as everyone else, for the next patch and DLC.
However!
The next patch is not without problems! I wish I could go over everything, but that seems impossible, so I’ll just talk about civ balance (and ignore Chinese/Koreans), and the main problem in my opinion: power creep, and embracing it. Perhaps it’s not fun for some, but I think there should have been a nerf to some civs, and sometimes significant, instead of huge buffs to civs which don’t always need them.
== Overall problems ==
Lack of nerfs for civs which would need one, like Georgians and Hindustanis, for instead buffing other civilisations. The balance being fragile, and in a good state now, there is a risk of breaking it entirely.
This is due to a lack of pregressivity in the changes. Instead of buffing infantry a bit (reducing the cost of Two-Handed Swordsman and Champion, and increasing the speed of Swordsmen to 0.96), they get A LOT going for them at once. Perhaps it’s justified, and I understand the point of the devs is also to shake things up, so perhaps it overall is positive. Yet, at least just from a balance perspective, changes should be more progressive.
== Civilisation balance ==
The changes brought to infantry in general disproportionally will favour a few civs, and perhaps more than necessary. Though I think they are fine for Goths, Vikings, maybe Celts, etc. I think Malays and Armenians may actually be broken in certain circumstances due to these changes. Let’s see.
Aztecs: The improvement of Jaguar Warriors was necessary, and the cumulative aspect of kills is great! But the buff lacks progressivity… It’s too much at once. E.g. only adding the cumulative effect without changing the base attack for this patch would have been fine. Or adding +2/+3 attack, instead of +5/+7!
Bulgraians: will benefit the Infantry buffs… But they honestly deserved more love. Or other civs to be nerfed. At least, make the stone bonus on TC to -80 stone.
Burgundians: [Insert rant about the existence of Flemish Revolution.]
Celts: changing the movement speed bonus at the same time as Infantry in general may be too much, we’ll see…
Cumans: no change? I think Cuman Mercenaries should have a small effect on cav archers (including Kipchaks) like +1 range, or +1 arrow. Obviously the TC bonus is still problematic.
Dravidians: Gaining access to husbandry. Why? Let their stable be, and work around that. I understand it’s also for the Elephant Archers, but then it could have been a civ bonus.
Georgians: should lose free cart, or need a wood compensation (-50 or -80), and lose completely the regeneration bonus of cavalry in Feudal.
Huns: Nomad horse l.o.s. reduced, and can no longer convert herdables.
Italians: overbuffed, both by getting Pavise as a civ bonus from Feudal, and the Imp Age unique Tech seems too powerful (though unsure, we’ll see). Pavise should remain the UT of Castle Age, and they should gain the civ bonus: trade units -20/-35/-50% cost in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
Japanese: Samurai buff welcome, but I think the gold cost is too high.
Khmer: should absolutely lose Hussar. I know some argue for loosing Blast Furnace, and we can debate it, but they should first lose Hussar.
Malay: should seriously lose the free infantry armour bonus.
Portuguese: [Insert usual rant on Feitoria]
Romans: feel quite tame, though at the right power level. Perhaps their tower play could be improved? Unsure what to do.
Sicilians: great changes.
Spanish: why buff the Missionary again? It was fine as is.
Vietnamese: should seriously be nerfed in their eco. Cavalry archers should not be affected by the HP bonus. Eco upgrades research faster bonus removed.
Vikings: need something in the late game, and even some sort of change on water!
Especially if infantry becomes meta (or at least sees more play), it will makes jaguar warriors even better.
I like the +1 attack for each kill part, but I don’t like that they made it a more generalist unit. It had already been buffed, it is quite fast with 2 pierce armor so it might become oppressive. We’ll see
I like this better, because having a trade technology locked in a castle is already weird, investing into an early castle to get the ut will always put you behind a more standard boom.
The only reason we don’t see many missionaries is because of how strong conquistadors are. For many civs missionaries would be among the strongest plays in castle age.
How is this an overbuff, the free armor in feudal age is just the same as Koreans free archer armor upgrades (and Koreans have 50% less wood cost on both archers and skirmishers, if anything, Koreans are still better than Italians in feudal for that reason), also, compare that to Mayans cheap archers (+stronger eco), Ethiopians faster ROF (and again more resources gained) and Vietnamese (free 20% extra HP and stronger eco), Italians buff is quite tame in comparison, and is a buff that doesn’t make them any stronger on closed maps, nomad or water maps.
Losing both Hussar and Light Cavalry is overnerf, removing Blast furnace is more than fine, nerf both Hussar and Cavalier play, buff Tusks swords from +3 to +5 attack to push the use of their Battle Elephants in 1v1.
Just remove the HP boost from Cavalry Archers and is fine.
So many new civilizations are outclassing the older ones more and more.
Hindustanis are obviously one of them. Their eco and military are superior, with no major weaknesses. All their counter units are just so strong. Their Hand Cannoneers, with +2 more range and +1/+1 armor, are so sick and much more superior than the Spanish or Turkish Hand Cannoneers.
The Spanish paid for their bonuses with a lack of crossbows and weak eco bonuses, and the Turks paid with their awful trash units and underpowered Janissaries. But Hindustanis didn’t.
The problem is the +2/+2 stack. TheViper read the change and immediately thought it was OP, but did not test it. I hope programmers have tested it properly.
Just like how everyone thought the Turks +1 PA on Scout-Cavalry line would be OP and ruin the TGs balance when in reality just made Turks playable on open maps, pros often think x change will be OP (Viper was predicting as well the Teutons melee armor bonus would be OP as well but in reality it isn’t).
And Italians are a civ that can lag quite behind most other civs on open maps as their only bonus earlier is the cheaper age up bonus that isn’t really big for resources saving, so having at least one bonus that allows them to compete earlier is fine.
The free +1/+1 armor is very strong but not game breaking.
Scouts deal 5 base damage and archers have 30hp. So pavise archers will die in 8 hits instead of 6. Which is the same as Vietnamese archers with their 36hp. Meanwhile, Vietnamese have a better early game eco than Italians.
Bulgarians need something else.
Cumans mercenaries need some love, Cumans doesn’t have anything for Post-Imperial.
Georgians need more nerfs, either the HP regeneration or their eco (or both).
Italians Post-Imperial was amazing, why buffing them in that regard? Archer bonus seems ok for early-land play (I would like the Condo available in Castle Age).
Khmer need to lose Husbandry and adjust Eles speed to compensate (they will be fine).
Malay not sure about them.
Vietnamese feel to OP but I’ll wait before ask for a nerd.
I am wondering that whether all hand cannoneer do pass through damage in this DLCs. Does this imply a rework on hand cannoneer? Or it just means missed shot deal +15% damage?
I will keep repeating to the point of boredom that making the upgrade to MaA free of charge for all civilisations is the most broken and boring thing you can do
Apart from collecting relics, I see no reason to train Spanish Monks when Missionaries even outclass Aztec Monks at the same cost. Meanwhile, the Aztecs have to research all Monastery techs just to train the second-best Monk.
Eagle Warriors are also comparatively much weaker now.
And what good does keeping them as they are do? The militia line needs more techs than most other units to be viable and even then they’re useless against anything outside of the Skirmisher and Pike lines.
Yes there’s, Monks still have better range and don’t suffer from being hard countered by anti-cavalry units that Missionaries still have.
How are weaker now? If anything feudal Eagle Scouts are buffed and what’s wrong to make Eagle Warriors more counterable, I invite you to check the old 2017-2021 meta where Aztecs were wayy too dominant because of Eagles.
Missionaries end up with only 1 less range than monks, and I’d still prefer them despite taking bonus damage from anti-cavalry units.
The mobility, HP, and armor advantages are too good to pass up.
I thought the Aztecs were dominant because of the +5 resource carry capacity, rather than Eagles. And the Mayans were below the Aztecs despite having better Eagles.
On Arena Monks 100% are better, you are FCing all time here and you barely have enough food to afford the armor upgrades that early there cmon.
At the time Eagles costed 20f instead of 25 and also Aztecs used to have 18% faster trained military instead of 15%, combine that with Aztecs stronger eco back then and you had a wayy too powerful unit that early being hard to counter properly supported by the Aztec Monks as well.
Mayans were at some point too dominant on open maps (and still are, just that other new civs came out and the archer line nerfs), 100 HP Elite Eagle Warriors are too OP for many civs to deal with, and El Dorado was nerfed in the researching time because of that (and was as well in the times when Militia-line was really bad as a counter to eagles).
It will lead to evey civ do 100% of the time Men At Arms openings and then some civs will have really absurd ones like Japanese, Burmese and Vikings, and that’s a bad balance.