Hello. This is the version 3 of my civ balance changes suggestions. The list is so long that is split into two parts. The previous version was a lot less thought through and well done. I have come up with this hopefully better balanced version, based on comments and further ideas from that last post, as well as a lot of further thought. Some of the ideas have been influenced or taken from other balance suggestions.
Also, there are a lot of items on this list, if there are any that you disagree with, could correct, or support, please comment on specifics. Thanks.
For all of the polls, you can only vote for one thing. I’ve tried to keep them as non-biased as possible, so just pick whatever is best for you.
My definition of a balanced civ:
The civ needs to have a clear powerspike, and at least one point of the game where it should be weak. The powerspike should be balanced so that it has a roughly 50% chance of winning or losing to a civ with the same powerspike, or performs reasonably against civs with a different powerspike. It needs to have strengths and a clear gameplan, but gaps in the techtree that also give it clear weaknesses. It should also have a good eco bonus, or a strong military/techtree bonus as a substitute. It also needs to be able to deal with all of the non unique units, at least to some extent. It also needs a fighting chance on any given map. It also needs a worthwhile team bonus and eco bonuses that are fairly balanced with other civs.
Aztecs:
Is the civ balanced?
- The Aztec extra gold and faster military production buildings allow them to claim an early game advantage, especially over civs that need to survive until the lategame to thrive. The Aztecs have a weak lategame, especially as they lack halberdier, and as such, don’t have an ideal counter to heavy cavalry. It is no wonder therefore that Aztec players usually try to end the game early.
Suggestions:
- The faster military production buildings become staggered. Instead of being a static 11% faster for all ages, it now becomes 4% in Dark Age, 8% in Feudal Age, 12% in Castle Age, and 16% in Imperial Age. This means that their early production is still faster than usual, and the current rushing strategies are still very viable, but because it now takes slightly longer, lategame civs now have a better chance to either train counter units, or wall and defend. By Castle Age, the faster military production has become faster than the current one, but not by a massive margin, and the slight decrease on the early game production time gives civs with a weak early game a better chance of survival. The 16% faster production in Imperial is a significant increase on the bonus, and makes it easier to either spam the slowly created Eagle Warriors, or trash units. This makes their lategame a little bit stronger, but despite the nerf to the production speed in the early ages, the Aztec rush is still likely to end the game early, and it won’t usually matter a huge amount.
- I agree with these changes.
- I don’t think Aztecs need any changes.
- I agree that Aztecs need changes, but not these ones.
0 voters
Berbers:
Is the civ balanced?
- Berbers are a balanced civ due to the cheaper stable units, and powerful unique unit. The Genitour however, is underutilized in a lot of situations, because it isn’t the most cost efficient unit available, despite it being very powerful against foot archers, and indeed, archers in general. Their faster villagers are useful for escaping raids, and a slight increase to early efficiency.
Suggestions:
- Genitour HP decreased from 50 to 40, Elite decreases from 55 to 45. Anti-spearmen damage increases from +2 to +3, like a regular Skirmisher. Genitour training time decreases from 25 seconds to 23 seconds, regular Skirmishers are 22 seconds. Cost decreases from 50F 35W to 40F 35W. These changes mean that the Genitour becomes easier to mass quickly, but performs worse against cavalry, because they die sooner, while both being better and worse against spearmen, depending on the use and level of hit and run. The upgrade time for Elite Genitour decreases from 60 seconds to 50 seconds. These changes make it faster and more efficient to mass, to encourage the use, while not significantly altering the interaction with archers, yet making them weaker to cavalry. The cheaper upgrade time makes it easier to tech into the unit. These changes are aimed at making the Genitour see a wider field of play, and because they become better counters to spearline units, they are more likely to be incorporated into the Berber cavalry armies.
- I agree with these changes.
- I don’t think that Berbers need any changes.
- I agree that Berbers need changes, but not these ones.
0 voters
Bohemians:
Is the civ balanced?
- The Bohemian unique unit is very difficult for archer civs to deal with, and indeed, most civs. Despite theoretically being countered by siege, it significantly outruns mangonels, which have a speed of 6. The Hussite Wagon has a speed of 0.85, and 0.9775 after Wagenburg tactics is researched. The incredibly high pierce armor means it can run straight past archers, or even under castles, without even taking much damage. The fact that after the unique tech it is faster than archers, who typically have a movement speed of 0.96, further compounds this issue. This makes Bohemians unrealistically strong against archer civs, because most of them have mediocre cavalry at best, and the Hussite Wagon can shelter ranged units, who then kill infantry. This is a massive problem for archer civs, because they lack a real way to deal with the wagon. Other than the strength of the Hussite Wagon, the Bohemians are balanced.
Suggestions:
- Base Hussite Wagon speed decreased from 0.85 to 0.77, giving Mangonels a better chance to land shots. After Wagenburg Tactics it now has a speed of 0.8855, letting archers effectively outrun it.
- AND/OR: Hussite Wagon receives -3 melee armor. This makes Mangonels a better counter, because they become able to deal extra damage. Melee attackers also become more of a threat, which pushes the Bohemians towards a more diverse army composition, due to the need to put either ranged units behind the wagons, or melee units in the front.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Bohemians need any changes.
- I agree that Bohemians need changes, but not these.
0 voters
Britons:
Is the civ balanced?
- Britons are a well balanced civ. They have a solid economy, and a clear game plan. They are able to adequately counter almost every unit in the game, and although their cavalry is quite lacking, it is utterly unnecessary, because of the power of the Briton archer units.
Suggestions:
- No change suggested. Leave Britons as they are.
- I agree that Britons don’t need changes.
- I think that Britons do actually need changes.
0 voters
Bulgarians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Bulgarians are ok as a civ, although they lack a decent early game economy bonus. They have a clear gameplan, and a decent powerspike, but possibly need better early economy.
Suggestions:
- Blacksmiths, Stables, and Siege Workshops all cost -50W. This change is aimed at making their early economy better, because they can now afford more farms, and makes it easier for them to play into their strengths.
- OR: No change, Bulgarians are fairly balanced.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree that Bulgarians don’t need any changes.
- I think that Bulgarians do need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Burgundians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Burgundians are a decent civ, with good eco bonuses, reasonable counter units, and a clear powerspike. They have strong cavalry, but it becomes weaker in the Imperial Age with the lack of Bloodlines to balance out the Castle Age Cavalier. Their unique tech Flemish Revolution is problematic however. It instantly explodes all of the player’s economy into military, and is normally either a desperation move, or something to finally crush the opponent. It needs to be changed to make it easier to use however.
Suggestions:
- Change Flemish Revolution. Revolution now goes from 1200F 650G, to 1000F 800G. Possibly, once Revolution is complete, all new Flemish Militia are added to the lowest available control group. Either this is the one instance where more than 60 units can be in a control group, or it spreads them as it runs out of space. Flemish Militia cost goes from 60F 25G to 60F 15G. It goes from 75HP to 65H, and base attack decreases from 12 to 11. This makes it easier to spam Flemish Militia even after Revolution, but makes them all weaker.
- AND/OR: Revolution only converts Idle Villagers into Flemish Militia. This gives the player greater control over the number of Flemish Militia actually created, making the tech more balanced in terms of effect on economy.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Burgundians need any changes.
- I agree that Burgundians need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Burmese:
Is the civ balanced?
- Burmese are not a balanced civilization. They have a collection of units and bonuses that affect units that are either niche, need something else to support them, or require lots of upgrades to be viable. They lack a clear game plan, and definitely need changes. They lack a real way to deal with archers, despite having several counters to cavalry or infantry. This is a big problem for them, because it provides a clear disadvantage against a fairly large set of civs, especially because even civs that aren’t specialist archer civs, but can still use archers, are likely to exploit this weakness of the Burmese. Their current wood bonus also seems to serve no real purpose, because although it might be useful, the Burmese are decidedly not an archer civ, due to missing the second archer armor upgrade, and although their Arambai cost wood, the current bonus is simply not as useful as a bonus that wood provide food or gold, because that would better suit the Burmese units. They need a more clear gameplan, and playstyle, and changing this bonus would be a good start.
Suggestions:
- Current free lumbercamp upgrades removed and replaced with the following. 10 Lumberjacks produce food at the same rate as a forager. This means 1 lumberjack produces 0.031 food per second. This bonus would be useful for the Burmese, because they don’t really need wood, especially in the early game, because they are not an archer civ. This would however, help with giving them a more clear cut gameplan, because now opening with a scout rush becomes a viable option, and they are also more able to afford battle elephants and infantry. This also allows for Arambai to be produced, only the Elite upgrade becomes more affordable, because if the player is mass producing Arambai, their economy tends to be leaning towards wood and gold, but they need food and gold for the upgrade. This bonus would give the Burmese a more clearcut playstyle, and be more useful than the current bonus.
- AND/OR: Burmese gain access to the Leather Archer Armor (The Castle Age upgrade). Arambai lose their base one pierce armor, and Elite Arambai has its base pierce armor decreased from 2 to 1 to counteract this. The Arambai training speed increases from 21 seconds to 22 or 23 seconds. This makes Arambai slightly slower to mass, but they are now more durable against melee attackers, so they die slower to counteract this. The main reason for this change is because it give the Burmese a better counter to archer civs. Because their Skirmishers are missing the second armor upgrade, they are quite vulnerable to archers. Although they get extra pierce armor on their Battle Elephants, elephants are too slow and expensive to be a viable anti archer unit most of the time. This makes Skirmishers a more viable counter to archers, and makes these fights less one sided.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Burmese need any changes.
- I agree that Burmese need changes, but not these ones.
0 voters
Byzantines:
Is the civ balanced?
- Byzantines have a good lategame, especially in the Trash Wars, where their cheaper Halberdiers and Skirmishers are useful. However, they often have trouble in the early game, due to being fairly vulnerable to rushes, although not as badly as some civs.
Suggestions:
- Spearmen, Skirmishers, and Camels deal 5% bonus damage. This plays more into their cheaper counter units, and makes it easier to defend in the early game, where they often have trouble. Bohemians have 25% more bonus damage on Spearmen only, so this bonus is more rounded, but weaker, and should remain fairly balanced.
- OR: Advancing to Feudal age 10% cheaper, Castle Age 15% cheaper, Imperial 20% cheaper. This makes it easier for them to reach the lategame, where their strengths are.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree with the second suggestion.
- I don’t think that Byzantines need any changes.
- I agree that Byzantines need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Celts:
Is the civ balanced?
- Celts are a fairly balanced civ. They have decent eco bonuses, arguably the best siege in the game, and faster infantry. They have a solid playstyle, and are balanced.
Suggestions:
- No change. Celts are a balanced civ for the most part.
- I agree that Celts don’t need any changes.
- I think that Celts actually need a change.
0 voters
Chinese:
Is the civ balanced?
- Chinese are not a balanced civ. Even after the recent nerf, they are still a top tier civ, and need to be changed. They have great economy, and powerful technology. Their unique unit is also overpowered, because it has a very high damage output, but is also cheaper than a regular archer.
Suggestions:
- Chu Ko Nu gold cost increased from 35G to 40G, wood cost remains at 40W. This moves Chu Ko Nu closer in cost to a normal archer, and makes it more expensive to mass them long term.
- AND/OR: Chu Ko Nu accuracy decreased from 85% to 80%, Elite Chu Ko Nu increases to 90%. This change is aimed at making it more important to tech into Elite Chu Ko Nu to increase the damage output, which weakens their midgame slightly, if the player is going for Chu Ko Nu.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Chinese need any changes.
- I agree that Chinese need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Cumans:
Is the civ balanced?
- Cumans are not a balanced civ. They have a strong Feudal all in, and if the civ can’t punish them, the two Town Center Feudal boom can put them ahead enough in economy for them to steamroll fairly easily later in the game. They can also support the Feudal all in with rams, but most people forget they can use rams in the Feudal age, especially as the 2 TC boom takes a fair bit of resources. They also don’t have a great counter to most cavalry. Their monks a weak, their Halberdiers are a lot slower than the rest of their army, and they lack heavy camel, despite having normal camel. The unique tech Cuman Mercenaries is not good, it is almost useless in 1v1s, and in team games, unless other members of the team are using cavalry archer units already, it normally doesn’t get used, or at least doesn’t get used effectively.
Suggestions:
- Remove the cav speed bonus. Add husbandry and heavy camel. An extra 5% speed isn’t as good as Heavy Camel and Husbandry in my opinion. Cumans currently don’t have a great counter to cav, because Halberdier can’t really keep up with the rest of the army, and having used Camels in Castle Age becomes quite hard to rapidly transition out of. The extra 20HP and 9 bonus attack are better than 5% more speed on the weaker unit and everything else. Possibly have husbandry be free.
- AND/OR: Remove siege workshop in Feudal Age, but Capped Ram is free in Castle Age. Cumans are very strong at Feudal all-ins, this might help to weaken that, especially as most people just use the 2TC boom and forget that they can even build rams.
- AND/OR: Cuman Mercenaries changed so that it now allows the creation of fifteen Kipchak Mercenaries. The first 15 of these are free, and then may be replaced via the normal training method at the Castle, as long as there are less than fifteen. The Kipchak Mercenary is a new unit, unaffected by blacksmith upgrades or any other technologies. Civ bonuses still affect it. It costs 30W 70G, and has a ten second training time (5 seconds for Cumans to make it better in 1v1s). It has 50 HP, 9 attack, fires 4 arrows, the extra arrows work the same as an Elite Kipchak, has +2 attack against Spearmen, 7 range, has 4/6 armor. It the same ROF, firing delay, accuracy, and frame delay as an Elite Kipchak with Thumb Ring, shares the same armor classes (Archer, Cav Archer, Cavalry, Unique Unit), has 1.4 speed, and has a LoS of 7. Cuman Mercenaries is a bad tech, especially in a 1v1. I think that this would be a good way to make it more viable.
- I agree with the first suggestion only.
- I agree with the second suggestion only.
- I agree with the third suggestion only.
- I agree with the first and second suggestions.
- I agree with the first and third suggestions.
- I agree with the second and third suggestions.
- I agree with all three suggestions.
- I don’t think that Cumans need any changes.
- I agree that Cumans need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Ethiopians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Ethiopians are a balanced civ, with decent archers, and good siege in the lategame. They have good eco bonuses, decent counters, and a clear playstyle.
Suggestions:
- No change suggested, Ethiopians are a balanced civ.
- I agree that Ethiopians don’t need any changes.
- I think that Ethiopians actually need a change.
0 voters
Franks:
Is the civ balanced?
- Franks are a very strong cavalry civ. Despite the fact that they don’t really have very many commonly seen options other then cavalry, all of their eco bonuses are geared towards cavalry spam. This is a problem for two types of civs, civs that don’t really have a counter to cavalry, especially heavy cavalry, and civs that can’t really afford to get rushed. In team games, the Frankish unique tech, Chivalry allows them to spam Paladins at a very high rate. This causes further problems, because the Franks can often win through sheer numbers. They are consistently a top tier civ, and need changes.
Suggestions:
- Cavalry gets +10% health in Feudal Age, +20% in Castle Age. This means their scout rush is viable, but the fact they have less health than civs with bloodlines means that scout rush is less likely to inflict massive damage. However, if the enemy doesn’t get bloodlines, the Frankish scouts will have an edge. If they do get bloodlines, their Castle Age time will suffer. The Knight rush remains unchanged.
-
AND/OR: Chivalry increases the research speed of Stables by 40% and the training speed by 20%.
Chivalry just allows for a mindless spam of Paladins in the lategame, and the rate and above average HP causes problems and be difficult for players to deal with. This is especially problematic in the lategame, and even more in team games, seeing as it stacks with the current Huns team bonus.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Franks need any changes.
- I agree that Franks need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Goths:
Is the civ balanced?
- Goths have a strong lategame, but they are largely not balanced, due to their weaknesses in the early game. They lack a powerful eco bonus in the early game, and if they can’t reach Post-Imperial, they will usually have problems. Although their units are a bit one dimensional for the most part, with the semi-mindless infantry spam, it is a reasonable gameplan, but the difficulty reaching that point needs to be resolved.
Suggestions:
- Villagers harvesting boar now continually drop off food without a droppoff point, similar to the Khmer farming bonus. The extra carry capacity for hunters is removed. Boar harvesting rate reduced by 5% to counteract this. This bonus makes the early game a bit smoother, which helps the player reach the lategame. Note: This bonus only applies to boar that have been assigned to the Goth player during map generation, to prevent laming.
- I agree with this suggestion.
- I don’t think that Goths need any changes.
- I agree that Goths need a change, but not this.
0 voters
Huns:
Is the civ balanced?
- Huns are quite a balanced civ, but they err on the side of overpowered. They also create problems in team games, particularly when paired with a civ like Franks. This is because, when their 20% faster working Stables bonus is paired with the effects of Chivalry, their teammates become able to mass produce cavalry. Even with a different pairing, or in 1v1s, this team bonus is often causes problems, especially for civs that struggle against cavalry.
Suggestions:
- Team Bonus changed to stables work 15% faster. This reduces the issue of Huns being able to rapidly outproduce other civs at the Stable, as well as reducing the impact it has on team games, especially when paired with Franks.
- I agree with this suggestion.
- I don’t think that Huns need any changes.
- I agree that Huns need a change, but not this.
0 voters
Incas:
Is the civ balanced?
- Incas are not balanced. It’s that simple. They lost a massive part of their identity with the nerfs to their Feudal Age, and are worse than the other two Mesoamerican civs in pretty much every way. The villagers only having the effect of the Blacksmith from Castle Age removed a lot of their strategies in the Feudal Age, and the nerfs to tower rushing took away a lot of their power. They totally lack gunpower and cavalry, naturally, and although they have decent infantry and archers, it is lackluster compared to Aztecs and Mayans. Their eagles are also the weakest of the three, with Mayan eagles having more HP, and Aztecs having more attack. Their unique units both require mass to be effective, and are fairly fragile. Their team bonus is also terrible, and it cannot be denied that it is one of, if not the worst in the game. It clearly needs replacement.
Suggestions:
- Slinger rate of fire reduced to 1.8 seconds, from 2.0 seconds and projectile speed increased from 5.5 to 6. The standard projectile speed for most archer units is 7.0 so this change would make slingers easier to use hit and run with. The slow projectile speed also means that enemies are more likely to dodge, which only serves to further increase the lack of use that slingers see. The reason that they aren’t used very much, is because, as an anti-infantry unit, for the Incas a mix of archer line and another infantry unit is likely to be more successful. Slingers just don’t have the stats required, and they are tricky to micro, making them undesirable in the eyes of the average player.
- AND: Team Bonus changed so that that A) lets farmers drop off food in Castles, and B) units attacking while standing on or within 1 tile of a completed farm that you own have their elevation level count as one level higher than the level they are actually on. The current team bonus is one of the most useless in the game, at any level of play. It is undeniable that it needs replacing. This suggestion is intended to make the Incan players build Castles at strategic places, then use the villagers to farm around the castle, meaning that they can repair or build more if required, and units then get a defensive advantage while fighting around castles. This would also extend to trebuchets, giving the Incas a slight edge in trebuchet wars. This bonus would not affect movement speed for any players, or alter enemy units in any way.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that the Incas need any changes.
- I agree that the Incas need changes, but not these ones.
0 voters
Indians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Indians are not at all a balanced civ. They perform brilliantly against cavalry civs, due to their Camels, but against Infantry civs they often perform poorly. Their unique unit is also so expensive and slow that it is rarely used. The Elephant Archer needs a change to make it more viable, as well as improving their performance against non-cavalry civs.
Suggestions:
- Elephant Archer base range increased to 5, LoS increased to 8. (Both increases by 1). The range increase here allows the Elephant Archer to be slightly better at hit and run attacks, despite the fact that they don’t really run. The increased LoS allows them to avoid fights that they don’t want to take.
- AND/OR: Elephant Archer becomes able to fire while moving while not on “No Attack” stance. Speed decreased from 0.8 to 0.77. This makes them better against Infantry and other units chasing them, but the speed decrease makes it easier for them to be caught. These changes are targeted at making Elephant Archers more viable, especially against Infantry.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Indians need any changes.
- I agree that Indians need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Italians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Italians are a strong civ on paper, but in reality, they don’t perform brilliantly. Their main unique unit, although good, is takes a lot of time and resources to reach the critical mass required to be effective. Their other unique unit, the Condottiero, has a narrow window of effectiveness, and is only useful against gunpowder. Despite some strong bonuses, they lack a major early game bonus to help them weather rushes, and the cheaper age advance bonus isn’t enough for them to always reach their strengths in the lategame.
Suggestions:
- Genoese Crossbow training time changes from 18 seconds to 16 seconds. Elite remains at 14 seconds. Because archers is a pretty standard opening for Italians, the transition into Genoese Crossbows often doesn’t happen, simply because it is easier to stick with the units that you already have, and creating the Unique Unit takes time an a Castle. This change is aimed at making that transition smoother because it is faster to reach the mass required for a high degree of effectiveness. Elite training time should be the same because Genoese Crossbows are very strong in post Imperial, and this change is to push the player towards using them from Castle Age, rather than just Imperial.
- AND/OR: Condottiero gold cost reduced from 35 to 30. Because of the high gold cost, Condottiero are an expensive unit to field and maintain. As a result, going for Elite Skirmishers tends to be the main Anti-Gunpowder. This change would help make them viable for a longer period of time, and give them a greater role.
- OR: Cheaper advancing ages bonus changes from Advancing Ages is 15% cheaper, to Advancing Ages if 15% cheaper and faster. This allows the Italians to reach their stronger lategame early enough to perform better, as well as freeing up a bonus similar to the current one for any other civs.
- I agree with the first suggestion only.
- I agree with the second suggestion only.
- I agree with the first two suggestions.
- I agree with the third suggestion only.
- I don’t think that Italians need any changes.
- I agree that Italians need changes, but not these.
0 voters
Japanese:
Is the civ balanced?
- Japanese are a good civ, but their Samurai isn’t normally used. They have decent eco bonuses, and a decent gameplan, but because a lot of other civs don’t really use their unique units, Japanese have no need for the Samurai.
Suggestions:
- Samurai gets +1 Pierce Armor, 2 instead of 1. This makes Samurai better against archers, and because unique units are normally supported by something else, Samurai become better in general. This also makes them more viable at base attacking because Castles and other defenses aren’t quite as effective.
- AND/OR: Samurai receive +2 bonus attack while being the only unit attacking the targeted enemy. This follows the idea of the Samurai code of honor, and makes them more likely win 1v1s, which makes them a more viable general unit in the army, rather than a more situational one.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the second.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the first.
- I agree with both suggestions.
- I don’t think that Japanese need any changes.
- I agree that Japanese need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Go to part two to continue reading. Part two is here.