Overcompensation in Balance (and other suggestions)

Disclaimer: This might be the second longest thing you’ll ever read after the Lord Of The Rings trilogy.

Well, it’s about time. It’s been centuries since I posted a topic about AoE II Balance (mainly because the new-born of the franchise is keeping me busy) but I wanted to take a little time to talk about the beloved older brother. And of course, Balance.

Before starting I will like to say that, for me, balance Is the best one ever. We have tons of civs and all of them are somehow viable in different types of maps, with most of them being okey in lots of maps. So all these suggestions are details.
However, I do feel that water balance could be improved, since it’s clearly dominated by 3 civs (or maybe 4, if we count the Dravidians, which seem to have the potential to become S-tier in water maps)

Keep in mind I’m an average player (1200-1300 1v1 elo) so I suggest you all think about the ideas, rather than the numbers I’m proposing. That being said, I want to tackle (mainly) the topic that names this thread.

The overcompensation in balance. It’s seems to me that some specific units are better versions of basic units in one way, but to compensate they are worse in others. In plural. Which make them, at the end of the day, worst unit overall. I will divide this topic in four parts: Secondary Unique Units, Regional Units, Civ Balance and miscellaneous.

Secondary unique units

The Missionary:

The missionary is the second UU for the Spanish. A mounted monk that basically moves relatively fast, improving one of the worst stats from a monk. In addition, being Cavalry, he is affected by both bloodlines and husbandry. So more life and extra speed. So far, it looks great. So why we never see it? The reason is simple: It has 2 less both conversion range and LOS thank the monk. And it can’t pick relics.

Moving faster is great, but monks need to be as far as they can from their target to be useful. Being in the frontline is a tragedy for a unit with no Armor, and that gets countered by pretty much everything except heavy cavalry. It doesn’t outrange Mangonels (while monks do) and get extra damage for pikes aswell. The speed is useful to micro them, but if you are microing monk, you want to micro the conversion target, not try to dodge stones/arrows.

Proposed solution: Increase missionaries conversion range to 8 (one less than monk, one more than what actually have) and LOS to 11 (same that monks). Change inquisition to give missionaries +1 range (matching the monks range). If needed, increase the cost to 110 or 120 Gold (make it a more expensive, but better unit).

The Genitour:
Basically the mounted skirmisher for the Berbers. Contrary to what most people claim, I don’t believe their function overlaps with the Camel Archer (Berber UU). Camel Archers counter only Cavalry archer, while being a good main unit per se. Genitours are supposed to counter archers in general, and pikes. Same as skirmishers. So, why we never see genitours, but skirmishers when pro players use berbers?

Let’s think the advantages of Genitours: Mobility and extra life. Their speed is 1.35 (1.48 with husbandry) against 0.96 of E.Skirms. They have 50 HP (70 with bloodlines) Compared to 35 HP. (keep in mind we are comparing regular Genitour and not elite. Anyway, Elite genitour adds 5 more HP). The biggest difference will be that Elite genitour have 1 more attack than elite skirm.

In terms of total damage (Regular attack + bonus damage) Genitour do 1 less damage to pikes, the same damage to archers, and 2 less damage to Cavalry archers when compared with E. Skirms. E.Genitours do way better, doing 1 more base damage, which in addition to bonuses damages do: 2 more damage to archers and 1 more to cavalry archers than E.Skirms.
Also both upgraded and upgraded have better frame delay than E.Skirms (12 to 19) and a better attack delay aswell (0.5 to 0.52) while having the same rate of fire (3)

So, this seems like a LOT of advantage. Yet, still we don’t see genitours but skirms. Why?

Well, for me the issue is related to 2 factors: Genitours, both regular and elite, have 1 less range than e.skirms. Plus, they cost more food than their generic counterpart. (40 food against the 25 food of skirms). In addition, Regular Genitours do less damage against pikes.

Skirmishers are usually the unit you create to support your knights (or Steppe Lancers, or elephants or any other mounted gold-intensive unit) to kill pikes. Also, less range make the Genitours more exposed to pikes. And they die hard to them (because they’re cavalry). So basically while being better in any other situation than skirms, genitours do worst against the unit they should be doing better to be viable. The Unit that kills your gold main unit (Knights/Camels, because you’re not mixing them with Camel Archers, the other unit to go for berbers). In addition, besides doing worst, they cost way more food than their generic counterpart. Food that you need to create your main unit: Knights.

The extra HP and the Extra speed are not that relevant for a trash unit. Specially if you need to micro that unit against the unit they’re supposed to kill (if they’re pikes coming, you might want to save your knights, and not your genitours. Skirms don’t pose that problem)

Proposed solutions:

Option A: Give Genitours one extra range (5) matching the Skirmisher range. Increase the cost of the unit if needed.

Option B: Make Genitours cost as much food as Skirmishers (25 Food) while increasing it’s wood cost (50 wood would be the 1:1 exchange). That way, while costing the same total amount of resources than they do now, they will be easier to mix with knights.

Regional Units
I feel that the main issue with regional units is that they are balanced around both civ bonus and UT, instead of basic stats of the unit. But let’s see 1 by 1

Steppe Lancers:

Steppe lancers were overnerfed. They were the most OP unit ever on released, and then were nerfed to the ground. But let’s see what are their pros and cons when compared to their generic counterpart, the Knight.

Steppe lancers are produced faster, and also move faster (1.45 against 1.35 of the knight). The selling point of the Steppe Lancer is that they have a range of 1, allowing two lines of SL to attack at the same time, and doing, theoretically better in mass battles. I said Theoretically, because they are overwhelming in lots of other stuff.

They have 60 HP (78HP for mongols) in comparison to 100HP of knights (80 to 120 if you count bloodlines, while 98HP for Mongols). They have no natural melee Armor and only 1 pierce Armor (while Knights have2/2) and they have slower rate of fire (2 against 1.8 for Knights). This makes them die to the most two popular units in the game: Knights and Crossbows. While they do perform better than knights against both pikes and camels, the truth is that you don’t want to use units against their counter unit. While being supposed to be better as a raiding unit than knights, having 1 less PA than said unit (and also than Light cav/Hussar) makes them, in practice, a bad option for that rol.

While the gold cost for steppe lancer is lower (40 gold against 75 gold) the food cost is higher (70 food against 60 food). And clearly food Is way more important in castle age than gold.

Last, but definitely not least, while both upgrades grant +20HP and +2 attack, the Elite Steppe lancer upgrade cost 900 Food and 550 Gold, while Cavalier cost 300 of both Food and Gold.

Proposed solutions:

The proposed solutions for SL are complicated. While Mongols SL are viable in Castle age (due to their extra HP) their lack utility in imperial age due to their lack of plate barding armour (which is okey, as you are not supposed to play cavalry with Mongols in the long run)
Tatars SL are okey after Silk armor, although they are hardly seen due to Keshik being an overall better unit

The best approach will be, for me, reducing the food cost (to at least 60 food) in order to make them an affordable alternative to knights. Also, RoF could be buffed to 1.8 to match the knight.

Reducing the cost of the Elite upgrade could be another option aswell. SL is supposed to have an earlier power spike than the knight line (specially when compared to civs that get paladins) but which such a high cost, the Elite upgrade will come often later than the cavalier upgrade (making the idea of upgrading SL totally irrelevant )

In addition, I will propose a change to cumans (see third part - General Balance/Civ Balance).

Battle Elephant:
The elephant in the room. In theory, a tankier, slower, more costly version of Knights. In practice, that doesn’t happen. At least not with some civs.
While useful in post imperial (with all the UT affecting them and the Elite Battle Elephant upgrade), only 3 out of 6 civs can realistically use battle elephants in castle age. Why? Because those 3 civs have bonuses that solve one out of the two fundamental issues with this units.

Their first issue is that Battle elephants are just too expensive for being viable in castle age (Malay solve this having their elephant’s cost reduced by a 30% in castle age). The second one is that they die way harder to counter units than knight do. Khmer solve this issue by having elephants that, after researching Husbandry, outrun both the Halberdier line (without squires) and the archer line. Also Khmer amazing eco allows this civ to support elephant production. Bengalis Elephants Resist both conversion and bonus damage from counter unit. While the civ have, at the same time, a really good eco that allow them to produce Dumbos.

While Vietnamese and Burmese bonuses are not bad per se (Extra HP and Extra armor respectively), they do nothing for a unit that has a lot of natural HP. In addition, their economy is not good enough to allow them create elephants.

In resume, having the unit costing lots of food, and die too hard to monks/pikes make that, in practical terms, it’s always better to go for a knight civ in either 1v1 or pocket position in team games.

(just to clarify, I exclude Dravidians from this analysis, since I consider that their elephants are a highly circumstantial unit)

Proposed solutions:
Change the elephant base speed to 0.935 (the actual speed base of khmer elephants) and change the Khmer elephant bonus to: Elephants are created X% faster. This would Make Vietnamese and Burmese elephants way more useful, while keeping Khmer ones at the same level. In addition, this buff the Dravidian’s elephants a little, which is good, since they’re the more useless elephants in the game.

Remove Husbandry from Malay and Bengalis. Malay stable is useless besides elephants, so basically doesn’t change anything at all.
For Bengalis, it’s a nerf for several units: Their Armored elephants (which are by far the best ones in the game, so maybe the nerf is well-deserved), the Ratha (the unit seems to be a little too powerful, and might need some stats change anyway. In addition, the stats of this unit in particular can be modified to adjust to this change) and the elephant archer (which also need changes, so can be adjusted as well)

Elephant Archer:
The other elephant in the room. This unit, while not being new, it’s new. Their stats are probably gonna get reworked, and to be honest, I lack the level to understand which stats should be change. So I’m gonna talk about this in abstracts concepts.

For me, there’s a fundamental issue with this unit: it’s supposed to be a tanky ranged unit which is in theory a frontline unit. The problem is that they die to literally every counter unit in the game (specially Skirmishers. 18 Elite Skirmishers can one-shot an elephant archer). They also get outranged by archers, and have no melee armor.

Proposed solutions:
As I said before, I wouldn’t know how to balance this unit. My best suggestion is to increase their range from 4 to 6. This way the unit can outrange archers, and fill the role of a support unit, rather than a front line one, while remaining easy to counter.

Other option will be to reduce the negative Cavalry archer armor they have (currently -7) to a less overwhelming number, increasing that way, their resistance to counter units, especially skirmishers.

Civ Balance
My personal favourite. Let’s wololo (btw, I’m not speaking about Dinasties of India civs, since I consider some further testing have to be done) As I said before, I feel land balance is at an excellent point, but water balance could use some love.

This one is pretty obvious. Flemish Revolution is a weird mechanic, and feels OP sometimes. A wild card that feels out of context. Nevertheless, The concept of vills resisting an invasion is good though (at least for me).

Proposed solutions:

Option A: Villagers get +X bonus damage against cavalry. Allows Flemish Militia to be recruited in TC.

Option B: Villagers garrisoned in TCS become Flemish Militia. Allows Flemish Militia to be recruited in TC. (this involves more micro, and also cap the Flemish Militia obtained)

Option C: Villagers can now be upgraded to Flemish Militia (with a mechanic similar to the one Rathas have, and for an individual cost). Obviously, the cost of the Flemish Militia technology should be drastically reduced. In addition, Allows Flemish Militia to be recruited in TC.

Sadly, Burmese still die to the archer line in late castle/early imperial.

Proposed solutions:
Battle Elephants and skirmishers have +1/+1 armor. This will make their late feudal and early castle age way better, while making their late castle age and early imperial less awful against Crossbows /Arbs. Yes, having skirms with extra armor in feudal could seem a little to strong, but if you’re producing skirmishers and getting both fletching and padded archer armor, your castle age is getting delayed, so in the long run it’s not that convenient.

Chinese could use a nerf. IDK how exactly. Maybe tweaking their eco a little bit (may changing the tech discount to 10/15/15 or something). Or maybe just nerfing Chu-Ko-Nu a little bit. But again, I don’t have a clear take on this one

Cumans seem to always being in a weird spot. Their civ bonuses kinda doesn’t match together. For me, they feel like a Frankeinstein of concepts. Which is not inherently bad.

For me, they have two particularities that are just too odd to work. First one is Rams. Rams in feudal are great… if both you and your opponent are playing a full feudal game (which usually doesn’t happen). The second one, they fancy being a Cavalry Archer civ… that doesn’t have bracer.
In addition, they have for me, the two most overlapping bonuses in the game: Cheaper stables and archery ranges, and their UT, Steppe Husbandry. So at the end you get the double amount of buildings, producing 3 units faster than usual. And 2 of those 3 units are units you don’t want to create in the first place.

That, and Cuman Mercenaries, that frankly, to me always have been a UT that helps your ally, while you are paying for it.

Proposed solutions:
Change the “Archery range and Stable cost -75 wood” bonus to “Stable and Siege Workshop cost -75 wood”. This makes Feudal ram strategy more plausible in feudal age. Besides, I think it’s already proved that, as Cumans, you don’t want to go for any ranged unit except Kipchaks.

Change Steppe husbandry tech for a technology that gives Steppe lancers either +1 damage or a faster attack rate. The speed bonus is kind irrelevant for steppe lancers, a natural fast unit. Cumans have both the worst SL of the game and Paladin. Thus, we will never see Cumans SL again, unless they get a bonus making them a better unit.

Add an effect to Cuman Mercenaries. This UT should improve Kipchaks somehow, since the Elite version feels a little underwhelming after early imperial age.


Arguably the worst civ in the game. The one trick pony that doesn’t do that trick that well. Their tech tree is overwhelming, and they have the most outdated civ bonus ever (“Villagers have +5 attack against Wild Boar, and carry +15 food from hunting.”)

Proposed solutions:
Remove both the instant loom and the hunters civ bonuses. Replace it by “huntables last +X% longer”. That eco bonus will make them more viable in certain types of maps, and will add them versatility to their game play.

In addition, they should be granted either Thumb ring or Plate Barding Armor, to have another alternative besides Infantry

Incas are in a weird spot. They’re not a BAD civ, it’s just they fall short when compared to the other two American civs (which some might claim are OP). in addition, they have a collection of good small bonuses that, while good, doesn’t grant a considerable advantage. In addition, the blacksmith upgrades affecting vils bonus is now irrelevant (but still more balanced than when it was starting in feudal)

The last issue is that, while all three American civs have bonuses for their Skirmishers, the one for the Incas feel super irrelevant.

Proposed solutions:
Start with 3 llamas instead of one. Good eco bonus, similar to the Tatar one.

Replace the blacksmith upgrades for villagers for one of this two bonuses:
A) Villagers gain +1 Pierce armor per age, starting in feudal age. (This will help their tower rush, while not making them the automatically winners of each vill fight)

B) Villagers have +10%/20%/30% HP in Feudal/Castle/Imperial. Again, it gives them a good advantage in tower rush, but it doesn’t make them OP. Plus, this bonus help them resisting raids.

Andean Sling effect changed: Originally, I have thought to “Skirmishers and Slingers attack 25% faster”. This seems still a great concept, but might overlap with the Dravidians too much. If so, the effect could be “Skirmishers and Slingers do +50% bonus damage”

Kamayuk Speed increased to 1.05 (being an UU supposed to counter cavalry, it could be helpful for kamayuk to move faster than halbs)
Italian is one of the three most dominant water civs. A nerf could be used in water. Maybe staggering the fishing boat discount to 10% in dark age and 15% onwards, or just make it available from feudal age.
Koreans got their War Wagons nerfed. Which is good, because the unit was a little too good. But the thing is, besides that, they have nothing going on for them. FU Slightly cheaper Arbs. That’s it. Yeah, you’re saving some food and some gold with the free archer Armor upgrades, but it doesn’t compare to Britton, Ethiopian, Mayan or even Vietnamese bonus.
They are supposed to have good siege, but having mangonels with less minimum range is an infimal advantage (yeah, they have their imperial UT, but good luck having onager with that UT in any other map than BF).

Besides that, they have awful stable and meh infantry.

Proposed solutions:
Give them either Blast furnance or Plate barding armor. That way they have either FU Infantry or usable Hussars (they could even get both and it will be still okey)

Elite Turtle Ship gets 7 range. Koreans could use a water buff.

Malay are perfect in land maps, but I would love a buff for water maps. Maybe increasing the range of harbours to 8, or removing the minimum range, or maybe increase the bonus damage against ships.

Mayans for me are a little bit OP. 4 economic bonuses are too much (at the end, the archer bonus is an eco-bonus aswell). In addition they have the best eagles of the game, and one of the best UU.

Proposed solutions:
Economic resources last 10% longer instead of 15%. This will nerf their amazing dark age, and thus, the rest of their game.

For me, the best water civ, no doubt about it. Cheaper ships, with more HP and a UT that provides more armor. It’s just the 3 best bonus you can think of for ships. (okey, maybe 3 out of 4 with the Saracens faster-firing ships, but still) In addition, if you are behind in techs, don’t worry, you have faster technologies to catch up.

And Fetorias. Oh gosh, Fetorias.

Proposed solutions:
Change “All units cost -20% gold” to “All land units cost -20% gold”. This also have the secondary effect of allowing a future buff to 25% discount.
In the same fashion “Technologies researched 30% faster” can be changed to “Technologies (except dock) researched 30% faster”

I honestly think Fetorias need a rework, as the concept seems impossible to balance. I propose that fetorias can now be build either in land or in the coast (like a dock). They act like a market/dock in terms of trading, except that provide 50% more gold when trading with it. In addition, the resource exchange fee they offer is 10%. Portuguese lose access to guilds.

Along the lines of Portuguese’s ships, the sicilian knights have too many bonuses: A natural Resistance to bonus damage, and then two UT that gives them conversion resistance, and more armor. So they resist pikes, camels, monks (all their counters) and are almost immune to arrows.
Yes it takes a lot of time and resources, but at the end, they’re an absolute unit.

Also, first crusade seems a weird mechanic. A Panic button that have no downside

Proposed solutions:
Hauberk cost reduced. Now grants +1/+1 armor, instead of +1/+2. This way cavaliers still are better than the average but can still die against arrows.

First crusade effect changes to: Serjeants Cost -10 food and -10 gold. Donjons are build 100% faster (both numbers and the concept could slightly change. The idea is to make Serjeants more relevant, reinforcing the idea of Sicilians being an infantry civ). An alternative effect could be grant Serjeants regeneration.
Viets have come a long way since they were the absolute worst civ in the game. Still, some minor details could be tweaked. Paper money is still underwhelming, the same than their elephants.

Proposed solutions:
Paper money gets a mixture of their old and current effect: grants X amount of gold to all the allied players (maybe not 500, but something like 300) and now lumberjacks produce gold while chopping wood.

For the elephants I propose doing the Zealotry treatment to chatras: Viets get 30 extra HP for their elephants, and now Chatras provide the other 70HP. Cost slightly adjusted
The last of the historical three well-stablished naval civs. Vikings could definitely use an small nerf in water

Proposed solutions:
Longboats creation time reduced from 25 secs to 30. Back dock FC into longboats it’s just too good. Other option could be slightly increase the cost of each unit

Warship discount nerfed from 15%/15%/20% to 10%/15%/20%


-Trade Cogs should be buffed somehow in order to make water trade equally viable to land trade. I think I’ve only seen water trade once in a competitive TG (Rise of the elephants, Suomi against AM).

-The same we got the beautiful regional cart-trades, it would be amazing to get regional queens and regional monks (both were available in voobly :O) This would make a great eye-candy addition with no downside.

-Last, but definitely not least, I think archer line is a little overwhelming these days, particularly the early castle age spike. Maybe the Xbow upgrade could be nerfed, either in time or cost.


Laughs in Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan.

On thd topic of your topic.

Genitours - make them move at 1.45 base.

Steppe lancers - reduce the food cost imo and make esl cheaper.

Realistically i dont think castle age elephants of any type will ever be a real thing unless they drastically alter their stats and cost. Elephant archer reduce the negative archer armor to 3 or 4.

Burgundians - flemish revolution gotta go. Its awful

Burmese - im okay with this.

Chinese - on one hand this civ is bad at low levels but absurd at high levels. Balancing them is tricky.

Cumans - fix mercenaries. One offs are bad. Maybe adding +1 range to kipchaks and cav archers would be a good secondary effect.

Goths - longer last hunt i like.

Incas - i think 3 Llama is too much. Try 2. Also maybe give them the old 10% speed boost, apply to eagles and kamayuk.

Mayans - agreed.

Sicilians - Agreed except id go 10 food and 5 gold.

Vietnamese- just change the gold cost to wood and reduce slightly ocerall cost.


I think I might like it if they could just pick up relics, and maybe heal faster than a monk. Then, you end up with a unit that can’t really do the conversion side so much, but is useful for grabbing relics and support.

Not a fan of this so much. The big thing I think is how they take too much bonus damage from Spear line, because they share the War Elephant armor class. Just reduce the damage from there and they might get a bit better.

I don’t agree with the range, but the negative armor definitely needs to be reduced.

I personally would just rather Flemish Militia can be created in Imp without a tech, and then rework Revolution into something else entirely, not sure what.

The tech discount needs to be decreased, and Chu Ko Nu need a +5 gold cost increase.

It could just be removed, and replaced with something different.

Maybe 2, but 3 might be pushing it.

I don’t think Andean sling should be changed. I think that the no minimum range for those units should become a civ bonus, and then give Incas El Dorado as a new UT, to make the Eagles cost 25% less gold. Incas are the only Meso civ without a gold bonus, and they will really benefit from this. Mayan El Dorado needs a rename to Cotton Armor anyway.

They aren’t really meant to counter cav though. They only have like +8 instead of the +32 of a halb against cav. They are meant to be massed up, and then start destroying everything in melee almost, so they are fine how they are.

They need more than this. 10% last resources, and the archer discount needs to change to be 10%/15%/20% cheaper, instead of 10%/20%/30%. They also need El Dorado renamed to Cotton Armor for historical realism.

Having a naval discount is fine, the broken thing on water is just the Feitoria. The tech thing shouldn’t be nerfed like this, it’s actually already pretty weak, and if anything, I think it should be buffed to 50%.

Didn’t they already do that in the last patch?

People don’t like one time effects usually, paper money just needs to be cheaper now, and probably have the gold generation rate increased a bit as well.

With the water thing, the problem might not be the top tier civs (Sure, they are part of the problem, but there is more to it), part of the problem is the lack of naval diversity, and the fact that other civs with naval bonuses haven’t been buffed up. Spanish, Malay, and Byzantines are all good candidates for water buffs.

I have to be honest, I agree with almost none of the changes proposed here and they show a lack of understanding of core mechanics imo.

For example:

Monks are already arguably too strong on Arena, and very good on Arabia. They are a meta unit, that is also RNG driven, and that recently got a buff since Light Cav now takes less time to convert. A good Monk rush can end the game instantly, both on Arena and on Arabia, and we probably don’t need a “Monk that can kite” version of the Monk, let alone the fact that FU they have like 60 HP which is 4-5-6 Scout hits.

you realize that one of the main counters to Skirmishers is unupgraded Knights, and that those melt to Genitours? This unit would be toxic if overbuffed, leave it “offmeta”. This is basically a cheaper, more trashy cav archer but it’s still a cav archer, it can pick their engagements and that’s a big difference over Skirmishers.

Steppe Lancers actually perform fine now, in medium and big numbers they are comparable to Cavalier while far cheaper on gold. Again another unit that needs legit 0 buffs. Main reason they aren’t used on Arabia maps is that normally if you make Knights you do small harass, like send 3 Knights in enemy base, and here the 2 base armor and better stats of Knights are better.

Monks probably should be a counter to Elephants much like they counter Knights.

As for Pikemen, you realize that the reason they have extra damage vs Elephant armor class is that Elephants have 270 base HP vs 120 base of Knights? If you make Pikemen do the “normal” damage, which is 4 + 22, it would take 11 hits, at 3s firerate, to kill ONE Elephant. At that point, what’s the point of even making Pikemen.

The Pikeman bonus is fair vs Elephants. I agree on the food cost considerations part but that’s not a bad thing, other units are also too expensive to mass in Castle age, like Light cav or Knights.

this is literally a good unit, again, you realize that with 200+ HP, Skirmishers NEED the extra bonus damage, right? It’s still barely more expensive than a Cav Archer, I think it dies at the “right pace” vs Skirmishers. Suggesting 6 range is just preposterous, what are they, Longbowmen? xD

Sure I agree on this one. I don’t think your idea is bad, but it doesn’t feel “smooth”. Still, it has to be said that without Revolution, Burgundians aren’t exactly a great civ, with bad Hussar, bad Siege (except for Bombard Cannon), bad Archery Range, their Paladin is good in early Imp if you are ahead but if you are behind you can’t use this power spike. Until early Imp, aside from a bit extra resources from eco bonuses, they don’t have much going for them aside early Cavalier.

just not true, learn to use Scorpions. They also have a rly strong Hussar, how is the civ weak to Archers xD

Even in Castle age, their weakness vs archer civs is overstated, I mean sure if you are vs Ethiopians and you must face them with +1 Skirms, you will fall behind, so will 15-20 other civs also like Turks, Bulgarians etc. Almost like the early Castle age Crossbow timing is too strong in general and this has nothing to do with Burmese being bad. They are an underrated civ btw, rly good stable, rly good Siege, insane Barracks, idk how anyone can think this civ is bad just because you have to do Scorpions and not the easier-to-understand Skirms.

I think there will always be a top dog and Chinese feel fair for the most part (as much as a top dog can be). They fall off hard in Imperial age (in 1v1 Arabia also), you kinda have to win with them in Castle age or at least gain a lead. I don’t disagree with nerfs to them but nerfs should be accompanied with buffs, like giving them Bombard Cannons, or giving them Siege Engineers, or giving them Parthian Tactics, or giving them Hussars.

I semi agree, main problem with Feudal rams is that for Feudal age, getting Siege shop + 1-2 rams is 200 + 350 w which is unrealistic for Feudal as this is the time where you also make production buildings and farms. Still, you wouldn’t want EVERY game to devolve into Feudal ram war when you go vs Cumans (rams in Feudal are pretty strong), and also you need to consider that on closed maps Cumans are amazing, like top 3 amazing (I’m not talking about Arena here).

For me the big problem one easily spots with Cumans is their underwhelming Imperial age, they have only 1 comp, Kipchak + Hussar or if you have the gold Kipchak + Paladins. Both are extremely hard to get to. Easiest fix I can see without ruining the identity of the civ is giving them Siege Engineers, this would make them have good Siege as opposed to trashy no SE SO, no SE SR and so on. At the same time, 2nd TC could maybe create vills at a reduced rate in Feudal to not create such an overwhelming advantage if you manage to pull off the 2 TC play.

absolutely against giving them a wider tech tree, infantry spam is their identity. They can also do Handcannoneers and Bombard Cannons.

Incas are fine, boring design wise but really upper mid tier civ that is functioning 100% fine, no need to change them. Their eco bonus is cheaper houses.

you willingly yet again ignore the strongest Siege unit, Bombard Cannon, which Koreans have with Siege Engineers.

probably them lacking Blast Furnace in the mind of the devs has to do with FU Halbs + Elite War Wagons being too lethal vs too many civs. I don’t think their Barracks is that bad, their Halbs still work, in 1v1s you don’t often see Paladins and in team games they have strong Siege + Halb.

Aztecs have the best Eagles in the game, you don’t judge in post-Imp, but in Castle age, where it matters more, and here Aztecs are stronger. I agree that Mayans are OP but the reason why is very clear, their Archers (which is strongest unit in the game) are too cheap, so I would address this, why nerf their eco.

in a scenario with infinite resources, Castles and research time, Elite War Elephant is the best unit in the game. Your point?

Sicilian Knights resist Pikes (which are almost never used in 1v1) and that’s it. The monk tech is rarely done early on so it doesn’t matter. They are a civ that can feel insane and underwhelming depending on how game goes. Anyway, Sicilians are fine, for a long time they were considered trash, no need to change them.



The purpose of Hauberk is to give Sicilians an option against ranged units. Reducing the pierce armor leaves them with nothing against arbalest.
I would remove plate barding from their tech tree and make Hauberk only give them 4 pierce armor. This way, cavaliers would retain their performance against archers, while making them underpowered in melee. This would force them to use their serjeants to win melee fights.

Which are terrible at the moment for the role.
Sure they have 7 melee armor, but they hit back like a wet noodle, on top of being so slow they could catch only other militia-line.
If Serjeants are meant to be the backbone of Sicilians’ army, their cost has to go down, 60f 35g is really bad, tolerated because you can just spam the first 35 for a fraction of the price.

1 Like

sure nerf italians water but then you have to buff land play since atm they have the most generic archer of all archer civs, and trouble to defend in feudal since their “eco bonus” is rather weak and have no military bonus until imperial age

1 Like

I think you misunderstood a lot of things what i said. At no point I said Pikeman should not counter elephants.

Idk in which universe genitours “melt” knights, but okey.

Justifying a civ sucking (goths) due to their identity it’s not a good idea. Never.

And vikings could use a water nerf because they have been the best water civ since AoK.

They have archers with extra armor. And their Gxbows are amazing. They couls use some land buff, yeah, but i would say their are an okeyish civ in land map

also no. sicilians have no power unit in late game and no tool against archers so hauberk was added fo a reason. they sucked before hauberk, and now they are average. the tech was too strong and they increased its cost by 50%. so now it’s much more balanced. a change like that would kill the tech and the civ.

How is a cavalier that doesn’t die to pikes and have the armor of a paladin not s counter to archers?

extra armor literally means less than what vietnamese have for free from feudal and also applies to skirms and CA. so it’s not a good bonus being you unique archer bonus. genoxbows have what might be the worst elitè upgrade in the game

stdoesn’t die to pikes? that’s just not true. people seems to think that sicilians take no bonus damage but its not true. halberd and the pike line are still amazing cost effective against sicilians cavalier. they just are less effective then with a generic civ, but still effective. same goes for camels. they also get countered by other melee cav, since their only advantage is 1 MA in that MU, and a FU paladin melt sicilians paladin, as well as many other cavalier like teutonic cavalier, bulgarians cavalier,etc.

also having a strong cavalier is a must for a cavalry civ that lacks paladin upgrade. it’s just how thing goes in the game, look at Farimba, Stirrup, berbers discount, and the like.

if anithing, the bonus of hauberk could be just +0/+2 to make it balanced even against generic FU cavalier but still good against archers. otherwise if you want to trash hauberk like that, you would have to spread the buff to other units like light cav and/or add thumb ring, or other assets to the civ

since again, before hauberk sicilians where just trash. now they are balanced, and average in stats, picked in tournamets as much as any other decent civ, so if you nerf the main asset of the civ, you need to give a lot of power to other assets. i honestly think that at 700 F and 600 G hauberk is in a good spot atm. it’s one of the most expensive tech, and its good, but its not like sicilians have other options for late game, and they are a cavalry civ

I do think it’s important to mention that just increasing their range wouldn’t really do much, maybe. Even if they have the same range, they’re still just worse than crossbows. I personally think an attack upgrade would help, but I have a bad sense of balance.

The Incas are my favourite Meso-American civ so I think I’m a bit qualified to say this, but I think the Kamayuk is mostly fine. I’m OK with the civ bonus, but I think you’re underestimating just how generically good the Kamayuk is against more than just cavalry.

Personally I think they should just remove Eupseong and bring back the tower bonus as a bonus. I don’t like what they’ve done to the Koreans at all, it feels like they are just slowly getting turned into another generic archer civ. Although yeah, the Feudal Tower Rush was oppressive so there’s that. I think maybe they should make a whole new tech for the Koreans or bring back Panokseon and have it do something else (maybe small speed increase + damage?)

My favourite strategy when Rise of the Rajas came out was the Malay Habor rush on Bog Islands, anything to bring that back is wanted.

This just isn’t 100% true, first your comparison to Paladin is off base, as Paladin is rarely taken in 1v1.
Second of all, not all melee cav beat them. yeah the traditional ones would, but those all come with much more downside over Sicilian Cavaliers. This is the chief problem with Sicilian Cavaliers. Sicilian cavaliers have buffs against ALL THE NORMAL answers to them, AND still hold their own agaisnt Cavalry of other Cav civs. every other cav civ retains at least 1 weakness
Teutons are slower and still get ripped apart by archers.
Franks get a whopping 4 extra health
and pretty much all the other ones still take full pike/halb damage and don’t really fair too badly against archers.

food for thought but even with Hauberk nerfed to 1/1, their Cavaliers would still require 47 shots to die from archers (over a 33% increase), which makes it better then pretty much any cavalry not named Paladin, Tarkan, Boyar, and Keshik

and yet all those civs have actual clear cut weaknesses retained. tell me, what is the weakness of Sicilian cavaliers? even with 1/1 they still hold up better then almost any cavalry in the game against arbs, while also still laughing at monks, laughing at pikes and halbs (yes, they win cost effectively, but let’s be real, a halb takes 7 hits to kill a sicilian cavalier and only 4 to kill another civs).

it’s too much bonus tied up in 1 package and makes it extremely hard to deal with, even for other “cavalry civs”.

Nerfing it down to 1/1 is not suddenly going to make their cavaliers garbage against archers (Go look at the cataphract and leitis if you want a cavalry unit that is garbage against archers).


i’m not saying it’s not strong. i’m sayign it’s strong for a reason, ans is because sicilians have nothing going for them atm besides that. serjeants still grossly overpriced, no bonus for their infantry play to enable a infantry + siege play, no FU arbalest. remove that and they will come back to the dust where they were before hauberk.

so what i was saying is that hauberk already got nerfed and its quite pricy, and i think it’s no longer OP, but even besides that, even with hauberk, sicilians are still average civ, so they do not deserve a nerf. at least, a nerf without a fair compensation.

which is why i proposed to make hauberk +0/+2 to make it even with generic cavalier, and then make the tech cheaper

otherwise if you make it +1/+1 or something else you have to compensate with other buffs to the civ, like serjeants -10 G cost, thumb ring added, addition of hauberk to light cav as well, or a combination of stuff (all options i would be okay with)

other option would be change first crusade into something less gimmicky and not one time use to buff serjeants like allowing them to repair siege and castle and defensive structures and maybe build siege workshops as well, so that cavalier no longer have resistance to conversion fro first crusade

That’s not true, they still have solid arbs and reliable siege. n2m cavalier with 1/1 from hauberk are still very good. Nerfing it to 1/1 from 1/2 isn’t suddenly going to make your cavalier terrible.

slightly overpriced, not grossly.

There infantry + siege may not be top tier, but it’s not a bad option either.

false, nerfing it to 1/1 still gives them a reliable anti archer option, while not being too oppressive, and they are still better then most cavalry against pikes, monks, camels, etc, and of course hold their own against other cavalry as well.

which still makes it ridiculous to fight against for archer civs

So make serjeants cheaper, they are overpriced, just not “grossly overpriced” as you put it.

Agree that conversion range its the main reason i dont use them. I would preffer and expensiver and better monk that cant pick relics.
I would let inquisition as it is just to have a civ with stronger monks.

i’ve nowhere said that. do not put words into my mouth please. i’ve just said they are a balanced civ atm, even below average by stats and winrates, and the cavalier is the go-to because is the sole power option of the civ in imperial. cause siege is good but lack any bonus, infantry is good but lack any bonus, arbs is not solid lacking 2 upgrades, and losing thumg ring makes it a terrible idea in the long run past early imp. they rely on just one unit, which i aknowledge is not good both for the opponent and the sicilians player, i just realize you have to give compensation in return, since we are not talking chinese, franks, mayans, britons, or anithing even remotely close to that power here

and yeah, i may have overstated the overpriced but the concept still stands. if you nerf a balanced to below average civ in its strongest asset, you have to give something in compensation. so something like hauberk +1/+1 but add light cav into hauberk as well since they lack hussar anyway making it more consistent with others +armor tech that have 2-3 targets in it (Pavise, Silk Armor…which are all castle age tech btw), and then serjeants get -10 G, i would be okay with it and would overall make the sicilians more solid and less reliant on one unit

and that’s why no ones talking about nerfing them into the ground, we want to take something OPPRESIVE, and tone it down to give it counter play.

there are other civs that make arbs without TR work, and armor upgrades are routinely not taken right way, so missing the final armor upgrade isn’t that big of a concern.

and you notice i’m all for reducing the cost of hauberk and reducing the cost of serjeants.

and you’ll notice bot h the OP and I gave them compensation in our very first posts, so yeah, it’s already there. we acknowledge you can’t just nerf them as is.