Portugal changes TAD 1.03 => DE

Hi guys,

I don’t have access to the beta and it’s killing me.
Could one charitable soul go over the change for the portuguese ? Since TAD ?

I know some of them (e.g. genitours nerf etc.).

1/- Can portuguese build grenadiers with a card, like some civs ?
2/- What change to the army (cassadores, organ gun)
3/- New cards ?

Thx all

1 Like

Dont know 100% sure yet, but people are saying that most of the ESOC patch made it to DE. So from the ESOC wiki:

Portuguese

  • Starting crates fixed to 300f 200w
  • Berry and hunting gather-rates increased by 5%
  • “Besteiros” improvement cost reduced to 2000w (from 2400w)
  • Spyglass cooldown decreased to 90s (from 120s)
  • Cassador ranged attack increased to 18 (from 17); hitpoints increased to 110 (from 105); ranged resist reduced to 45% (from 50%)
  • “Gunpowder Infantry Attack” shipment moved to Colonial (from Industrial) Age
  • “TEAM Gunpowder Infantry Hitpoints” shipment moved to Fortress (from Industrial) Age
  • “Genitours” shipment effect decreased to +4 Dragoon range (from +6)
  • Organ Gun train-time decreased to 40s (from 45s); unpacked (‘limber’) mode speed increased to 2.4 (from 1.6); packing and unpacking time decreased from 2s to 1.5s
  • “Navigation School” shipment now trains ships 20% faster (from 25%)

For the food gather rates, in the different beta patches I think they have experimented with Ports starting with the hunting dogs upgrade, vills being slightly cheaper and starting with extra villagers. Not sure what they are settling on for the release

5 Likes

-house of barcra moved to commerce age and now moves the train to the second age too.
-the medicine card has been moved to the third age thou. I was going to ask for exactly the opposite thou. Ports still do not have an always good age 1 card.

2 Likes

The Portuguese have access to an age 2 politician which allows the civ to train age 2 infantry in the town center — crossbows, pikemen and musketeers. Also, the musketeers and crossbowmen get +1 range when going with this option.
This option costs 100f more than the usual age up, tho.

Also, villagers are costing 85f.

4 Likes

Thanks guys for the info. I was aware of most the ESOC changes. I’m glad they kept the food discount for villagers. It will be easier to produce on 3 TC after a FF.

By easier you mean OP? The esoc maps already have improved resources which makes this easier, then you’ve got 85f vills, and a 5% food gather bonus.

On the other hand, portuguese lost the fifth mameluks and op 20 range dragoon

You mean brooken units and shipments were adjusted? I hope the mortars got a range nerf too.

you say that like Portugal was an op civ. It was not.

1 Like

They’re already a top team civ on RE and just fine in 1v1 on ep. They don’t need 85f vills AND 5% gather boost.

There are just certain things that shouldn’t be - mortars that snipe everything from a screen away and goons that outrange their counter are two of those things. No civ should have to rely on brooken things to be viable.

1 Like

Mate, you’re willfully ignoring the majority of the player base for your own treaty-based interests. It’s disingenuous and will get you nowhere.

I play solely treaty myself and have interests aligned with yours. I also agree with you. However, this is no way to get what we want. Acknowledge that what applies in TR doesn’t apply in Sup and you’ll begin to have a more productive discussion.

Port’s definitely are not OP in Sup. They are absolutely top-tier in RE Treaty. Balance changes in one format may negatively affect the balance in another format. Let’s find ways to accept the changes in Sup (majority of player base) while proposing good changes for TR that can co-exist. :+1:

Let’s also remember that a few balance changes that negatively affect Port in TR have already been made:

  • 2 add’l Explorer card changed to 1 Explorer
  • Mortar range card gives less additional range
  • Goon range card gives less additional range

I was able to go head-to-head with an equal skill Port player as Sweden in a TR game this weekend. The Swede civ handled extremely well against them resulting in a victory. My takeaways from this are either: Port tweaks were just enough to bring them in balance with others OR Swede are even more OP than Port and will need changes themselves.

Either way, our focus for TR balance is going to shift away from changing the Port civ. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

I don’t know where you come from. Portugal was the less played civ on 1v1 and a very weak one, always needing to go FF for a chance to win. Not a great civ for team games too.

4 Likes

He come from EP. He is right, porto seem so broken on DE.

2 Likes

I am not a treaty player and I never will be. Strange assumption. I offer no suggestions for treaty balance and limited suggestions for sup (mostly just listen to top players discuss and repeat some things I agree with) and anything that feels really brooken.

However, my distaste for port mortars was born in ffa where they are just grotesque to play against.

1 Like

It is rather than a mistake for having %5 gathering bonus remain, other than that ports are not close to be a broken civ but have place in a decent place, after fixing the unintentional %5 gathering bonus, ports will remain as a fine civ.

That’s nothing but wrong, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brits and so on civs are performing better than ports in the teamgame mode, the statement about port being top doesn’t have any reasonable basis nor a proof.

2 Likes

Sorry to have been so offensive. I could have sworn one of your earlier posts mentioned tr and the mention of two Age IV cards affecting balance for you further supported the balance being a matter of tr balance in my mind.

I hate to say it, but if the game is coming down to those cards in terms of balance, then the meta and balance you’re operating under is more closely aligned with treaty. It may be taboo in one’s mind to be aligned in any way with tr if there is no set rule on when attacks may be made, but truthfully many FFA’s involve booms and late-game fights - features that also characterize treaty games - and I don’t think there’s any shame in that. FFA’s are alot of fun and they are unique in their own way, so I’m not saying you’re basically playing tr. I am suggesting, however, that balance and meta surrounding competitive supremacy is (likely) going to be less applicable to the average casual FFA than treaty balance and meta will be, as confirmed by the two cards you pointed out as problem points for Port in FFA.

A much less important point that is not as relevant

The devs also noted in their announcements that they made balance updates with supremacy, tr, and DM in mind. I don’t think they went too deep into the 2v2 / 3v3 / 2v2v2v2 / FFA / etc possibilities when balancing any of the 3 game modes since there is such a deep rabbit trail in all of those team/FFA formats. I’m sure they weren’t ignored entirely, just not a focal point.

I’m not saying the game should be balanced for ffa. I actually have posted saying this before (not expecting you to have read that post tho).

The op range for jinettes is definitely applicable in mor ethan ffa and treaty however. Sure, the mortars are probably only a problem in ffa/tr but something with brooken range makes that less fun.FFA should be a fun gamemode and I don’t think anyone likes going against those mortars in FFA.

All brooken shipments, etc should be nerfed regardless of gamemode.

Sure, but the goon range is fine until the card is sent. Same with mort range. I think we agree there though.

Both cards have been changed afaik. They aren’t as good as they were before and it’s not too small of a change either. Maybe we should see how things shake out before trying to nerf them more? Idk - like I said, I played swedes vs port late game and it was pretty equal skill. Swede civ performed really nice vs Port and I didn’t even know what I was doing with Swede. :nerd_face:. But seriously, I should have gotten taken to the cleaners and somehow I didn’t. So either the changes were enough for Port not to overpower me or Swede are just that OP…it’s hard to tell at this point but it’s definitely compelling enough to say the jury is still out on Port imo. :slightly_smiling_face:

I knew of some of the changes. But ports is in a very good position, maybe too strong in 1v1. And they seem op in team.