Vietnamese are in a good spot and don’t really need any buffs.
7 Likes
That is the standard response I keep hearing 
1v1 is a struggle. We often have to win in very novel or obscure or complicated ways. It’s annoying to the person investing time in learning the civ and those who are subject to being part of the learning experience (opponents). I tend to agree they are in a good spot, but the lack of Gold Shaft Mining and Monks with no Fervor and a wood bonus that only effects eco techs is a bit devastating. For me it instantly sparks the desperate nature of the battle; the ra-jing.
Yes, there is the fact that they always start out knowing exactly where all opponents start. This requires extreme planning and duplicity in 8 of 10 battles. The player that did the unorthodox victory is drained and the opponents are all drained (so much so that they usually just resign). I enjoy it very much, don’t get me wrong… but I am quite aware I have made a name for myself by exclusively experimenting with the civ for so long.
I’ll continue to use the strength of the Vietnamese civ while trying to bait opponents to respond to their weaknesses. This is a very niche style of play though straight out of Tsun Tsu. No complaints, but just letting everyone know. If you want to play mind-games with an opponent Vietnamese is your choice.
for you maybe.
how? you got great archers with solid longevity, an anti archer unique unit in a time when archers are extremely strong, a solid eco bonus and eco overall, and siege engineers for your siege.
everyone has to deal with the learning the civ issue. this isn’t limited to just Vietnamese, and really comes across as probably the worst excuse you could give.
and yet they still have a better eco then a few other civs i can think of. Hera even puts their eco in the A Tier. missing the gold shaft mining isn’t a big setback for a civ who makes cheap armies.
1 Like
I’m here to help make the game better for everyone, not offer excuses or try to advocate for a civ that is too good or too bad.
I almost always play the game in novel ways. It just happens that the Vietnamese serve this purpose best for me. Their eco strength is based on being able to create large amounts of food resource buildings or structures with the extra wood they have, thus real-estate, cramped quarters and/or market manipulation is almost a must.
I’m going to have to leave it there though. Not going to lie, feeling a little like I’m being made to feel small and insignificant. I won’t respond to this topic again.
Just gonna say that the Battle Elephant nerf will hurt the Vietnamese a LOT (they lack Blast furnace).
3 Likes
that depends on your definition of better. everyone has to learn civs, it isn’t just limited to people playing one civ.
or use that extra wood for more archers.
i’m not making you small and insiginificant, i just disagree with your logic and reasoning.
they don’t even use them that much in the first place from what i’ve seen.
if they do need love post nerf, sure, go ahead.
1 Like
Vietnamesse are good in the archer department. But I believe elephants were overnerfed (for them and for burmese)
1 Like
Vietnamese basically never used elephants anyway, so it actually doesn’t hurt them at all.
They can still be strong in super lategame in teamgames or in Deathmatch. Not every unit avaliable needs to be good for every civ. Vietnamese usually just don’t rely on Battle Elephants.
So is this the cause i lose with them so often?
With elephants nerfed, i want chattras buffed a bit. And howdah too.
1 Like
Honest answer: Because you probably are not that great of a player^^
Try using archers with Vietnamese. Elephants are just a very situational unit for them. Situational means it is not a good idea to for them, unless the situation (enemy composition, map and game time) allows for it.
They’re not mainly a cav/elephant civ, just because they have them avaliable
1 Like
But my oponents arent great either 
Yeah, but then the best way to change the situation is to think about what can be done better - once it’s hard to find an answer there, then we can start talking about changing the game balance.
Let me give you another example:
I like playing Goths and I always go for Hand Cannoneers (they have all upgrades!!!), but most of the time I lose in late game situations. I think Goth Hand Cannoneers need a buff!
Nope, wrong thinking - go for infantry as Goths, that’s where they are good at and what works for them in most situations.
Are there situations where Hand Cannoneers are a good choice for Goths? Yes
Are there a lot of those situations? No
It’s completely fine that way. They are just an options Goth’s can use if needed, but most of the time don’t use.
The same goes for Khmer Elephants. They can make sense in some situations. But most of the time it’s just not the best way to play that civ.
1 Like
Just found this old topic because I wanted to complain about Chatras.
I think with the last changes to Battle Elephants (in the August patch iirc) they nerfed them too much for every Civ that is not Khmer.
Chatras should give some more HP or another additional effect in my eyes.
5 Likes
This should deserve a new thread.
I agree. Even malay elephants have suffered
2 Likes
True. I might do it later tonight.
1 Like
i would make chatras a civ bonus
for castle unique tech i would give foot archers and rattan +10% speed bonus
i would give cheaper military buildings at a cost of hit points, ex: barracks, archery, stables and siege workshop 33% cheaper but - 45% hitpoints or something along those lines,
the speed bonus plays well into their guerilla tactics theme, the cheaper building cost aids in aggressive play
perharps civs with team oriented unique techs should have a second unique tech( so two imperial or castle, 3 total) that helps the civ win
now imagine if instead of free conscription at the imperial age, they could instead be able to research it from the feudal age! i think this might be even op, but if it wasnt, it would make the vietnamese very unique and more appealing
i can’t think of a single civ bonus in the game that comes with such a terrible downside.
its almost two bonuses, one cheaper cost, two, due to lower hit points the building is made faster and units can be created perhaps before a normal civ even finishes building the same building if they had started at the same time, again this was just an idea for the civ to maybe play out agressively
show me one civ that gets a negative downside to its units because those units are made cheaper or faster or their buildings are cheaper. and for example - less health might work on ranged udnits, because they aren’t supposed to be taking damage anyway, but can you imagine melee units with such a detriment?
Even if the numbers were balanced, i wouldnt make a civ bonus with deleterous effects. That is not AOE2 style, where weaknesses are introduced mainly by holes in the tech tree.