You mean they already have 15% cheaper castles? 11 i totally didnt know that
1 Like
Yeah sorry, the phone auto correctorā¦
Anyway, if Iām not mistaken the stone discount affects everything, towers, TCs, castles and stone walls.
3 Likes
iād rather them do a slow approach rather then overbuff a unit.
i like it, and donāt think they will be overpowered - even getting the wood upgrade earlier isnāt as good as people think because you have less people chopping wood, which means it takes longer to pay back the investment.
i think sicilians are going to be a hard civ to buff with their current military bonus
i think this is more targeted at walls. agree they need a buff.
they literally had both those bonuses through age of conquerors and up to the release of forgotten and were an awful civilization.
and think about how much resources that will still set you back doing so, farm bonuses arenāt as strong as you think they are.
so your providing input on a bonus you donāt even know how fully works? do you see the problem here?
1 Like
Thatās help on protecting an area yes, but if you invest too much on eco, and your opponent, maybe with scouts, can pressure you and force some idle time, heāll be ahead anywayā¦
I donāt know, their farm bonus is a decent wood bonus, and their scout rush and knight rush are good with the less bonus damage.
Baby steps, on that I agree, but if I have to judge the singolar change, I donāt know what this one will doā¦
Me neither, but you know, better keep an open mindā¦
Thatās why I would have liked a buff to their monastery too, since that is unaffected by 50% less bonus damage.
Their eco will be so smooth and so strong, both of the lumbercamp and mill upgrades will he so easy to get.
Because people didnāt know at that time how these 2 things are strong, ironically the Franks UU counter pikes which are the counter to their knights, and with cheap castles it is easier to get them.
1 Like
yes but they will have less workers on those lumbercamps then if you got them at the normal time, which means its taking longer to pay off those upgrades.
as for the mill upgrades - if farm upgrades are so strong, explain why sicilians are trash, why teutons are mid tier at absolute best, and why franks were awful up until forgotten. oh, and why burgundians were so bad before now.
yes, the pros who perfected build orders didnāt know that free farm upgrades were a good bonus. if farm upgrades are so good equalizer, why arenāt sicilians a powerhouse? why are teutons mid tier at best on most maps, why arenāt burgundians better then they currently are?
true but like i said, takes a lot longer to pay off the wood bonuses and farm upgrades/bonuses have always been underwhelming compared to others.
1 Like
Farm upgrades arenāt a priority even now with most civs, and even if cheaper researching it risk to put you behind of a vill, and another vill for the wood upgrade (but that one now is worth).
So onestly I donāt see it OP.
Letās suppose that you can take both double but axe and horse collar. Thatās 88 food, without considering the wood cost.
So basically, in the dark age that means either a delayed feudal time of about 1-2 vills, or aging up with 1-2 vills less.
Now for the wood upgrades, having 1 vill less may be worth, but for the farm upgrade it may take too long to pay off.
1 Like
exactly. if farm bonuses were really that good, Sicilians and Burgundians would be stronger then the bottom tier they are right now.
Teutons would be better then a mid tier civilization.
1 Like
Yeah, for some civs, like sicilians, getting that farm upgrades are a priority, because they pay you back more than the other civs. That is an investment that becomes an advantage at any point in the game.
To some extent, the burgundians too (along with viets and chinese) are this way now, because you get back the same of other civs from your investment, but you initial investment is lower. Still itās not worth to get behind by a vill in dark age for something that until feudal age isnāt that important, with some exceptions.
With franks, the bonus is good because you donāt have to worry about finding the time and resources to squeeze them in. The farm upgrades arenāt bad upgrades per se, but they arenāt worth early on. But if an upgrade is free, then itās always worth.
Not thw farms was I mean. I am talking about their steong points, the devs nerfed the bushes and remove trandmil crane which actually it is a āmehā things. Franks have a UU with range and melee attack which they can ez kill pikes, so counter Franks is harder, 25% cheaper castles give them ez access to their UU and can ez mix them with their knights which will be harder to counter. What I mean, is that the devs took the wrong way to nerf the Franks not the right ways. Nerfing the bushes, trandmil crane and even their chivaliry UT will not change anything at all.
1 Like
Yeah but now franks the more the games goes on, the less strong they are.
The berries, farms and scout bonuses make them strong in feudal. Then in castle they have free BL and a less strong eco bonus, but still decent, only that now their stables donāt work faster anymore. They gain a bit of an advantage again in middle castle age with cheaper castle, and then in imp they start to fall of to civs with better late game composition or eco.
Their faster to mass knights and faster to research cavalier and paladins now come in way later, and is more expensive (which isnāt great if you aim at paladins). And yes, knights+TA are difficult to counter, but itās a double gold composition, if you canāt colse the game fast, you risk to burn out all your gold, and franks trash units arenāt that greatā¦
These changes are very underwhelming.
game is mostly balanced and doesnāt need big sweeping changes.
1 Like
Koreans, Burmese, Cumans, Chinese, Vikings, Sicilians, Spanish, Indians and possibly Turks are imbalanced.
just their unique unit. as for the civ they need something to help their economy.
need slight buffs.
need a complete overhaul.
slight nerfs are all they need.
slight small early game buff is all they need.
they are fine though i really donāt like hte plate barding armor change.
no.
and most of these can be fixed with small changes. they arenāt hugely imbalanced.
While the core game itself doesnāt need that much changes, there are too many civs that are useless in nearly every case.
not really, most civs are completely playable right now. not every civ is going to be equally viable on every map.
1 Like
No, there are civs that are basically worse versions of other civs. Thatās the problem.
1 Like
Yes, Koreans are hugely imbalanced with their broken, uncounterable strategy on Arena, Indians are hugely imbalanced against Infantry(Eagles, Huskarls) especially in the Castle Age, Burmese are hugely imbalanced with the Arambai and tech tree, Chinese are hugely inbalanced with their 100% pick rate on tournaments.
yes
that is always going to be the case when the design isnāt drastically different in civs.
but for example - Teutons - who are mid tier on arabia and absolutely playable, are a powerhouse on Arena.
so fix that, but also find a way to make them better on non arena. but the fact is, that we have a much more diverse civilization pool now then we did at the beginning of DE.
and hugely imbalanced against cavalry the other way. but i donāt see you bringing that up, biased much?
burmese are now mid tier at best. they need love if anything.
and a small nerf will clear that up. Aztecs and Franks used to be 100% picks too, no longer.
really? show me where all this turkish domination is then.