Overcompensation in Balance (and other suggestions)

what i do not like is that will change both UT and then serjeants would require the UT to be decent, while they should get the res discount for free basically. otherwise is just a tax added t the cost of an already overpriced unit to make it viable. they should cost -10 G or -5 Food -5 Gold and that’s it, then the tech should buff them.

problem with serjeants is that they can be trained in feudal but its basically impossible for feudal age economy to sustain them and get villagers and get castle age at reasonable time, so a UT in castle to make them cheaper does not save them, they should be chepaer by default, and then UT does something cool.

also, on Hauberk, other UT that changes armor affects more units than just one, and are catsle age tech. this is an imperial age tech, that buff only one units. Also farimba al Stirrups affect all cavalry unit, not just KTS. so yeah, you gave them compensation, i just do not like that compensation enough.

i personally would go:

Hauberk: retain the price or make it slightly cheaper as wish: +1/+1 armor to all cavalry unit (which would include cavalier, light cav, and CA but who cares at that stage since you have no TR and HCA upgrade aniway)

reduce Serjeants cost by 5 food and 5 gold, or 10 gold. this would make the serjeants good enough.

then eventually change first crusade into a serjeants buff, that is not a tax to make them viable, but a proper unique and cool buff: “Serjeants can repair siege, castles, and defensive structures” and possibly can build siege worskshops as well

I’d be fine with that.

except in feudal they can be quite oppressive if you make them too cheap.

and now the civ is BUFFED from where it is now and even harder to deal with, especially at the pro level.

you ask for compensation but give an INCH to take 5 yards.

well first of all, those unique techs affect for the most part units that mesh together (light cav + cav archers, archers, etc, they don’t affect light and heavy units though, as you see with tatars where it affects their light cav and horse archers, but not their knights or keshik).
furthermore farimba and stirrup still retain their archer and pike weakness, whereas you can’t say the same for Sicilian units. big difference.

how so? you are nerfing cavalier and buffing light cav, compensation. and consistency with all other armor buff UTs (pavise, silk road) and cavalry buff UTs (stirrup, farimba). also note that i rtain the actual 1300 res cost for that. so i would be okay even for just the KTS buff but then it would need to be much cheaper, but i still think it would need to affect light cav since they do not have hussar. their ligh cav would still die to FU generic hussar, and trade just marginally better even with just FU light cav, and they would tank just 2 more arrows than FU hussar iirc.

then you remove first crusade for an arguably weaker and more situational tech while buffing serjeants. it seems pretty reasonable to me. and tbf, even if you want to consider it a buff, sicilians are not a top tier civ and could use a buff aniway once you get rid of the oppressive thing of hauberk.

Its a huge nerf for civs which are already weak on open land maps. Armored Elephants of Gurjaras are much much better as they deal 50% more damage to buildings. Rathas are weakest amongst Cav archer type unique units. They’re slow, very low base attack compared to fellow CA unique units and as melee they’re sub-par to knights or other cav unique units. Overall its still a good unit but not even close to OP as they get wrecked by skirms, camels, halbs.

This and their cost need rework. They should be something like -5 for non-elites and -3 for elites. And the cost should be something like 75 food 55 gold.

I think it would be fine if number of tcs x 6 or 7 number of villagers turn into flemish militia. This way you’ll get a sudden army bump but won’t be like 100+ sudden military.

I just feel they should get leather archer armor but base p.armor of Arambai should reduce by 1.

This is actually a big nerf. In general the siege workshop in feudal age is almost completely useless in most situations because of the current wall meta. Unless build time and hp/armor of palisade walls in feudal age drastically changes it wouldn’t make much sense to build a siege workshop and invest into rams in feudal age.

DPS is not the problem of lancers. Its just the high cost and low p.armor which doesn’t justify their purpose as a mainstream cavalry and keeps them only a situational unit for some raids.

seem like a good thing to try.

won’t fix the problem. Lack of sufficient resource savings/earnings from bonuses is the main problem as you said.

thats it?? that’s like 200 extra food from gaia instead of 300. With the extra vill and each archer costing 14 less resources in castle age, they’ll still hit imp pretty soon and continue making dirt cheap arbs.

They just need to have a higher cost and build time.

Do you remember how before Hauberk this civ was NEVER picked. This will just return them back there. Civ has zero eco bonus. When you post a nerf like this, balance it out with a buff. Its a mid-tier civ afterall.

Like this idea but doesn’t do much for open map 1v1.

because the problem is their cavalier are still going to be problematic for archer civs, and now their light cav are going to be problematic as well. cavalier will take 47 shots to kill, which yes, is not easy to deal with, and their light cav will take 27, a solid increase, on top of being better against pikes then other civs, making htem EXCEPTIONAL at raiding, beyond what they already are.

you mean the pavise that doesn’t affect skirmishers or hand cannons?

you mean the silk armor that affects only light units but not heavy cavalry?

you mean the cavalry civs that retain all their weaknesses and aren’t better against archers or the spear line or camel line, etc?

except with this hauberk they would still be oppressive against archer civs, and for longer as well now that it affects the light cav line. are they AS oppressive as they are now? no. but they would still be a pain to deal with.
the goal is to buff them in a way that isn’t completely oppressive to archer civs, giving hauberk to light cav is quite contradictory.

that i can get, but even if it’s obvious that a civ with -50% bonus should not have paladins or hussar, then i would like to have their unique cavalry tech to make their cav middle ground which +1/+1 armor would do.

for comparison yes bulgarian hussars still keep their weaknesses but are much better offensively, and kills targets much faster. i would prefere bulgarians hussar over siclians light cav even with the +1/+1 armor against archers for example simply because they drop faster. so yeah, siclians have tankyness where others have other bonuses.

but again, i get what you are saying, but i would still give it a try and then, if it’s too much, ithey could simply scrap light cav aways from it after testing

tbf pavise should affect skirmisher since atm is worse vietnamese bonus for less units and with paywall, but that’s off topic

so suppose we scrap the light cav out of it (i would not agree, simply because i would like to give it a try of tests firsts in game) would you be ok with hauberk much cheaper (400F 300G, a bit cheaper than the first one) and +1/+1 to knight, and then -5 F/ -5 G, or simple -10 G, on Serjeants?

except its time to be killed that matters more most the time. check how often you see someone take melee attack upgrades before armor upgrades.
why do you think Turks went from terrible to at least decent with getting 1 pa on their scouts.

except your giving them tankinis against EVERYTHING they would see from an archer civ, which is a much bigger advantage then merely attack faster. you can have your Bulgarian hussars, I’ll take the Sicilians.

it’s not off topic, you said that other bonuses affect everything, i used your examples and showed they did not.

yeah that would be fine.

i did not say “anithing”, again you are putting words in my mouth, stop doing that. i sayd they affect more than 1 thing, which is very different. it is true that they tend to affect things that are either light or heavy and that’s true. on the specific case of pavise, it should totally effect skirsmisher tough imho

that would be fine by me as well. i would still give a try to light cav just to have a “smoother transition” and see how thing goes, and then quickly address it if needed, but yeah the big part is that nerfinf the cavalier is ok if you give a new unit to play with, and i think the serjeants would be fine with -10 res overall and would be a fun tool to use, especially if a new UT for castle age is targeted to make them even more unique like what i proposed.

something like: “Serjeants can repair siege, castles, and defensive structures and can build siege worskshops” would be fine by you? i think that would open the possibility of a very unique infantry + siege push, and emphasize their “thing” of being the only military unit that can build

Some good suggestions here, but so much to read.

I think missionaries lose a huge amount of utility not being able to pick up relics. In aoe4 we have missionary equivalent, which can pick up relics but they move much slower while carrying a relic

EA should get the full +4 from PT and less bonus damage from skirms(try -5) This immediately buffs the relevant civs as well

Genitours should never ever ever get 5 range. Mounted ranged units have to have less range due to their mobility, meaning they become significantly harder to counter with more range. And why Magyars get their UT so late. And a random fact: Aztec genitours will have 9 range.

They’re also likely used less by Berbers (but still used) because of alternative options which are extremely effective, not because they are over costed units. Still say Spanish and port should get them as regional units. Give them to almost any civ that doesn’t have camel archers /excellent HCA and you’ll suddenly see how viable they are in 1v1

This its a good idea if missionaries could take the relic you can stop them from running awqy to fast.

But i think, should spanish have monks if missionaries where(if buffed) overall better monks?

Nice solution. I find this is the thing that holds them too much. Maybe buff damage output vs Archers a bit. In recent patch, I believe they are underutilized.

I find them pretty good. Currently they are at a spot where they can be too much OP with wrong buffs. Civs like Bengalis and other Indian civs with bad Knight/mobility options struggles with them a bit too much. Make things worse, those civs lack good eco to back up Elephant production.

Overall damage output they are good but yeah getting outranged sucks. It gets proven time and time with new Indian civs. Just give it range. Armor might make them too op in many situation. They work as good as Cav Archers now when it comes to damage output.

Personally just give SEA civs Elephant Archer and make bonuses stack up with it. As a result you will have a civ that can work as good as every other civ Elephant Archer. Burmese by design is completely a melee civ. With this you have only two good ranged option which is Elephant Archer and Arambai. Designwise it won’t sacrifice their civ theme.

I say just replace current gold cost with wood. If possible make it slightly cheaper.
Also give them Elephant Archer as well and slightly nerf HP bonus(Remember their EA unit can be too op with stacked up %HP bonus). Vietnamese never really well known for melee units. As well as their elephants. With this, they will have newer identity. Their melee Battle Elephant still can be viable. Their Battle Elephant was good already but not super good at the end of the day.

Last but not least Persians should get some overhaul. Especially when it comes to UT and new Armored Elephant introduction.
They can have Armored Elephant and Caravansarai. In Babur campaign and overall history it has been from Persia primarily. Thus becoming other civ that is in theory a generic civ but got access to Armored Elephant like Hindustani. Their Mahouts tech should be switched to something(cheaper gold cost for CA? Cutting infantry population in half?) with more useful and give War Elephant the speed bonus that stacks up with tech for free.

Man just stop, Sicilian Cavaliers are still broken in Imperial, the Hauberk nerf was just a bandaid to adress the thing you could just shut down an arbalest fast imp in an akward timing, but that isn’t adressing the core problem that those cavaliers are close to be uncounterable by several civs (Aztecs, Vikings, Vietnamese).

Like I said revert the cost nerf but take away bloodlines, and buff the serjeant attack so Sicilians are pcuhed a bit back from just doing Knights and incorporate Serjeants instead.

Would they replace cav archers? I dont know if tvere is different hotkeys for cav archers qnd ele0hant archerd

Yeah that would replace CA. It seems EA takes the spot of CA. Since there is lack of space and hotkey management.

How about taking away Husbandry from Sicilians?

It will make them too similar to teutons

Tbh I think they could just make hauberk very expensive to make it reflect the fact it’s often as good as the paladin upgrade, and it would be enough to 1-make those civ wins happen less often and 2-not make cavalier the default late game option, like paladin isn’t the default late game unit in 1v1 for those who have it.

Biggest issue is just how you run out of option. In TG pocket, they are super hard to deal with. You can have fair amount of eco to back you up. So making expensive upgrade is not a solution. They are just Cataphracts on Stable. Pikeman doesn’t counter it. You need to have something that hits hard to deal with. Means becoming a better Knight civ or make Knights more than them. Removing Husbandry can solve some issue but might make them too weak.

Hauberk is not a problem in TG because you will often face at least one paladin civ, or a UU of some sort that can beat them. A price increase to the tech would reinforce that because you wouldn’t have the benefit of getting hauberk before they have their own expensive upgrades.

1 Like

No changes for Byzantines?