(NO OFFICIAL) Balance changes for the next big patch

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

General changes:

  1. Chemistry - Ranged units get +1 attack, Gunpowder units get +2 attack.
    (Idea behind this is to rework gunpowder unique units to scale better in imp but not be overpowered in the earlier stages of the game making it impossible to defend against them)

  2. Base attack of hand canoneer reduced to 15. (Adjustment for the chemistry change)
    Bombard canon bonus vs siege reduced from 20 to 18.

  3. Elite Battle Elephant blast damage increased from 25% to 35%, elephant class armor increased from 0 to 5. (The 60 bonus damage for halbs against elephants was given wrt Persian elephants originally. Those units have 600 hp. This change will increase the number of hits needed to kill an elephant from 5 to 6, Vietnamese will stay at 7)

  4. Elephant archer (elite) base attack increased from 6(7) → 7(8). Range of elites 4 → 5 CA class armor changed from -4 to -3 for elites.

  5. Militia line bonus damage vs buildings 0, 2, 3, 4, 4 → 1, 3, 4, 5, 5 (Increasing by 1 at each level to make them get more value before archers drive them away). Additional +2 from maa onwards against walls and gates armor class.

Civs:

  • Aztecs - Carry capacity bonus changes from +3 → +3 in dark and feudal, +4 from castle age onwards.
    Castle age monk techs give +3 hp, imp techs give +5 hp to monks.

  • Bengalis - Melee cavalry +2 attack vs skirms → Melee rathas and light cavalry +1 attack in feudal age, additional +1 in castle age (+2 total).

  • Bohemians - hussite wagon (elite) base attack reduced by 1 (still +1 compared to now after chemistry), elite hussite wagon protection radius increased by 1.

  • Britons - Yeomen cost reduced from 750 wood, 450 gold → 400 wood, 300 gold. Effect changed to just Longbowmen get +2 range and towers get +2 attack. Civ bonus changed to +1 range from castle age for foot archers. (no more additional +1 in imp)
    Longbowmen training time 18 seconds → 16 seconds
    (Idea here is to make longbow transition stronger)

  • Burmese - Arambai wood cost reduced from 75w → 70w

  • Burgundians - Flemish rev - Unlocks flemish militia. Existing infantry units of the player take 30% less pop space.

  • Bulgarians - Blacksmith and siege workshop technologies cost -50% food → Military technologies except unit line upgrades cost -50% food. (siege upgrades become expensive again but bloodlines, husbandry, thumb ring, squires, parthian tactics etc become cheaper)
    New bonus: each infantry and cavalry unit reduces tower cost by 3 and 2 stone respectively (max 30), kreposts by 5 and 3 stone respectively (max 50)
    Konnik base reload time decreased from 2.4 → 2.1
    Stirrups: Cavalry attack 33% faster → Stable units attack 20% faster, Konniks 30%
    (Reload of hussar, cavalier increases from 1.43 to 1.52, that of konnik decreases from 1.8 to 1.62)

  • Chinese - Lose Heavy camel upgrade (To reduce their versatility given their early game is now solid at most elo levels. )

  • Celts - Siege fire 20% faster in castle age, 25% in imp (from 25% flat currently). Infantry move 20% faster (up from 15%), woad raider food cost 65f → 55f

  • Franks - +1 range for axemen and elite. Elite axemen frame delay reduced from 0.82 → 0.7 Gambesons removed. New UT: Infantry units within castle range takes 2 less damage from ranged units (not siege). Cost 350 food, 300 gold

  • Georgians - start with a free mule cart but -50wood. Non-elite monaspa get extra attack for every 10th unit instead of 8

  • Incas - Food discount limited to infantry and slingers

  • Italians - Archery range techs also cost -33%

  • Malay - Scale mail armor free, rest cost -50%

  • Mayans - Archer discount dropped to 10/15/20 from 10/20/30. Base cost of plumed reduced to 53w, 53g to adjust for it. El Dorado: Eagles +40 hp → Eagles +40% hp (84 instead of 100)

  • Mongols - Hunt bonus diminishes with the amount of food collected from hunt. Approx 22% average for standard amount of hunt.

    (Details for those interested: Increase in work rate function: 40. 2^(-x/500) where x is amount of food collected from hunt thus far. Hunt rate drops to 20% after a boar and 2 deer, almost 10% when hunt ends in Arabia. Beyond 1000 food, the hunters work just less than 10% faster than generic. This is to reduce the power level when Mongol player lames or gets too much extra hunt from the map)

  • Poles - Folwarks instantly give 15 food in dark, 20 food in feudal, 25 food castle age onwards. Every farm upgrade increases this by an additional 5 food. Crop rotation removed from civ.
    (Comparison: OG Poles 18/25/38/55 food, current 14/20/30/44, post this change 20 in feudal without horse collar but 25 with it, 30 in castle age with just horse collar but 35 with heavy plow. But 35 is the maximum. No more in imp. They’ll now have the flexibility to skip horse collar and get the current instant food in feudal or do it and get as much as OG. Same goes for castle age. But in imp, they’ll get much lower than now. Buffs their early and mid games but nerfs their late game winged hussar spam quite a bit)
    Obuch gold cost 20g → 30g
    Szlacha Privileges - Knights and Obuchs cost -33% gold (Obuch cost restored, Knights will cost 20 gold more than now)
    (Idea is improving the early game but fixing what was actually broken back then. )

  • Portugese - Berry trickle reduced from 1 wood per 3 food to 1 wood per 4 food. Monks not covered by gold discount. Organ guns -1 base attack for both elites and non-elites, +1 bonus vs infantry and skirms. After chemistry, they will actually have 1 attack more than their current. But castle age version is more vulnerable to knights.

  • Romans - Squires free.

  • Spanish - Gold per tech 20 in dark, 30 in feudal, 40 castle age onwards. Conquistador cost changed from 60f, 70g → 75f, 60g. Base attack (elite) reduced from 16(18) → 13(17). (Conqs will end up having 15(19) after chemistry. Idea is to improve Spanish eco, make conqs scale better and longer in imp but harder to produce with lower effectiveness early on. Change specially intended for Nomadic maps)

  • Sicilians - Farms produce 100% more food. Crop rotation removed. Donjon armor 1/7, 2/8, 3/9 to 2/8, 3/8, 3/9. +1 building armor. bonus attack vs stone defense +5 to +6. (Takes 9 damage from villagers instead of 11 taken by watch towers, does 1 more damage per projectile to opponent towers)

  • Vikings - Berserk food cost reduced 65 → 55

Apologies for the big post but thank you for your time. Please do comment your thoughts and suggestions.
EDIT: Did some recommended changes to militia line, bombard canons and to Chinese, Mayans, Bulgarians, Burgundians and Georgians. Added new UT for Franks with some additional changes. Thanks for the feedback to all thus far.

EDIT2- Changed the Mongol hunt to last forever but decay close to zero after a large amount of food from hunt is collected.

EDIT3 - Removed Mangudai cost nerf, Reduced the celt siege nerf, made woad raiders cheaper

7 Likes
2

I like this change. Aztecs have been power crept badly.

+2 on light cav might make them too powerful on Arena during Relic fights. I don’t see why a general cavalry +1 attack starting in feudal age is not a good bonus. Elephants can also benefit from the bonus. Melee Ratha can also be given +1 or +2 separately to make it more powerful. It takes a castle to produce. It should have more DPS than a Knight.

Britons are a solid civ with good defensive options due to their range. I am not sure the changes are needed.

Bulgarian blacksmith bonus is solid. They get most techs half price in feudal age. This kinda tramples all over Burgundian bonus. Not to mention ‘Age ups’ should be excluded. Blackmsith building should have been available to them 50% cheaper. But that belongs to Bohemians unfortunately.

I’d nerf it down to minus 100 wood at start.

If this is implemented, then then their University cheaper techs need to go.

They already get free speed boost from centurions.

Yup! Should fix a lot of castle drops on Arena.

Personally, I think Devs have been trying hard to sell ‘Mountain Royals’ with frequent buffs. But they are ignoring other recent DE civs.

1 Like
3

I agree with most of the changes. (rarely for a long post of balance change) And eventually a reasonable post by a normal guy after recent considerable ridiculous posts by trollers.

Gunpowder UUs got nerf in castle age. Compensation should be given to them in imperial age if devs dont want gunpowder power spike in Castle age. I even think that it makes sense that if Janissary is worse than Bohemian HC, Elite Janissary can be better than Hindustani HC by giving elite Janissary +1 range.

Maybe this buff should be introduced together with heavy scorpions +1 range.

Previously, I proposed Dravidian militia costing wood. Maybe all civs militia costing wood to make it ‘cheaper’ in early game.

+3/+4/+5 feudal/castle/imp should be also fine. Monks change is fine

Does chemistry change affects secondary projectiles of organ guns and hussite wagon?

While I agree that Longbow should be more distinguished from xbow, this change hurts Britons quite a lot and they are still not OP. Standard longbow may get +1 range to encourage more longbow over crossbow.

Fine changes.

I think flemish militia will be too good to be produced in barracks upon upgrading 2HS. I was thinking if we can make Flemish Revolution more flexible. Like flemish revolution allow production of Flemish militia in Town Center and construction of a unique building. After you build the unique building, all villagers turn to flemish militia.

This is a nice buff. But I think more is needed to compensate the lack of xbow.

Chinese can even lose the whole camel line. But Chinese lacks supplies and gambeson. Is it necessary to remove plate mail armor?

Good changes.

New stronghold cant compemsate the nerf.

Limited to barracks and exclude Kamayuk and slingers+ skirm.

It barely revert the crossbow upgrade cost to pre-nerf level. Cheaper thumb ring may help against cav civs but cav civs will be still unfavorable for Italians. Cheaper ballistics help against archer civs but their archers still cant compete with traditional archer civs, like Britons, ethiopians.

This should be together with militia-line buff.

I am not fond of this.

This is a bit complicated. How about the bonus only available for non-agressive huntable? (i.e. no longer for boar but only for deer)

How about their steppe lancers? Can hp locked behind UT and replace Nomad?

Fine change.

Maybe let berry last a bit longer instead of giving wood bonus to Portuguese as a strobg naval civ.

Fine changes.

Overall, good change to elite conq. I think elite conq can have +5 CA armor class.

Reasonable.

1 Like
4

Looks like a very well thought out list overall. My thoughts on most of these range to neutral to somewhat agreeing, to very strongly agreeing. Might comment more on the ones I like in a later post, but for now just want to address the sore thumbs:

Two things I strongly disagree with are the double Chinese nerf and the extent of the Maya archer nerf. Admittedly I haven’t been keeping up with civ winrates lately, especially at the pro level, so it’s possible that these are warranted, but I’d have to see some very strong supporting evidence to think so. But it seems like this would just make Chinese a mid Archer/Cav civ and leave them with too many weaknesses in lategame.

In general I don’t like the idea of watering down bonuses to the point where they feel useless for half or more of the game (Chinese tech discount nerf that was implemented, or the Maya archer nerf here). A 5 Percent Archer discount is basically nothing, and even 10% in Castle Age isn’t a very robust basis for a civ supposedly specializing in archers, and without good monks, siege, gunpowder, or cav. At that point, the civs with global resource discounts (Koreans for Wood and Portuguese for gold) seem like better cheap archer civs than the OG cheap archer civ. I would start with a 5% reduction per age at most, or just nerf El Dorado to +30 HP.

1 Like
5

My thoughts: most of these changes are ones that I either dislike or don’t have much of an opinion about. There are a few changes that I like. But overall, the game is already in a pretty good state of balance (with basically every civ having a winrate between 45-55%). And I do think that there is some value in keeping the game stable with making as few balance changes as possible (and when changes are made, mostly making them small changes).

Since most gunpowder units require chemistry, this is effectively an extra upgrade for gunpowder UUs (normal gunpowder units, chemistry is a pre-req so they’d never show up without chemistry). I think it would be fine if chemistry provided +1 to these unique units as well (possibly with other adjustments to maintain balance), but see no need to have it impact the (effective) base attack of other gunpowder units (one significant impact of having it affect generic gunpowder units: BBCs would return to 1-shotting heavy scorpions)

In late game, this is a buff making them better at destroying bases. In early game, it helps with breaking down walls, but the main benefit of a militia/MAA rush is idling an economy and buying time (something that the anti-building bonus damage doesn’t really help with).

The carry capacity bonus scaling with age sounds like a good change, though I’d keep it at +3 in Dark age to keep from nerfing their early game - I’d rather they be a civ that is good at early aggression, and I don’t think they are right now.

Britons - I don’t see why Yeomen’s bonus to towers would need to be removed. With the other changes, I’m guessing you’re trying to make more of a difference between archer line and longbows (something I don’t think this is really necessary).

Just a weird finnicky change (would the tech require 2-handed swordsmen before having an effect? If so, then it may as well be moved to the barracks). Also, Flemish militia require the tech before they can be trained.

That’s a large discount, with a lot of techs impacted. You’re looking at bloodlines, light cav, hussar, cavalier, husbandry, heavy cav archer, thumb ring, parthian tactics, pikeman, halbedier, supplies, gambesons, squires, arson, conscription, some dock techs, devotion, siege engineers, chemistry, and arguably some other university techs as well in addition to the techs that are already affected. That looks like an overbuff to me, even before the new bonus. Most of the impact would come in imperial age (which makes it not quite as bad), but it would still be a major buff in imperial age (especially for upgrading cav archers). And Konniks are already a very strong unit that is relatively easy to mass for a UU - they do not need a cost discount.

I don’t think Chinese need a nerf, especially not such an impactful one. Maybe if you gave them additional technologies to cover current holes in their tech tree (but then they’d likely end up too strong)

I think the current benefit of strongholds is better (because the attack boost only matters if you’re actively fighting under the castle - something opponents tend to avoid) The siege nerf would be fine, except Celts are already considered a power-crept civ.

Franks: I don’t see much point in moving the castle discount to a UT - they’re strong, but a bit limited in options (which really hurts them in some matchups).

Incas: why limit the food discount to infantry? It basically would change their skirmishers (see no reason why this would be needed) and slingers (which would likely get a price adjustment accompanying such a change).

Mayans: Why reduce the archer discount? They may be a strong civ, but don’t have much else in the way of options. Just that and El Dorado eagles.

Mongols: I think a simple reduction in the % would be better (certainly would be less bug-prone).

Why the Folwark change? And why remove crop rotation?

Szlacha Privileges: it already doesn’t impact early castle age (the tech is a bit pricey and requires an expensive castle). And imperial age it’s balanced by the Poles missing the last armor upgrade and Paladin. The change nerfs obuchs in castle age (I expect them more in imperial age than I do in castle) and nerfs a knight-line that doesn’t need to be nerfed.

Why does the gold/tech need to be scale with age? It already scales from the fact that more techs become available the later the game goes on. Spanish also have no gold on blacksmith techs, and changing the bonus would encourage some more risky plays (like getting loom in Feudal age for an additional 10 gold - or even trying to delay until castle age). Also would make getting to castle age without mining any gold much easier - great for scout/skirm play, or putting your first mining camp on a stone mine.

Seems like an overall farming nerf to me (especially with crop rotation removed). Sicilians are strong at lower ELOs, but not so much at top level, so I don’t see why they would need their farming nerfed.

6

Just to make longbows more useful

This is just military technologies. Burgundian bonus is food discount for eco upgrades and overall discount for stable. So its like some minor partial overlap but not entirely the same.

But that’d become 0 eco benefit till castle age. The pre-buff early game weakness would show up again.

But that needs a castle. By then 100 food is not a problem. This buff is mainly intended for early castle age longswords + scorps possibility.

Good point.

Its a different kind of expensive. 45 wood and plenty of units will delay farm addition. So that’s also expensive eventually. This doesn’t make maa mainstream but rather improve their usability a bit more. Quick walled houses, mills will get taken down sooner forcing more repairs. Just a slight improvement in their potential value.

Yes. The idea is to improve their usability in the late castle age.

But I’m also proposing a significant cost reduction for Yeomen. It improves the potential of tower addition as well.

Sure. I thought it could be taken one step at a time.

Idea is to make strong cavalry (like Paladin, Savar, Keshiks, Monaspa etc) + elite skirms compete well against them. So its more like forcing Chinese to get a strong advantage in castle age or early imp. And if they fail they’ll have problems against some civs.

Fast movement plus upto 30% higher dps not good enough? Any other suggestions? Maybe speed bonus increased to 20% from castle age and woad raider base speed adjusted?

Its too much of a discount right now for earlier stages given that it also has resources lasting longer and cheaper walls. I’m not quite opposed to 20% or even 25% discount in imp but castle age discount should be kept to smaller numbers imo.

I think that’s not possible because they’re both categorized as hunt. And that will still be a problem in maps like Yucatan and Scandinavia where there are several deer. This change is along the lines of Gurjara sheep garrison food generation.

I thought about that but nerfing Mangudai and Lancers could be too much. Maybe CA fire rate could be the new UT?

Won’t die to skirms then. Maybe +2 CA armor?

That is the intention. Right now they’re a civ with a great early, excellent mid and solid late game. Good eco, cheap techs and diverse military options. In order to keep the civ usable at lower elos, dark age can’t be nerfed again. With this change they’ll be forced to win with a timing advantage against cav civs. And that’s not unrealistic given their solid eco benefit.

But they also get extra vill, longer lasting resources and cheaper walls. So the archer discount is their 4th bonus. I’ve proposed the nerf because of that. Perhaps starting it from castle age should be good.

Fair enough.

7

When averaged across all maps it sure seems fine. But individual map categories have imbalances. For example, Spanish have 60+% winrate on Nomad at higher elos over the last 2 years. Warlords 1 and 2 combined Spanish have 80% winrate with 10+ games. No other civ used more than 5 times has such good outcome. Somewhat similar story with Arena. Portugese, Turks, Bohemians are overpicked for other closed maps. If picked the instances where other civs win against these is quite rare. On maps with extra hunt, Mongols are almost unstoppable. So its mostly to address these changes.

And I agree that changes need to be small. Except for a few like Mayans, most of the changes I’ve proposed are small.

The idea was to nerf the power levels of gunpowder uu in castle age since they have very high dps and very little upgrades.

Yes I agree and that’s the intention behind this change. Its almost certain to see house walls against maa. Increased bonus damage can force an extra repair vill and increase the net cost of repairs within that time window. I believe the loss of resources due to idle economy for the defender is much less than the cost of 2-4 maa plus the upgrade most of the times.

Oh sure I didn’t mean to remove that. In general its not much of an advantage in the dark age because all resources are right next to their dropsites at that stage. But sure I’d keep +3 in dark and feudal.

Sorry again, didn’t mean to remove the tower change. Just limit the range to longbows and increase it to 2 so that longbows have a significant advantage over generic archer line.

But it makes longbows almost unnecessary. This change could make them a much better option to transition.

Ah good point, didn’t think of that. Honestly don’t know another way of keeping flemish miltia in game without making it a gimmick that converts from villagers.

Maybe limit it to infantry, cavalry and siege impacting technologies? It is intentional to buff Bulgarians which don’t have any other economic benefit.

Their rof is 30% lower than knight line and they have 1 p.armor. Its not that strong compared to other cavalry uu which are clearly superior to the knight line and yet cost less resources.

Literally has almost everything right now. Full blacksmith, solid cavalry, full halbs, ranged units, siege ram, onagers. Except canons they have everything. Thats fine if eco is mediocre. But they start off with atleast 1.5 vill advantage from feudal age, techs are cheap as well. This change still keeps the cavalier/light cav + arbalester/chukonu play at the same level. Its only introducing a late late game weakness against strong cav civs.

But the current bonus means you have to be camping under the castles while this one lets you open trebs, use scorps and defend them better.

Just to delay the first castle drop. After UT, bonus is better than current discount in castle age.

Sorry, should revert back the slinger cost. Idea is to exclude skirms from the discount. No discount before 2023 was weak, discount on all units is too strong, so trying to find the middle ground.

So remove or limit the longer lasting resources, cheaper walls, extra villager instead of the archer discount?

The Gurjara mill bonus has a logarithmic function applied while this is just polynomial. Don’t think mathematical functions would make the game prone to bugs anymore than now. It’ll be the easiest to test as well. I initially thought of a flat % reduction but a simple reduction in % will either be an overnerf for standard Arabia like maps if its reduced to something like 20% or If its higher like 30%, the extra hunt maps will still be a free win for Mongols.

Right now they’re quite weak at early stages of the game until 30 min. Even OG poles wasn’t that great in the early game. Its rather the huge discount on knights with the UT, very cheap yet strong UU that counters anti-cavalry if someone prepares for defense and 55 instant food in the late game which were broken. This is an attempt to fix it. Szlacha privileges is not for imperial age. Its a very powerful late castle age knight spam upgrade. The whole reason behind nerfing Poles eco was to delay this tech. Its not the tech that needs to get delayed but rather the knight numbers.

20 gold per tech is quite useful early on. After castle age its negligible. Even though you have more techs, you don’t do all of them right away or within a short window. So it has very little impact.

Since I’m proposing nerfs to conquistador play, which is a very popular strategy with Spanish, I’m balancing it out by improving their early game. Nerf conqs and no change to early game will make them abysmal. They’re another civ which get negligible eco benefit compared to other civs. And I don’t think skipping gold collection altogether till castle age is a good idea for a monk civ with gunpowder uu. Imo, this will help them get bloodlines faster or they’ll be able to sell an extra 100 gold, get additional 60+ food to click up faster. Its still quite less than the economic benefits that majority of the civs get.

How is it a nerf? Dark age farms will have the same amount of food as generic heavy plow farms without doing any upgrades. So Sicilian players can skip horse collar now. Horse collar makes your farm fetch 500 food instead of the current 344, heavy plow fetches 750 food instead of the current 625. Its a nerf for games longer than 1 hr 40 min because thats when crop rotation’s 1000+ food farms will begin to have an impact. Less than 5% of games last longer than that. Before that its strictly a buff. Even with crop rotation removed Sicilian farms will produce more food than a Mayan crop rotation farm with a chinese ally.

9

Well all you do is to essentially make going Hand Cannons and any gunpowder UU more expensive in Imperial, is simply easier to tone down those UUs in castle age, also, Jannissaries aren’t overpowered anymore


Same reason as above.

I think just increasing the trample damage to 33% is fine, no word on the other other change, but highly doubt will change anything, but might overbuff the Bengali Battle elephants.

Hell no, Elite Elephant Archers are already insane units, Dravidian Post-Imperial Elite Ele Archers would be totally broken, same damage output as Mangudai while being extremely easy to mass from multiple archery ranges and having self regeneration as well. Bengali ones as well.

Really need Aztecs a buff, they still are seen as fine by most pro players, but I agree with the Monk Changes.

Don’t think this bonus needs any change.

Castle age Hussite Wagons are broken and need more than such small nerfs, maybe a total rework of the unit, meanwhile the Bohemian Post-Imperial army comp is still overpowered, for instance removing Siege Engineers, buffing Elite Hussite Wagon Range by 1 and adding the SE bonus damage vs buildinsg to Houfnice might be a right way to balance them.

Britons have two strong advantages to boost their foor archers as civ bonuses backed by a strong boom and strong start, having Yeomen expesnive is fine for that reason, agree on the Longbowman training time reduction but they are a very good UU.

Not a notable buff tbh, better buff the Elite Arambai armor to match the same armor as Cavalry Archers with Parthian Tactics and then you have a reliable late game UU.

Honestly Burgundians are really powerful on arena and they don’t need to have a Champion with extra damage vs Cavalry that soon, that+Halbs+Coustilier or Paladin and Bombard Cannon would be stupidly broken on arena in 1v1 give how strong their economy is


Bulgaraisn need a buff for sure but such changes quite overbuff them on many areas, 200f Stirrups, 450 food Bagains, 500 food Elite Konnik, 75 food Bloodlines, those are extremely overpowered, and the othe bonus is quite bizarre dan’t doesn’t fit the civ at all, Konniks are now a good unit with the latest buff and they already beat Knight-line cost effectively, being cheaper is just too strong (2 units in 1 to start with).

Chinese are currently fine and they don’t need more nerfs, the civ is finally tamed.

If you are asking to buff the civ on open maps, those changes do nothing (with the Siege ROF nerf in castle age being a unneeded nerf), and the Strongholds Change is kinda OP on closed maps and would be extremely abusable in pro level, esp with Woad Raiders that are a good UU now.

I get Bearded Axe is a mediocre UT and such change could be made, but removing the castle bonus is too much to simply make it like Detinets


The -50 wood is fine but the Church nerf is unneccesary.

Is essentially a half bonus from Goths, not a good design, Incas need a nerf in Castle age where they show how oppresive they are vs Infantry civs and other meso civs.

Italians need a buff on open maps but even more discounts as civ bonus when they already have all their civ bonuses as discounts is too much.

Leave the first two infatry armor upgrades for free but Plate Mail Armor doesn’t, and nerf the Non Elite Karambit Warrior PA from 1 to 0, so you fix how OP are their timings, for instance they would be forced to tech the elite Karambit Warrior to counter skirm spam, and afford Palte Mail Armor to have fully teched armor on their infantry and give more chances for archer and cavalry civs to deal with them.

That is too much, just make it 10/15/20%.

Better make it 33% faster working Hunters and that certainly nerf their insane rush advantage, Mangudai doesn’t need nerfs.

DonÂŽt know here to start, I hate this civ with passion, idk with the Folwark Changes, but removing Crop Rotation is a long-term suggetion that should be made long time ago, also their Winged Hussars are too OP vs civs without halbs, nerfing the UT effect form 33% to 25% would be a good compromise.

Don’t nerf what makes them a good civ for open maps, The Monk discount is a must change as they can go to that triple gold comps in castle age and is very hard to stop sometimes, moving the Monk discount to a civ that needs it (Armenians
).

What’s the point of that? Romans have a viable LS play in castle age with 5/5 armor and good eco + cheap Scorpions, possibly the only civ that can do that.

Don’t think Slavs need a buff now.

Gold bonus is a good one, but the Conq change is a huge nerf that makes them to similar to Arambai.

I think giving +1 PA to Elite Berskers might be a good motivation to use them, or even a small speed boost.

10

Of these ideas the ones I have an opinion on I don’t like them except for a few exceptions.

I would rather remove a bonus entirely than make several negligible bonuses. To quote Hera “If something is good at something let it be good at that thing.”

The infantry attack vs buildings I would change to 1, 4, 5, 5, 5. This would make it so that M@A are a legitimate threat against buildings so they would actually have a role in a standard game (for the majority of players).

Did you mean 12? Regardless, I don’t like it. The range should stay the same throughout the game.

Just make it a flat reduction. I think to 25% would be fine if a different small bonus was added to Nomads.

11

For HC, it should be fine. For UUs, maybe castle age gunpowder UUs remain no change. But elite one can be stronger after chemistry. I think gunpowder UUs can be better in imperial age now.

1 Like
12

Hand canoneers are unlocked by chemistry, so they have 0 changes. I haven’t nerfed Janissaries in castle age. They remain with 17 attack and get a +2 in imp to make them clearly better than Turkish hand canoneers.

I think you missed that chemistry is a prerequisite for hand canoneers.

Like how? They cost a lot more, very slow to produce, move extremely slow and harder to maneuver against siege units. No bonus damage vs siege like Mangudai. So many negatives compared to most of the mounted range units. Almost never produced in 1v1 because of affordability. Apart from Nomad, not the most popular TG civs either.
On the contrary, How would you justify having same base attack and range as CA but being dead slow, vulnerable to conversion in small numbers, significantly more expensive and taking a lot more bonus damage from skirms?

The monk change significantly nerfs the gameplay for pros, so the eco is a compensation. And for players <2k, Aztecs haven’t been doing well for quite sometime. So a 3-4% improvement in farming and wood collection after castle age should be a good change imo.

The unit was first useless, then broken, now somewhat still quite powerful at earlier stages. So perhaps it might be worth to take smaller steps towards the balance.

Yes but I’m removing skirms and foot archers from the UT effect. Thereby the cost reduction. Longbows are fine as a unit but since the civ’s archer line themselves get 11 range, longbow transition isn’t a compelling choice. This can probably change that.

I also considered a gold cost reduction but I believe some people still view the unit as powerful when massed, so making smaller changes. That being said I think your change makes sense since its only for Elite.

Not intended as a buff but some meaningful rework of flemish rev by making it neither OP nor useless. I’m open to alternate ideas that don’t change all villagers into military in a very short span of time.

Yes, another user pointed it out and I’ll edit that to exclude unit line upgrades.

They fire 33% slower than knights and need stirrups to trade well vs generic knights. Bulgarian knights would still be better for usage against other units. Heads on they might win but I’m considering the overall advantage of using them instead of knights as Bulgarians. Moreover their stats like 1 p.armor and low base dps don’t justify such a high cost when you compare it with other cavalry uu like Monaspa, Leitis, Coustillier, Keshiks etc.

Not at pro levels. They were already a top-5 civ for pros and they got double buffed through the tc bonus and the drop-off feature addition. Now they’re sort of a free win civ for pros in tournaments. Maybe I’ll edit to decrease the impact of the nerfs and limit it to just the removal of heavy camels as of now.

Imagine if Detinets were a default civ effect, how powerful it would be. A large castle discount for a civ loaded with other bonuses for early game should be a UT imo.

Church is nerfed for free boom or pure cavalry play but buffed for CA or crossbow opening.

I’d still want to keep the possibility of using Karambits later in castle age. Since they get a massive timing advantage, the extra benefit from free 2nd and 3rd armor is the problem imo.

Sure, someone else had pointed that out as well. I’d change that and reduce the effect of El Dorado.

I believe 25% is too little. Its almost Portugese bonus but for a very high price. 60 → 33, base gold cost of obuchs and removal of late game power are already considerable nerfs for the mid-late game.

But that’s not a bonus just for open maps. And even for open maps paired with the discount on archers its a huge resource advantage on-par with top eco civs. A civ can’t be very strong on all possible maps. Its fine if they become a bit weaker bottom of A tier civ on open while being a top-notch hybrid, closed, nomad and water civ.

I’d wait on Armenians for a bit longer to get a better idea of their land game weaknesses.

Its still not used that often because of lacking supplies. Knights+pikes or knights+scorps are the preferred combo. Just an attempt to see if this will make longswords usage more attractive especially since its one of their main bonus.

Its to improve the 1v1 usability of detinets and boyars. Unlike Franks they don’t get gunpowder. So they have to rely on monk rng, hussar or cavalier + infantry in imp. Since its also a bonus that starts potentially after 35 mins, it directly buffs the stage where they are weaker.

14

Too many complicated rules for detail balancing. I think this is a wrong direction in game development.

For example the Mongol hunt change is too complicated. Just make it 25%.

Inca foot discount should also apply to all units.

Same with the Malay free armor.

Extra rules for everything are not good game design.

I also don’t like the idea of removing crop rotation from good farm civs.

The infantry buff is good.

Nerfing Mongols and Spanish was necessary.

15

I think the food discount was to compensate the eagle nerf. But it has obviously overtuned Incas.

16

Incas also lost their old bonus for Skirmishers and Pikemen for the food buff. I think they also lost supplies. It was all very calculated.

17

What is the the old Inca bonus for pikes and skirm?

18

Extra line of sight from a team bonus.

19

Are there any graphics additions for heroes in the editor? Any new additional editor units?

20

What about the Gurjara mill bonus? It doesn’t matter what the math behind that bonus. Its effect is 29% for Arabia with boars. Beyond 2 boar like huntable and 3 deer like huntable, the hunt advantage shrinks to zero. And the reasoning is to not let Mongols have a monumental advantage over other civs in maps with too much hunt while still keeping them almost as good as how they are currently in standard resource maps. Pretty much like how Gurjara mill bonus change cut their advantage in settings where several sheep can be obtained.

Balance and game design are completely different. Giving a bonus to a civ that won’t matter to its gameplay or will be overpowered based on its tech tree is bad design. Like Obsidian arrows in the past. Adjusting the potential benefits a civ gets to fit its gameplay while not being overpowered relative to other civs is balance. I believe my changes are purely for balance. But will be happy to discuss which of those felt like bad design.

I’ve proposed that they get removed because of the farming bonus of their respective civs. For example, a sicilian farm with the updated civ bonus will generate 750 food with just heavy plow which is a lot more than the 550 food for a regular civ. So the removal doesn’t make them bad farming civ. Likewise getting 55 food instantly is too big of an advantage. The instant food percentage from folwarks was nerfed to balance that making it very weak in the earlier stages.

Very much needed for balance on open land maps, maps with extra hunt for Mongols, TG for Mangudai and Nomadic maps for Spanish. Abnormally preferred civs in their respective settings.

extra los for trash units is the perfect example of a badly designed bonus and was hence removed. It has negligible impact in a game. It was replaced by something too powerful. Supplies removal to compensate for militia line is still valid because the bonus continues to be applied for Infantry, they are also an infantry civ. Skirmisher discount on the other hand is unnecessary and makes it too many cheap units.

21

I couldn’t even remember it. I only remember the faster built farms​:rofl::rofl:

22

せćčžă‚œăƒă‚§ăƒłăƒłăƒŒăƒžăƒłă‚§ăȘăć€§é ­é™œć€Ș汱柙柇柙 ă‚šăƒăƒ“ăƒ«ăƒ»ăƒŸăƒŹă‚€ăƒŸ è‚‰è±šă‚Šă‚·ăƒ§ă‚łæȳ銀ン銀ćčžă‚œăƒă‚§ă›æȳン