Add the option for civs that need a rework to some of their bonuses or unique techs. Like burmese, incas, indians, goths, etc.
Ok, I’ve finally added that in a format I’m happy with.
Cool, thank you so much.
Personally, I’d rework the burmese first. I’d start by giving them a new unique unit.
Instead of having the arambai as a strong ranged mounted unit but with poor accuracy, I’d change the concept to a ranged mounted unit with average stats but possessing a reload attack. Like the coustillier. The reload cooldown could be between 15 or 20 seconds. This way the empowered attack can be calculated and microed. They could get the second archer armor as compensation. That’s also give them better skirms and improve their answer to archers. All of this without affecting the civ identity as elephants + monks.
Also I’d probably revert back the recent anti-archer manipur cavalry changes they got in past patches.
Ideas just off the top of my head though.
I think the Cumans need their imp tech changed to something else, those 10 free Elite chipchak is pretty pointless for 600f 400g. Maybe in 4v4 it is an okay tech, but in anything less than that it’s a waste of a tech. Maybe if it was tied to the number of castles, like the tech from the sicilians that’s tied to the number of TCs, it would be better. But then the number of kipchaks would need to be nerfed.
There’s quite a few near completely-to-completely useless UTs that are so bizarrely designed that they could do with a replacement/fundamental rework, the ones that immediately come to my mind are: Cuman Mercenaries, Nomads, Athiesm, Royal Heirs, Madrasah, Mahouts, there’s certainly a bunch more that could be listed.
Also a couple that are not fundamentally badly designed, but just have such a bad cost-to-profit ratio that they are very iffy choices at best in a typical game like: Great Wall, Stronghold, Hill Forts. They could certainly do with a hefty buff
Oh and of course Flemish Revolution, to be fair I think the idea of a special Halberdier-esq unit that you can train from your TCs to be a really cool one as a unique method of countering Cav raids and a way to make use of otherwise defunct TC production capabilities once you’re fully boomed, but the ability to access the former being barred behind an very expensive UT that completely nukes your economy, and said UT also potentially giving you 100+ Chieftains-Champion-esq units instantly to zerg your opponent with, to be very clunky and problematic design to say the least.
there is no ‘none’ option, poll might be perceived as biased
I know, I forgot it, and I can’t add it now without losing data. I guess you can just compare with the highest number of voters?
The NONE Is missing
OR THE :
Please leave them alone
STOP THE MADNESS
Just a suggestion to make these polls fair.
Yeah, option ‘none’ should be there. Nice poll though.
I apologize for not having a “None” option or equivalent, I would love to add it, and should have, but I can’t change the poll without losing data. Sorry.
You could make a singular choice poll below it without changing existing options/votes maybe
I guess, but I don’t want to ping everyone who already voted.
While that is true, you can still do so without pinging; I’d imagine that the target audience are those that have not voted moreso than those who already took the time to vote which is essentially those who may have already read and not voted or those that have yet to read and may still do so.
I don’t like the formatting, because you’ll likely just get polls of people saying what civs are good on what map.
I guess it makes sense from a matchmaking perspective, but I don’t like nerfing civs for maps. I like changes to civs that are good on too many maps (thumb ring nerf for Vikings, e.g.), not good on specific ones. That follows my instinct to hate preferential maps in matchmaking, though, as such a civ doesn’t really pose a serious problem when those styles of map don’t occupy the vast majority of maps played due to player influence of map selection…
It’s sort of to give an indication of which kinds of areas might need changes, based on how well civs perform on certain maps, and how different strategies associated with those maps work.
To all those people who think Bohemians need nerfs on Arabia, can you explain your logic? They are a slightly below average civ on Arabia, with most of their strengths being built either for closed maps, or the lategame, which they may not reach. How did you reach the conclusion they need a nerf on Arabia, rather than Arena?
I am fairly surprised by the number voting for the Bohemians receiving nerfs on Arena. They are excellent on it, but hardly unstoppable.
Arena nerfs I can understand. They can reach their lategame death push comp a lot easier, have the really good castle drop into UU, and have one of, if not the best monk rush in the game. It’s the Arabia thing that seems strange.
I just misclicked at first as I assumed the first poll was the only one.
Imagine reading everyone’s posts through before replying instead of just reacting and doing stuff as you go along!