One possible way to buff Portuguese

I feel that Portuguese in general isn’t too good competitively, and a lot of friends think the same. What if we introduce some new techs in the church / TC, that can lower the cost of settlers, like maybe -5 food the first time, -10 food the second time, similar to the Otto villager train time reduction? This way the resources invested to boom would be lowered, what do you guys think?

Edit: There’s also a bolder approach, since only Ports has multi-TC as a baseline civ feature, we can make Portuguese settlers cheaper by default, without any techs or cards? (maybe 85/90 food)

1 Like

I don’t think it’s that easy, the Portuguese have access to a medicine card that does exactly what you’re asking for and more.

Medicine: Villager cost and train time -15%

I clarify that this is only my opinion and I can be wrong. :slightly_smiling_face:

PS: Source

Yes, what I’m saying is on top of this, plus this also costs you a card slot/shipment in non-treaty play, not as convenient as just researching tech

1 Like

Here’s another possible way I’ve been thinking, a small buff to an unused strat for starters:

Logistician also gives Town Centers +5 pop. THEN it would be worth it.


From what I can see on the wiki, the Portuguese do not have villager shipments, I think that in this case the medicine card should go to the first age, in this way it would be an acceptable alternative for the TCs boom.

PS: Alternatively your idea is also acceptable. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Yep I also feel medicine should be earlier.

1 Like

You know that Portuguese hunt faster, right?

Maybe an age 2 card that boost a lot the TC train time by a short time?? Idk.
Im not sure about upgrading their boom, they get TCs for free now.

I think the medicine card is in age 3 because it woule be OP in age 2. In age 1 even worse. The problem is that in age 3 is is too weak.

I think we could remove the card from the portugueses, and give them age 2 simething weaker, only decreasing the cost.

This would make the civ OP.

Sorry but if you didnt know Ports have no villager card, you dont know the civ at all and your balance change ideas have no worth. I mean the specificity of the civ is "1 TC per age but no villager card ". Ports also get 1 extra villager age 1 to compensate and have BOs to age up earlier to get 2nd TC up faster.

If you just want to see Ports in competitive, you have to know that some civs go from OP to weak when devs decrease the starting crate amount by 50 food.

I think the age 1 is nice as it is. In age 2 they may need a new card stronger than spice trade and weaker than medicine, to help producing villagers from 2 TCs and army at the same time.

1 Like

That used to be a thing in EP, where their vils were 5 food cheaper at the start, it made them kinda turtly and OP.

Though nowadays we might see a return to that since power levels have shifted

1 Like

IMHO ports need bigger changes than a buff to villagers.


I’m going to be honest, that hunting bonus for Ports feels more like a temporary balance decision than an actual civ feature and I fully expect it to be removed once the Card Rework for Ports is released.

Which is something I never understood: why does Portuguese not get Settler Cards? Did the developers think that having TCs upon Age up was that powerful? It isn’t that impressive compared to other Booming civs features and they have access to Settler Cards, like British, who only pay an extra 35 wood for a Settler. While in most Port games it was very hard getting a 2 TC Boom in Age II (Hell, it still kind of is).

I somewhat disagree on the first one: Portuguese are basically forced to use ATP or Economic Theory and Town Militia because their other Age I Cards are not good. They’re also the only European faction without a resource trickle Card in Age I. I’m just baffled at the original design for the civ.


Yeah I expect a new card for ports age 1 that is worth sending on land maps, ATP isn’t always good and no one wants to do stagecoach every game. Currently it’s hard to maintain vill production from 2 town centres in age 2.


Yeah, British manir boom is much better than Portuguese boom.

I think the devs wanted to limit the portuguese boom as it is “granted”.
And maybe they initially planned making some civs like ports weaker on land mapas and stronger on water maps (Which I find ti be a bad idea if the differencevis too big). As Portuguese get a safer fish boom thanks to the second TC.

If you compare it to a “normal civ” without eco bonus:

  • in case of a naked FF into 3 TC boom (3 settlers + 700c + 1000w) port should end up around 10 settlers ahead (assuming 2nd TC is up 4 minutes earlier and 3rd TC up 1 minute earlier) + 1 age 3 shipment. The longer the 2 TCs are delayed, the more ahead ports will be, unless other civs have settler card or house booms
  • French eco bonus is that settlers are 25% better and cost 25% more, which is like being produced faster. They are a little behind for a naked boom, but are better equiped to make army in age 2
  • Spanish must compensate this gap with more shipments.

But as you point out, most people feel that in the end, either Portuguese have settler shipments (same amount as normal civs) and get a crazy eco, or do not have them and lag behind every civ with settler shipement, which sounds dumb as Portuguese TC should intuitively lead them to having more settlers.

I also use Furriers, this is often my default cards on maps with little fish and few TPs. I often delay eco theory because it doesnt feel strong as a first card.
I am not a very good player, but I saw on youtube some analysis showing that Furriers + Spice trade as first two cards lead to a nice and safe eco. Furriers feels like a + 2 settlers when you get it (also scaling with number of settlers until you run out of hunts) and delay to need to find new hunt, which overall sounds better than economic theory when you know you will need a lot of food for settler production.

If you have an explanation why economic theory is always better than furriers, I would like to hear it (when going fast forteress into coin intensive units ?), it would improve my build orders.

And a reason why I love playing Portuguese is that I find it “boring” to use a 3 settler card, which is the best card to use for nearly every civ having it on nearly every situation…

I do not use tickle cards except the wood tickle for Russians / Indians and rarely the coin tickle for german/USA. Are the tickle cards that good for civs having a 3 settler card ?

I am always supporting giving a new (viable) age 1 card for portuguese as well.

The devs added a nice TP card for British, but this cards card (along with the virgina company card) feel niche and akward to use as first card due to the 3 settlers card being so strong. And as second card, people often rather wait for a better age 2 card.

Portuguese have more potential here.


We should start things by reverting nerfs…


A nerf that I found very unnecessary was when in TAD the Cassador’s attack was reduced from 22 to 17. In united theory it exchanged its hit points for attack compared to the regular skirmisher, similar to what happens with ulans and hussars.
Cassador is now simply a weaker, slightly cheaper skirmisher.


there are definitely not weaker, their base stats starts at 18 in age 3 rather then 15 at age 2 so they have higher atk stats when fully upgraded

18 x1.8 = 32.4
with cards
18x2.1= 37.8

base skirm imp stats
15x2 = 30

royal guard imp
15x2.1 = 31.5

dutch skirm imp
15x2.3 = 34.5

they also have higher ranged HP then skirms as well due to their higher range armour

its 200 range hp at base compared to 171 for skirms, so again that scales higher

You’re really right my friend, but this when fully updated, but let’s compare their statistics when they enter combat in Age III along with the other skirms (except for some cases like the Dutch).

Assuming a standard of one damage card and one HP card, cassadores swap 0.9 more damage for 42.75 less HP

HP on there is wrong its 110 not 105

in addition since they have 45% range armour vs the skirms 30% range amour in a range fight they have very comparable hp

110/0.55= 200

vet skirms

120x1.2/0.7 = 205

so unless you are getting hit by cav or cannons the difference at base age 3 is 200 hp/18atk vs 205/18atk and with upgrade cards(advanced arsenal never happens in 1v1) its 230 hp/20.7 atk

only french and dutch can get better skirms in age 3 after maxing out all 3 cards while ports only get 2 and they get stronger again after the card in age 4.

Your point is once again correct. The HP difference between skirmisher and cassador with arsenal upgrades and 1 HP upgrade card stands at 36.5, instead of 42.75 in the table.
Considering the benefit of armour, I can come to the conclusion that the cassador is just more specialized, it will fare slightly better against heavy infantry (especially musketeers), while being more vulnerable to rifle unit counters.

Eco Theory is considered by most of the pros to be the meta Card especially if you’re game is going to last longer then 9 mins and you aren’t going ATP. Furrier + Spice Trade is good (or used to be) in more “greedy” type builds that were in vogue before the release of The African Royals and several nerfs to Ports. These types of builds are really only good if you can contest map control, which is not as easy since Portuguese early game was nerfed to the ground.

What do Russians and Indians have in common? The fact that they don’t have Settler shipments (well Indians get Villagers per shipment, but you get what I mean). That is one of the reasons people put trickles in their decks, another reason is because it matches their resource consumption. Ports would benefit from Colbertism if it had access to it, since it would help them with their food dependent economy.