Flemish revolution by a wide margin for me.
Not the weakest or least powerful, but the worst.
1 Like
@Lepigozzus remember this the next time you want to tell me I’m wrong
it would make more sense to recreate the poll with a less ambiguous title and remove “obviously not weak” techs. So you don’t end up with the numerous false positives I’ve pointed out.
The exact same could be said about madrash and orthodoxy. In fact both those tech were far more likely to be seen in a match than Greek fire, simply due to maps played.
It definitely needs to change
What is that going to prove? Nothing.
Some guys think Flemish Rev is the worst.
Well, brace yourself, I also think is a bad tech, not the worst, but very bad, from this poll perspective, bad because it’s too expensive and almost never worth researching.
Too expensive and you have to base your game on it to “abuse it”, it’s not like you can just float almost 2k res and click it, why not?
Yes, and your opponent is watching a movie in the other room, sure.
The vast majority clearly didn’t find the poll hard to read, judging by the overwhelming numbers of really weak techs voted, but since you’re so fixated that’s “very ambiguous” you can open another poll with your corrections and we can compare the results maybe?
I’m betting that even if you wrote “it’s better eagle warrior or ghulam?” there would be always someone who would answer “Mangudai” or something else.
I’ve lost interest in continuing along these lines though, I just see the result and imho they offer a nice clear picture.
Yes, down to zero would be unfair.
This sounds really interesting! You mean like “gain 50% of your enemies relic gold”? That would keep the effect of reducing the enemy’s gold income by 50% and give you the other 50%. Definitely better than the current one.
What do you think about the suggestion above? Because I agree with you that it should keep it’s current effects. But adding a third effect to a single tech would be strange, right? I think two effects for one civ is the max right now
1 Like
Move it to the dock, then create a new castle UT to replace it.
Basically yes, if your opponents gain 2 gold, you get 1 gold from their relic’s gold generation. It’s not like stealing 1 gold from their 2 gold, they still get their 2 gold and you get 1 from it, so a total of 3 gold.
Tho I think what you meant is actually much stronger than I proposed because from what I understand, you meant if the opponents gain 2 gold, you steal 1 gold from them and they lose 1 gold? so the total amount of gold is still 2? That would be insanely strong tho XD
I’m surprised how few people voted for Andean Sling. It literally only removes the minimum range for up to 3 units, which could literally be, and probably should be a civ bonus instead. It could be replaced with something like El Dorado, and decrease Eagle gold cost by 25%. Aztecs and Mayans both have a gold bonus, not to mention stronger Eagles, Incas would really benefit from it. Mayan UT should be renamed to Cotton Armor regardless, it matches the effect much better.
1 Like
Exactly, 1 gold for your enemy and 1 gold for you, that’s what I meant.
I think what you mean would have a very similar effect to the current status. Depending on the matchup that could be better or worse than it is nowadays. E.g. let’s say your enemy has collected 3 relics and you managed to get 2. After researching Atheism today the enemy would have 1.5 relics left, you still have two. After your suggestion, the enemy would still have 3 relics left, you would have 3.5 then. So today you’d get +33.33% (2 / 1.5) compared to your enemy, after your suggestion that would be turned down to +16.66% (3.5 / 3)
Not sure if it would even be that insane. In my eyes that should still be fine.
nomads is not to bad i think it can give you lots of space on blackforest or arena for trade.
strongholds i have never researched in my life i think it’s the worst maybe and i hope will be buffed in the next patch.
royal heirs i also don’t like because shotels training time is so short already.
atheism is cool for community games but not very much in competitive games.
from the new dlc civs:
i think medical corps is weak and needs to regenerate faster.
mahayana i’m not sure if it’s a good tech, i think no.
frontier guards is strong but too expensive and i have never seen a pro player do it.
I can kind of understand Mahouts getting votes, but Persians do need that tech. Rather than reworking it, adding either bonus damage or conversion resistance would go a long way. Honestly Kamandaran needs a rework instead.
Though imo Atheism, Cuman Mercenaries and Paper Money (Even with the stealth buffs to the last two) are awful and need either reworks or buffs.
How does Kamandaran need a rework? It’s actually good, and gives Perians some flavor. Mahouts is a problem, because it’s paying to make a unit viable.
2 Likes
About Kamandaran.
I would like to make the cost of trash archers down to 45 or 50 wood, give the Persians bracer and remove the crossbowmen. In this way, the Persian could have full upgrading cavalry archers. The trash archers would -5 HP and +8 sec of train time, but also get cheaper by about 15 wood.
It would be nice to have this change, but it’s not necessary wharever.
That’s a huge castle age nerf they don’t deserve.
2 Likes
Whenever I see Kamandaran, the Persians are almost already in the Imperial age.
But yeah, I stated, it’s not necessary.
Agree, the unit itself is sooo expensive already. Having to research another tech to make them viable is not a very nifty design.
Yep. Taking away the Crossbow upgrade would heavily cut into their flexibility.
1 Like
Well you might wanna play xbow in castle age as opening especially in current meta. Also archers create more slowly than xbow (I think at least it’s tied to the unit and not the age). Lastly bracer is more costly than xbow upgrade and you’d lack 5 hp. So you’d maybe have more flexibility late game but less so mid game. And the latter is I’d say where persians struggle a bit. I highly doubt you go cav archer in early castle age as persians (their eco bonus is rather useless then as you normally don’t really add much eco here and also they don’t have any ca bonus).
1 Like
Yes it’s good, but leaving it makes balancing the civ more problematic as it leaves no room for buffing their military.
No, giving Persians flavour would be discounting all their foot soldiers not just the Archer line, which is fair as only their Halbs, which don’t even cost gold are FU. Giving Persians flavour would be buffing their CA’s to make top 3.
And how does that make it a problem? Other unique techs also target their UUs to make them viable e.g. Bearded Axe, Logistica. It may seem like bad design, but giving War Eles much higher base ms to start with is even worse design, as it makes them unnecessarily strong in Castle Age especially when Persians are one of the better civs to fast castle with.
That sounds like a civ rework seeing as tatars, mongols, huns, turks, and magyars all exist
1 Like
I don’t remember seeing War Elephants in Castle Age (except for trolling or flexing maybe). FC War Elephants without a sick boom is nowhere close to a viable strategy.
2 Likes