Hello. This is part two of the third version of my balance changes. You can find part one here.
Khmer:
Is the civ balanced?
- Khmer have powerful eco bonuses, and can perform powerful raids, but they have difficulty building to their final ideal army composition of Heavy Scorpions and Battle Elephants due to the high gold cost. Their Ballista Elephant is a situational unit, because it isn’t as strong as normal Scorpions, and despite being the one unit in Castle Age that can cut trees, this ability is rarely used because of how time intensive it is.
Suggestions:
- Ballista Elephants cut trees in a complete line, rather than the few trees near where the bolt lands. Just makes them better at cutting trees in maps like Black Forest, and may increase their usage rates.
- AND: Scorpions get a 12% discount on gold cost. 66G rather than 75G. Makes it a lot easier for Khmer scorpions to reach the critical mass they need to be extremely effective. Because they are very much pushed towards Battle Elephant and Scorpion as their army composition, and both are gold intensive, this makes it a lot easier to build the army they need.
- I agree with these suggestions.
- I don’t think that Khmer need any changes.
- I agree that Khmer need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Koreans:
Is the civ balanced?
- Koreans are a decent civ, but they can have trouble in the early game, especially since they lost a lot of the defensive bonuses they used to have. They have a clear game plan and decent eco bonuses. On water, their Turtle Ship is very powerful, but the slow speed makes it difficult to use.
Suggestions:
- Turtle Ship +0.1 movement speed. Normal goes from 0.9 to 1, Elite goes from 1.035 to 1.135. Makes hit and run less effective against Turtle ships, but they are still slower than Galleys, so it remains an option, it is just slightly less practical.
- AND/OR: All units except Siege cost 20% less wood, Siege costs 10% less wood. This just balances the bonus a bit more, and makes supporting siege a more viable option.
- 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 Koreans need any changes.
- I agree that Koreans need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Lithuanians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Lithuanians are a balanced civ with a smooth and enjoyable gameplan, due to their strong eco bonus. They also have good counter units, and a variety of options.
Suggestions:
- No change. Lithuanians are well balanced, and should be left as they are.
- I agree that Lithuanians don’t need changes.
- I think that Lithuanians actually need a change.
0 voters
Magyars:
Is the civ balanced?
- Magyars have a strong lategame, but the lack of a good early game eco bonus can cause problems. They have cheaper scouts, but the missing eco that some other civs have makes it harder to mass produce army. They have a clear gameplan and viable counter units, but they need an early game eco bonus.
Suggestions.
- Villagers can now harvest 150 food from wild animals they kill. Wild animals count as huntables in terms of carry capacity and harvest rate. This change is aimed at making Magyars better on maps with lots of predator animals, and gives them the slight eco bonus they need. It is very situational however, so they may also need villagers harvesting from predators to drop food without a dropoff point.
- AND/OR: Herdables and huntables no longer decay as long as there is at least one villager working on it. This is just a small eco bonus that lets them have a better early economy, due to better food efficiency, which should streamline their game a bit more.
- 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 Magyars need any changes.
- I agree that Magyars need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Malay:
Is the civ balanced?
- Malay are a good civ on water maps, and on some closed maps, but they aren’t the best on most other land maps. Their Battle Elephants, although cheap and faster to reach, due to the age up speed bonus, aren’t normally viable in the lategame, due to lacking armor. Their team bonus is also useless on non-water maps, and even on water maps is often situational and not really used.
Suggestions:
- Malay Battle Elephants receive +1/+1 armor in Imperial age. Helps make up for the lack of the Castle Age armor upgrade, and pushes them more towards Elephants in the late-game. It won’t affect any of the interactions in the midgame, and their Elephants will still be below average, but they will be cheap enough to be worthwhile.
- AND/OR: Team bonus now includes, Tributes are possible without a market, starting in the Dark Age, or possibly Feudal. This is just a cool bonus to add, and should be more useful than just the docks have 2x LoS, particularly on land maps.
- 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 Malay need any changes.
- I agree that Malay need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Malians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Malians are a strong civ, but they are also balanced. They have quite a gold intensive game plan, but their gold lasts longer, making them more viable at different stages of the game.
Suggestions:
- No change, Malians are balanced.
- I agree that Malians don’t need a change.
- I think that Malians actually need a change.
0 voters
Mayans:
Is the civ balanced?
- Mayans are not a very balanced civ on land maps. They can effectively counter pretty much any unit, and have very potent eco bonuses, as well as strong military. They are consistently a top tier civ on most maps. Although Siege can counter them, they can easily end the game before Castle Age, or in early Castle Age, due to strong early rushes, as well as potent play for most other stages of the game.
Suggestions:
- Archer discount decrease to 10% in Feudal, 15% in Castle, 20% in Imp, instead of 10/20/30.
This weakens the archer rush a bit, leaving it viable, but a little less cost effective, which is fair considering how it buys time for Plumed Archers, and the Mayans have longer lasting resources. It also balances them having Arbalesters with a 30% discount. - AND: El Dorado cost increased from 750F, 450G to 900F, 550G. Research time increases from 70 to 80. This makes El Dorado more resource intensive in the late-game, because Mayan Eagles are usually the strongest of the three Mesoamerican civs. Because of the Mayan eco bonuses, it should still be affordable however.
- I agree with these changes.
- I don’t think that Mayans need any changes.
- I agree that Mayans need changes, but not these.
0 voters
Mongols:
Is the civ balanced?
- Mongols are a strong civ, they have a good eco bonus, and a strong early game, but then fare worse in Castle Age, when they need to prepare for a transition towards Mangudai. They have a variety of counter units, as well as viable primary units.
Suggestions:
- Leave Mongols as they are, they are a fairly balanced civ.
- I agree that Mongols don’t need any changes.
- I think that Mongols actually need changes.
0 voters
Persians
Is the civ balanced?
- Persians are quite a balanced civ, but they are heavily pushed towards cavalry at most stages of the game, and although they have Trash Unit Crossbows in the lategame, they don’t really have a midgame ranged unit.
Suggestions:
- Parthian tactics available in Castle Age and gives +1 range to Cavalry Archers when researched. This helps make up for the lack of a strong midterm ranged unit, and it will also better suit the Persian playstyle, because their army is usually made up primarily of cavalry units, which Cavalry Archers are able to keep up with, but it still leaves the Trash Crossbows as the primary ranged support unit. It also makes sense because the Persians came partly from the Parthian empire, whom the tech was named after.
- OR: No change. Persians have faster working Town Centers, and a good economy, so they could be left as they are.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree that Persians don’t need any changes.
- I think that Persians need changes, but not these.
0 voters
Poles:
Is the civ balanced?
- Despite a roughly 50% winrate, Poles aren’t totally balanced. Their Folwark bonus is good, and should remain as it is, and the stone mining bonus is very strong. The true unit that needs balancing is the Obuch. It is one of the most cost effective units available in most scenarios, and doesn’t really have a great counter. The removing armor effect is unique and cool, but can often be problematic, despite the fact that healing repairs it.
Suggestions:
- The Obuch now only removes either 1 melee armor or 1 pierce armor for each hit, instead of one of each. The armor it removes is either alternating, or determined by the highest armor value, where the Obuch reduces the higher value, or reduces melee in the case of a tie. Other than that, it remains the same.
- OR: Poles gain Halberdier, but their gold collection while mining stone decreases from a 1:2 ratio to a 1:3 ratio. This give Poles a better lategame counter to cavalry, but weakens their early game slightly.
- OR: Poles gain Paladin, but Szlachta Privileges has the gold cost increased from 300 to 400, and only gives a 40% discount on the Knight line, making it cost 45G instead of the current 30G. This makes Poles a better Paladin civ, as well as giving them a lategame powerhouse, but it weakens their mid game, by reducing the potency of their Knight spam.
- OR: No change, the Poles are already a balanced civilization for the most part, and it would be fine to leave them as they are.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree with the second suggestion.
- I agree with the third suggestion.
- I agree that Poles don’t need changes.
- I think that Poles need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Portuguese:
Is the civ balanced?
- Portuguese have a strong post-Imperial game, but suffer against cavalry civs. They have cheaper monks, but monk micro, particularly in the lategame, is often impractical, and their anti-cav infantry is normally outmaneuvered. This weakness against heavy cav civs, especially because Portuguese are vulnerable to rushing is a massive problem. Although their monks can counter knights, most cav civs can also use Hussars, and cause massive problems. Their Feitoria needs changing, because currently is is primarily spammed on water maps, and makes the game unfair in the trash wars, but it is almost useless on land maps. Because of these weaknesses, Portuguese do terribly on most land maps, especially maps like Arabia, where rushing is the norm, but do brilliantly in lategame, particularly on water maps.
Suggestions:
- Add squires to the tech tree. This does two things, it allows their cheaper Champions to be more viable, and more importantly, it makes their Halberdiers a more viable counter to cavalry. To stop their cheaper Champion spam being overly powerful, they would possibly need to lose Plate Mail Armor, to stop their infantry from becoming good enough that it changes their identity.
- AND/OR: Feitoria is available in Castle Age. Castle Age Feitorias cost 250S 250G, have 3200HP, and produce resources at the following rates per second: 1.0F, 0.8W, 0.4G, and 0.2S. In Imperial Age, Feitorias are automatically upgraded, and now cost 200S, 200G, have 4200HP, and produce resources at the following rates per second: 1.8F, 1.4W, 0.8G, and 0.4S. Feitorias are now limited to the maximum population, divided by 100, rounded up, ie. in a 200 pop game, there is a limit of 2 Feitorias per player at a time. In Castle Age however, there is a limit of 1 Feitoria per player, regardless of the population limit. The current Feitoria has 5200HP, costs 250S 250G, and produces resources at the following rates per second: 1.6F, 1.0W, 0.7G, and 0.3S. This change is to help make Feitorias more viable and used, but also limit their effectiveness on water maps, where Portuguese are overpowered in the Trash Wars.
- 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 Portuguese need any changes.
- I agree that Portuguese need changes, but not these.
0 voters
Saracens
Is the civ balanced?
- Saracens are a well balanced civ, they have a powerful economy bonus, in the form of the market, good counters to most units, and a fairly clear playstyle. They should be left as they are.
Suggestions:
- No change. Leave Saracens as they are.
- I agree that Saracens don’t need a change.
- I think that Saracens do need a change.
0 voters
Sicilians:
Is the civ balanced?
- Sicilians are a mostly balanced civ on land, but on water their current team bonus allows for extremely quick landings, and this is an even worse problem in team games. This needs to be reworked. Their cavalier possibly needs to be changed, because as it receives 50% less bonus damage, and has the new Hauberk making it a unit that becomes very difficult to counter.
Suggestions:
- First Crusade no longer gives conversion resistance, restoring at least one counter as a good option against Sicilian cavaliers.
- AND/OR: Team bonus changed so that transport ships are 20% cheaper (100W instead of 125W) and train 60% faster, 18 seconds instead of 46. This means that landing are more efficient for a team containing Sicilians for the whole game, but it reduces the effectiveness of really early game landing, where wood is normally too important to spend like this.
- 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 Sicilians need any changes.
- I agree that Sicilians need a change, but not this.
0 voters
Slavs:
Is the civ balanced?
- Slavs are a reasonably balanced civ, their have a good eco bonus, but it isn’t as effective in the early game, where players haven’t really started farming very much yet. They have the ability to counter most units, and have a good playstyle as well. Their Orthodoxy unique tech would be good to replace, because Monks are currently quite a niche unit, and it isn’t normally used. They should also be renamed from Slavs to Rus or Ruthenians, due to the number of Slavic nations now in the game.
Suggestions:
- Orthodoxy no longer affects monks having armor, but units being healed receive +2/+2 armor while being healed. This pushes Slavs more towards monks as a support unit for their infantry and Boyars. The current tech is rarely used.
- AND/OR: The first 3 farms are free. This gives the farms a better early bonus, allowing the Slavs to start farming sooner, which makes their early game smoother, because they can save 180 wood this way, which can then be spent on military production buildings.
- OR: No change. Slavs are fairly balanced as they are.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the other.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the other.
- I agree with the first two suggestions.
- I agree that Slavs don’t need any changes.
- I think that Slavs need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Spanish:
Is the civ balanced?
- Spanish are in theory one of the best civs in the game, due to having more tech than pretty much any other civ. However, due to the lack of an early game economy bonus, they lack the ability to defend well against rushes. Their lategame is very strong, but the difficulty withstanding early pressure makes it tricky to get there. Their Conquistadors are strong, but they are vulnerable to Elite Skirmishers, and their relatively high cost makes it difficult to put a meatshield down in front to soak hits or kill the Skirms.
Suggestions:
- Building speed bonus is doubled for buildings with regular stone defense armor class 13 (All Towers, Stone Walls, and Stone Gates), making it more viable for the Spanish player to tower rush or wall and turtle until they reach Castle or Imperial age.
- Conquistador cost changed from 60F 70G to 10F 90G. This is expensive, but it allows the Spanish player to spam Hussars for the frontlines, which now kill Skirmishers and tank shots, making Conquistadors more effective. Training time for Conquistadors decreases from 24 seconds to 22 seconds to help further make up for this.
- 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 Spanish need any changes.
- I agree that Spanish need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Tatars:
Is the civ balanced?
- Tatars are quite a balanced civ. They could possibly do with another early game bonus though, to make the early game smoother. They have a fairly clear gameplan overall though, with several options.
Suggestions:
- Herdables contain 33% more food, instead of 50%. Begins with the locations of the closest 8 sheep revealed, including the sheep already found. In nomad games this takes effect after the construction of the TC and reveals the closest X sheep, where X is 8 - the number of sheep already found. This makes a more secure and smooth early game, and lets the player scout the enemy sooner, to prepare for their rushes.
- OR: No change. Tatars are a fairly balanced civ.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree that Tatars don’t need any changes.
- I think that Tatars need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Teutons:
Is the civ balanced?
- Teutons are a well balanced civ. They have good economy, and powerful units. The only change they might need is to the Teutonic Knight. It is a sorely underused unit in most scenarios, because it is very slow. The only way it can really force fights is by either attacking buildings, or guarding siege units.
Suggestions:
- Elite Teutonic knight has its bonus damage against standard buildings increased from 4 to 7. Normal Teutonic knight remains at 4. The purpose behind this is to increase how often Teutonic knights, especially the Elite version are able to force fights, making it more viable to fully upgrade and use them.
- OR: No change suggested, because Teutons are balanced quite well, doing nothing would be a reasonable option.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree that Teutons don’t need any changes.
- I think that Teutons need changes, but not these.
0 voters
Turks:
Is the civ balanced?
- Turks are strong in the lategame, but they are very weak against archers, lacking even the Elite Skirmisher upgrade, as well as no having a real dedicated alternative counter. They also don’t have anything above spearmen, but their free upgrades on scouts and good cavalry archers helps address weaknesses against cavalry to some extent.
Suggestions:
- The Scout cavalry line gains +1 Pierce Armor in the Imperial Age. This gives them a more viable counter to archer civs, without really altering much else about their cavalry. They do become better at raiding, due to dying slower to arrow fire from defensive buildings, but this will help address their weaker early game to some extent, but mostly their weakness against archers.
- I agree with this change.
- I don’t think that Turks need any changes.
- I agree that Turks need a change, but not this.
0 voters
Vietnamese:
Is the civ balanced?
- Vietnamese are a semi-balanced civ. Their tech Paper Money is situational, and often serves no purpose. Because of the high cost and slow speed of Battle Elephants, and the lack of Paladin, they don’t really have a frontline tank. It would also be interesting if they were given more of a Guerilla Tactics playstyle, making them more unique then most other civs. Although they have good archers, and are very good against archer civs, in large pitched battles, especially against cavalry, the lack of an standard tank may hurt them.
Suggestions:
- Chatras and paper money swap places. Chatras increases Battle Elephant health by 60, instead of 50, and increases trample damage area by 0.2 tiles. Now 0.6 tile trample damage instead of 0.4. Paper money replaced with new tech, Guerilla Warfare. Guerilla Warfare does three things; all foot archer units (including Skirmishers) no longer reveal their location when attacking enemies. Projectiles are still visible, and it still signals the attacking alarm for the other player. The units are still visible normally as well. It also allows Battle Elephants to knock down trees. Finally, Battle Elephants slowly heal, 15HP per minute while idle, Maghrebi Camels give 15 per minute, Berserks have 20 per min base. Guerilla Warfare costs 650F 400G. It takes 60 seconds to research. The purpose of this is to replace paper money, which is a largely inefficient tech, and replace it with something that plays better into the Vietnamese strengths, while also reflecting their use of Guerilla Tactics in war. It allows them to stage surprise attacks more effectively on the enemy after this change. It also incentivizes the use of Battle Elephants.
- AND/OR: Battle Elephants have their gold cost reduced by 10%. This means they cost 63 gold, instead of 70. Because a large part of the Vietnamese army is archers, a lot of gold is required to support this army. The Vietnamese lack a real tank though in this composition, and by reducing the gold cost of Battle Elephants slightly, they should become a better everyday option. The reason this change would be specific to Vietnamese is because Malay already have cheaper Elephants, Khmer have faster and more deadly Elephants, and Burmese can collect extra gold due to knowing the relic locations from the start. Vietnamese have a fairly gold intensive army, and this change should increase the variety.
- 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 Vietnamese need any changes.
- I agree that Vietnamese need changes, but not these ones.
0 voters
Vikings:
Is the civ balanced?
- Vikings are a balanced civ, but they often err on the side of slightly above average. The free wheelbarrow and handcart allows for them to rapidly boom their economy. They are able to save time normally spent investing into these techs creating extra villagers instead, as well as saving resources. Although it isn’t usually a massive thing in the long term, it provides a powerful economy at the earlier stages of the game.
Suggestions:
- Wheelbarrow is free and instant, Handcart costs 50% less and is instant, but needs to be researched. This keeps their economy similar to currently, but slows their booming in Castle Age slightly, giving other players a chance to catch up, especially if the Viking player forgets to research Handcart.
- OR: Do nothing. Vikings are balanced, and they should be left as they are.
- AND: Rename Berserk to Berserker. Why are they even called Berserks? They go berserk. They should be called Berserkers.
- I agree with the first suggestion.
- I agree that Vikings don’t need any changes.
- I agree that Berserks should be renamed.
- I agree with the first suggestion, and the rename.
- I think that Vikings need some changes, but not these.
0 voters
Battle Elephants:
Is the unit balanced?
- Although Battle Elephants have incredibly high raw stats, their cost and slow speed means that they are rarely seen outside of team games. Although all of the civs with access to the Battle Elephant have a unique tech that upgrades it, the cost and low speed prohibits Elephants making a large front line in most 1v1 games. Elite Battle Elephant is expensive to tech into, and provides +50 HP, +2 attack, and a small anti-building bonus damage increase. Although this is good, for a unit that rarely sees the frontlines in large numbers, Elite Battle Elephant simply often isn’t worth it.
Suggestions:
- Elite Battle Elephant training time decreases from 24 seconds, like currently, and same as normal Battle Elephant, to 22 seconds. This makes it faster to replace fallen units, and allows players to amass an Elephant army faster than they currently could. I would suggest changing the gold cost from 70 to 65, but because Elephants see most of their use in team games, where trade is an option, this change might not be a balanced one.
- AND/OR: Elite Battle Elephant trample damage increases from 25% of the attack, to 33% of the attack. Health decreases from 300 to 280. Normal Battle Elephant has 250 health. This change is to increase the strength of the Elite Upgrade, making it more desirable and increasing the chances of Battle Elephants making up a larger core of the South-east Asian armies. Because this is a significant increase in raw attack, their health should be decreased to make them more vulnerable to units like Halberdier, or heavy cavalry, because they are now a lot stronger than previously in pitched battles. For perspective, an un-upgraded generic Battle Elephant does 3 trample damage. The Elite Version of the same Elephant now does 4.6 trample damage. Previously it did 3.5 trample damage. This is a significant change, and it should increase the strength of the Elite Battle Elephant, but the nerf to health is definitely needed to counteract this.
- 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 Battle Elephants need any changes.
- I agree that Battle Elephants need a change, but not these.
0 voters
Steppe Lancers:
Is the unit balanced?
- I don’t think that the Steppe Lancer is currently balanced. It is worse than the knight, and doesn’t seem to really have a role. It’s not a tank or frontline unit, the knight does that. It’s not a super cost effective or super popular raiding unit, the hussar usually does that. It just doesn’t really have a role.
Suggestions:
- Steppe Lancers gain a +4 bonus attack against villagers. Elite Steppe Lancers gain +9 bonus attack against villagers. This allows Steppe Lancers to three shot a generic villager when fully upgraded in Castle Age. This allows a fully upgraded Elite Steppe Lancer to two shot a generic or fully upgraded Incan villager. Below fully upgraded will three shot fully upgraded Incan villager. It four shots a Spanish Villager with Supremacy researched. This would possibly require armor class 38 to be created, just for villagers. The bonus attack could also be extended to trade units. This gives the Steppe Lancer a more definite role as a raider.
- AND/OR: When a Steppe Lancer kills a villager, it gains 1/2 of the resources the villager was carrying. Elite Steppe Lancer gains all of the resources. This does not apply to trade carts, if the previous change was implemented. Steppe Lancer training time increases from 24 seconds to 26 seconds, and Elite Steppe Lancer increases from 20 to 23 seconds. Food cost increases from 70 to 80. These changes are further targeted at making the Steppe Lancer a go to anti-villager unit. The increased training time and the extra cost should be quickly recovered by the effectiveness of raiding when the Lancers now loot resources from killed villagers. Possibly remove the base 1 pierce armor to make TC fire and other arrows better against the Steppe Lancers.
- OR: When the Steppe Lancer runs 5 or more tiles without stopping, turning more than 45% from the starting line of movement, or detouring around units or natural obstacles (player owned units don’t count), it deals +15 attack (Elite +25) upon attacking the next unit. It also deals an unblockable 3 (Elite 5 instead) damage to all enemy units within a 0.4 tile radius of where it ends it’s charge. It receives 10 unblockable damage if it charges on a Spearman line unit, a Flemish Militia, or a Kamayuk. If it doesn’t charge and use the charge attack to deal extra damage, it receives no extra unblockable damage. Speed increases from 1.35 to 1.45 while within 3 tiles of an enemy. Steppe Lancer damage reduced from 9 to 8. Elite Steppe Lancer damage reduced from 11 to 10. This gives the Steppe Lancer an actual charge effect, as well as a clear role as shock troops, but if they aren’t microed well, after the first charge, they will probably lose the fight. I prefer this less than either or both of the other two, but I still think it could be an option.
- I agree with the first suggestion, but not the others.
- I agree with the second suggestion, but not the others.
- I agree with the first two suggestions.
- I agree with the third suggestion.
- I don’t think Steppe Lancers need any changes.
- I agree that Steppe Lancers need a change, but not these ones.
0 voters
Ok, that is my full list of changes, give me your take on how it should be done instead or how badly you think some of these will break either winrates or the game.