Over buffing civilizations

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

As some of you might’ve seen with the lats patch the only weakness of Mongols as civilization has been overcome. They’re now a complete package civ with very heavy early pressure as well as really strong castle age option with +30% hp steppe lancers which should be equal if not better than knight line units. Not to talk about their strong imperial age with one of the most powerful unique units in the game as well as the option to use amazing siege.

What comes to Goths, they’re ridiculously strong with the impossible to stop dark age “Hoang” where you can produce militia for cheaper price than villagers. There is no counter measures even walling can be futile unless you’re blessed with a map that is very easy to wall.

These buffs are over the top and make the civs ridiculously strong in comparison to the civs which exists in the game currently.

8 Likes
2

I’m pretty concerned about the Mongols change as well since they were already pretty good.

I do like the Goth change though and I’m not sure if it’s really as bad as you you claim. Maybe we should test it first for a while?
Maybe even Mongols will “only” be a clear top tier civ, but no 2nd pre nerf Cumans^^

1 Like
3

i agree with you on mongols (the mangudai is already arguably one of the most powerful /cost units in the game)

but disagree on goths… ill try them all out in a few hrs, but goths really werent top tier, i dont think this small change is going to break the game for them…

now vietnamese look amazing! i still need to see, but is it really every single economic upgrade is no wood? thats huge… (1200 wood roughly? is there eco upgrades it doesnt count towards, likehand carts and fishing)

1 Like
4

I was happy with every change in the patch except for giving the Mongols steppe lancers. I’ve seen a few members suggest that the mongols should get steppe lancers for “historical reasons” for a while now … and unfortunately those people have gotten to the devs, it seems. Mongols are already strong, they don’t need to be given an extra unit.

You would have to reduce the mongol hunt bonus by a lot more than 10% to justify that. 40% is still super strong and now they have the best lancers in the game as well. Not only do the mongols have steppe lancers now but they have better steppe lancers than the two other lancer civs that are already much weaker civs than Mongols! What’s worse is it just gives even less reason to play Cumans and Tartars (Tartars need halbs but they’re still going to be weaker than Mongols and Cumans. One of their issues is that their hill bonus is more like + 25% than + 50% because a normal hill bonus both increases your attack AND reduces the enemy’s attack but the Tartar bonus doesn’t).

There was no legitimate gameplay-wise reason for the mongols to get steppe lancers. I like the hunt bonus nerf but don’t buff them on top of that. The Mongols are OP on any maps with lots of hunt and still very strong on other maps (as all maps have hunt to a degree) … they don’t need steppe lancers.

I’m extremely happy with the rest of the patch. I even suggested the goth one myself (although I’m sure that’s a coincidence). I always wondered why Goth have to wait to feudal to get that buff when it wouldn’t make them OP, just less weak, to make their drush stronger.

Of all the updates in this game so far I’ve disagreed with just two. Giving Chinese Block printing (Chinese don’t need a buff) and giving Mongols Steppe Lancers (Mongols don’t need a buff). It seems to me that both those changes were given for “historical” reasons that negatively affect the civ balance in the name of this “history”.

It’s an historical-style RTS game … but it’s still an RTS game, the key word being GAME. Don’t make civ balance decisions for non-gameplay reasons. If the AoE series aimed for realism too much we’d get a very unbalanced bunch of games. AoE has always favored gameplay over historical accuracy and I don’t think that should change.

That said, my tone may seem rather negative so I’ll repeat the following: Those two changes are the ONLY changes that the devs have made that I haven’t liked. I’m happy with literally everything else.

I don’t think the goth buff will make the goths too strong at all. I think it will just prevent goth from being overly weak early game. They won’t be able to do much damage with millita (hoang is a rarirty among pros and he’s not top 10 in the world partly because his play is rather unorthadox) … they will just save on resources and disrupt the enemy’s … which is (1) Ultimately just like having an early game eco bonus which will make the goths a less weak civ overall (2) Not a strategy that can be done effectively on all maps … just on maps where drushing is a possibility.

The goths will still be weak in late feudal, they’ll still be weak in castle, and they’ll still be weak in trash wars. They just won’t be so weak early on anymore.

4 Likes
5

Welp, I’m surprised to see so much people concerned about the Mongol Steppe Lancer, since the general consensus is that SL are bad. Also while Mongol SL will be better in Castle, they will be different in Imp, similar to their Hussar. However the fact Mongols SL benefit from their civ bonus should logically mean that eventually SL will benefit from Steppe Husbandry and Silk armor.

Welp, the same kind of complaints were made about the Lithuanian +150 food and yet it’s not what happens. Not only it will be a super predictable bonus, but on top of that if you fail to capitalize on your drush, as soon as you hit Feudal you’re back to being the ol’ bad Goths.

3 Likes
6

Steppe lancer won’t be bad with 30% more HP and a cheaper gold cost than knights in the hands of a Mongol eco, IMO.

30% more HP is gigantic. It de-nerfs those units considerably … and the Cumans and the Tartars don’t have the early game eco advantage that Mongols do.

I think if the hunt bonus was reduced to 30% it would be okay. But 40% is still super strong and I don’t think Mongols have been nerfed enough to give them a unit that is cheaper on gold than a knight and has +30% more HP than it normally does (making them less nerfed than they are for the other two civs).

And the biggest issue is not that it has made the Mongols more OP … it’s that it makes the Cumans and Tartars more pointless when lancers are no longer exclusive to them.

I think it would have been much better to have just buffed lancers a bit, and increased Tartars’ hill bonus a bit (I like giving them halbs but they’re still too weak of a civ). Mongols don’t need lancers … lancers were just overly nerfed and buffing them but ONLY for the Mongols doesn’t make sense to me.

Why not just give lancers + 30% HP for the Cumans and Tartars and NOT give them to the Mongols (there is literally no gamplay-wise reason to give Mongols an extra unit, right?).

I don’t mind the mongols being given Lancers per se but don’t make their unique bonus apply to THEIR lancers but not to the Cumans and Tartars lancers. If you think lancers are too weak then just buff their HP for all three civs (although probably by 20% rather than by 30%) and DON’T make the mongol bonus apply to a unit that isn’t scout-line! (the mongol bonus is supposed to apply to scout-line units … why make them have a bonus that applies to lancers thereby making their lancers better than the Cumans and Tartars’ lancers when the Cumans and Tartars are already much weaker civs and the Mongol lancers will become the only lancers in the game that are worth using?).

I mean, that’s ultimately the problem … the Mongols will be the only civ that have Steppe Lancers that are worth actually using! (those units were supposed to be unique to two of the new civs in the new expansion).

1 Like
7

Sounds about right. However, I don’t think Cumans will be outclassed by Mongols, since they are so unique. I guess the Tatars are less distinct and are similar to Mongols and Turks, but now unlike those two they actually have a trash unit that is useful vs cavalry.

So the Mongold SL gets 100 HP once FU in Castle and Elite SL get 127… Dunno if having the HP of a no-bloodline Knight/Cavalier will make them better, but if it proves to be balanced enough for Mongols then this buff could be given to all SLs I guess?

8

It would be nice to see turks get steppe lancers so they can go with a cheaper gold option that still is decent. Also it’s historically accurate for Turks as well since they were in the steppe region.

The devs could have not given mongols the elite version although they have better options in imp. Still it would be one less option. Better yet, they could just not give them the +30% HP bonus.

1 Like
9

I’m not too worried about the Mongol Steppe lancers being too strong because if they are I’m sure the devs will nerf it. I’m more worried that steppe lancers are still useless for the Cumans and Tartars and I wish the devs would focus more on their lancers rather than giving them to a civ that is already very powerful.

But yeah, I’m being pedantic and picky because it’s actually extremely rare that I have anything to complain about. Like I said, since AoE2 DE has released I’ve been happy with every single update and change besides the Mongols getting an extra unit when the Mongols, with more HP than the other civs with that unit, when they’re already a top tier civ and the Chinese getting an extra tech, added to their already powerful tech tree, when they’re already a top tier civ.

1 Like
10

Yeah they should remove redemption from Chinese to balance out block printing. That’s a fair trade.

Also they shouldn’t have given steppe lancers the +30% HP bonus–should only keep it to the light cav line. Then steppe lancers would rarely be used competitively and they could still have them for historical reasons or for fun.

I actually made a post how more civs should get SL to make it more historically accurate, silly to have a common unit for 2 civs, and would give more variety for some civs. I didn’t envision mongols to get +30% though.

11

Steppe lancers aren’t just weaker knights. They got nerfed a lot but giving them 30% more HP counteracts that. They’re still cheaper on gold, they still have + 1 range and they still move faster.

Even just the cheaper on gold alone makes them less weak once you buff them with + 30% more HP.

Maybe I’m wrong about them being powerful. Maybe they’ll still be pointless for the Mongols too? But the issue here is that one of two things has just happened:

(a) You’ve given a weak unit to an already strong civ civ that will never need them.

(b) You’ve given a unit that is normally weak to an already strong civ that makes that already strong civ even stronger, because the unit is buffed for them, whilst still leaving that unit useless in the hands of the two civs that the unit was designed for and that made those civs special.

I don’t see how either (a) or (b) is good.

I’m sure the devs will fix this in future updates (I’m not suggesting that they remove the lancer for the Mongols, just that they rebalance the unit so it’s worth making for all three civs without making Mongols even stronger than they already are (maybe they need a 33% or 30% hunt bonus if their lancers are powerful … as 40% is still pretty over the top early game. It’s always been an eco bonus that is much higher than other civ bonuses except for the indians fish bonus (the indian fish bonus needs reducing as well (as they are a civ that is super strong on maps with lots of shore fish but far less strong on basically any other map) but the Indians should be buffed in other areas))). Again, I’m being picky as I’m so happy with all the other changes. I mean, the Chinese didn’t need block printing but if other civs are buffed around them then it won’t matter.

If it turns out that the Mongol Steppe lancer is powerful then I recommend reducing the mongol hunt bonus some more to 30% and giving the Cumans and the Tartars their own unique steppe lancer buffs so the unit is worth using for those civs as well.

I also think that the Cumans Feudal TC, the Malay civ advance bonus and the Tartars hill bonus are three bonuses that aren’t actually as strong as they are supposed to be (both the Malay and Cumans got nerfed and the Tartar hill bonus has always been weaker than it looks (as, like I said, a normal hill bonus both increases attack AND reduces the enemy attack … so it’s more like + 12.5% rather than + 25%).

1 Like
12

I’m pretty much happy about the patch, except of course, for mongols. I think that the extra hp bomus shouldn’t apply for the steppe lancers. That would balance mongols quite good. But now, imagine how unstoppable would be mangudai + steppe lancer combo (of course, you can only get this combo in maps with a lots of gold, but still, too OP). At the same time, I don’t understand why SL count as light cav for mongols but not for tartar bonus (whom I think need further bonus).

Everything besides that seems fine. I’m hype for new viets!

3 Likes
13

we’re more likely to see balance with overbuff and then future nerfs (if needed) rather than leaving civs weak

also super happy to see mongol eco nerfed. i like when games are fairer overall rather than a civ being an A+ in some situations and a C in others

i don’t think goths got improved the right way though. they should have gotten an eco bonus to make them playable on more maps, rather than just being a narrow drush civ

1 Like
14

If it was introduced to more civs for historical reasons you’d better make it useless and just for fun because we don’t want to change the whole game to such a huge degree that somehing major such as knights becoming useless happens. It would no longer be the AoE2 that we know and love.

What I’d really like is that Steppe Lancers just became non-OP but USEFUL for the civs that already have them BEFORE giving them to more civs!

1 Like
15

There are plenty of open maps and not all civs need to be good on all maps … and their drush cost reduction effectively is an early eco bonus for them.

if Goths still turn out to be too weak, even after that buff, they could always have another small eco bonus as well.

Ever since the game released (well, technically since I first played it after its first expansion back in 2001) I’ve always thought that the Goths needed to have their cheaper infantry from the beginning. There isn’t really any reason to make them have to wait until the feudal age to get that bonus when they wouldn’t be overpowered with it in the dark age and their early game is already weak. Even back in the old 2001 meta goth were never good until late game. Goth getting a buff has been a longgggggggg time coming. As with the Teutons.

I love the love to the old civs. Koreans and Persians first … now Goths and Teutons … I love it! Keep it up, devs!

Now can we please give a minor nerf to Turkish jannisaries but give them elite skirm?

1 Like
16

Goth bonus isn’t over powered. You got Slavs that get free supplies in Feudal for Men at Arms rush, Celts have quicker infantry, and Bulgarians get the free swordsman upgrade. As far as I’m concerned, it’s on par to those. Not to mention Lith and Aztec can do early Militia rush as well. I honestly don’t think Goths got what they needed yet. I think 40% infantry reduction is better, and giving them the plate armor in Imperial would do the trick. Everyone else gets supplies, Goths don’t so increasing to 40% would be a fair trade off. The 40% in theory would be an eco bonus to some extent not spending as much on military.

Mongol Hunt should have been nerfed to 25% IMO. I don’t play them that’s a pick civ win I stay away from those guys. Britions shepards are 25% so Mongol Hunt should be the same.

17

I agree, I’ve always thought Mongols should get SL for historical/cool reasons, but the extra hp buff for them seems like to much. Just getting the unit is already a pretty significant buff to an already top tier civ, since it expands their tactical flexibility and gives them cheaper knight alternatives. My guess is that this will be removed, but we’ll see how it goes.

Agreed, or rather, I think the Dark age militia bonus was necessary but not sufficient. Yes, it helps them get off a Drush (but doesn’t necessarily make them definitively better at that than say, Lithuanians or Aztecs), but apart from that, Goths are still a weak civ. People who think this makes Goths “ridiculously strong” have a very tenuous grip on how the game actually plays out.

Ish. It will never be as good as an actual eco bonus, since that can be used flexibly for anything. While I sort of like it, I sort of don’t think it’s that useful either, since Drush + Fast Castle isn’t that viable for Goths due to having no stone walls.

Yep. I was hoping that there would be a small buff to the Teutonic Knight (maybe 10% more speed or something), but the direction they’ve gone with it is interesting, although the +1 armor on swordsmen will probably just push Teutonic knights further to the sidelines.

Edit:

Goth swordsmen are not cheaper than villagers. Less food, yes (as are every civ’s after Supplies), but not cheaper.

1 Like
18

I agree that the Goth bonus won’t be that strong. We both agree there… but others say that it will be OP. It will be interesting to see what it’s like. Still, it’s a start. It’s a bonus I suggested myself, too. If it turns out to not be a big enough buff then just give them another buff. if it turns out to be a big enough buff … then don’t give them another buff. :slight_smile:

I also suggested that they also have +1 attack on their millita in edition to the cheaper cost (it wouldn’t apply to men at arms or better).

Them not having stone walls won’t make their drush FCing useless as drush FCes are normally done with palisides anyways.

The biggest issue is that it is, indeed, not THAT big of an eco bonus.

Let’s see what hoang does with it. He’s the best player to be testing exactly how strong or not strong it is lol. (Along with Viper and Hera masterpiecing).

As for the Teutons, is the +1 armor swordsmen LINE or is it +1 on all infantry including Teutonic Knights, pikemen, etc? The latter is a decent buff … the former isn’t. I’ll have to do some testing as I’m not sure what units the +1 infantry armor applies to.

19

Welp I tested them in the scenario editor and turns out they lose to Viking champions. And since Viking champions already lose to all over bonused swordsmen but Malian/Goths… Teutonic knights is still better to deal with those. However the fact they also buffed their Halberdiers might be what lessens the TK’s use.

20

I wouldn’t expect + 1 armor to beat a Viking champ anyways :wink:

+10% speed on TKs sounds like a good idea to me. Or how about +1 pierce armor on their TKs? Maybe even both. The problem with TKs is their low pierce armor + slow speed means that it doesn’t matter that they have high HP, high melee armor and high attack … ranged units just massarce them before they even get to do any damage.