Spirit of the Law made a summary video of the PUP changes, where funnily enough even he got confused by the Ratha change. 11
3 Likes
I think I need to check the PUP. Cause if this is true it’s a huge mistake from the devs.
Rathas would be completely uncounterable (except for camels).
Why devs keep adding these counter resistant cav UUs? I don’t get it.
Ofc it’s hard to add a UU that can compete with Knights as Knights have basically only 1 counter and that super early castle age timing.
But jsut making them less counterable is a super bad idea. Cav units have the mobility to run away from the counters and players should be encouraged to use this instead of devs giving them units they can just blindly charge into opponent counters and win with the help of a mass advantage.
Revard players for taking good decisions and not for stupidly running one single unit type and then complain about being countered.
There are enough ways to make cav UUs: High pierce armor, high attack, bonus against buildings, higher speed, 1-2 range, bonus against other cavalry…
And on the flipside we might or should probably thik about more ways to counter cavalry than just the pike line, cause then a resistance to either one of the counter choices would be suitable.
But you can’t make a unit resistant to one of their counters if there is only one counter. That will always be broken.
And I really have to question the devs why they still try to push this concept. Ofc there are always some very loud voices that complain about their cav units being countered by the spear line.
THATS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE! GIT GUD! USE YOUR OTHER UNIT OPTIONS!
1 Like
True what? They are nerfing Ratha. And that’s a mistake??? Ratha most definitely need buffs, especially some bonus archer armor.
1 Like
The PUP clearly specified that Rathas, in melee mode, don’t have the Bengali bonus (+2) against Skirmisher anymore
That means that Rathas will be worst fighting against Skirmisher, it is clearly a nerf
3 Likes
How did you get confused by the change as well right after I said Spirit of the Law got confused? Check his pinned comment, where he admits he misunderstood and instead Rathas lose the Bengali +2 vs Skirmisher bonus. I don’t think he got the video from playing the PUP version, I think he just changed unit attributes through Scenario editor or something to showcase something in the video.
So basically, Skirms will counter Rathas even more than on live patch, as right now Rathas can run into Skirmishers and just tank the bonus damage while killing Skirmishers faster (idk if the bonus damage actually makes them kill one hit faster or not, cba mathing).
1 Like
Dude, chill. foragers with +15 carry capacity and +10-15% movement speed is actually just a 5-8% boost with the current pathfinding. It’s harsher than the pup nerf, besides they need a replacement so they aren’t crippled in non-arabia style maps.
Finally someone who knows what’s up. I also think that whatever buff or nerf feitoras receive, it should involve pop in any case. Rememer that each feitora generates less resources than the equivalent maxed out vills. So any change should involve pop to add another layer of balance.
That’s absolutely not true in the first place. But also, that applies to all civs equally. You are underestimating how strong that extra carry capacity is.
I am perfectly fine with crippling franks for a bit, so that all those franks pickers learn another civ. You can bring them back after like an year, after things have stabilized. At lower Elos, franks picking is at nearly 10%, which is insane for a game with 42 civs in it.
???
is the game balanced only for lower elos?
They don’t even need to pull off hard-countering transitions to stop franks, in feudal they can learn to small wall, spearmen placing; in castle age how about they just micro their monks.
Is the game only balanced for the top elo?
OP civs are a problem, nerfed civs aren’t a huge issue at the top level. Even in the mid Elo range, where I am at, I’m seeing franks far more often than they should be statistically present.
Your entire argument is “improve your elo”. If that was possible, why are we having this conversation in the first place? 50% of players are in the lower ELOs, that’s just how it is.
Ay lmao.
Dude, how about you play the game?
The reason why franks are so dominant is because the meta revolves around cavalry. Otherwise how can you explain that strong archers civs like britons, one of the top civs historically, only has 46.x% winrate for 1200+ in aoestats.io. The same with vietnamese. it’s considered one of the best aggressive civs even among mid elos but its winrate is a disaster. To make it worse, it’s exactly this civ, among others like koreans, bengalis, etc that feed winrate numbers to franks.
Also, you saying that it’s ok to have franks being crippled is just hiding the problem under the rug. You are not solving the problem, you are passing it on to someone else.
The way I see it, it’s better to change the meta to make infantry and siege more viable and buff bottom tier civs, instead of nerfing top tier ones. I mean just look at the nerf: 10% for foragers is a joke.
This is a whole lot of nothing. There’s nothing to address here. The reasons are irrelevant, the fact is, franks is dominating at low-mid elos. You can propose a different nerf if you want, but a nerf is needed.
No, the problem is that a lot of people are obsessed with franks. And franks are too good and too easy for low-mid elo. So, you can either buff like 20 civs, or nerf one. I know what I prefer.
Also, that nerf isn’t going through. A dev on reddit confirmed that.
Maybe its time to finally remove the cavalry HP bonus from feudal (a true proper nerf).
And I agree that nerfing OP civs can be oftne better so other civs can compete more, ofc buffing some isn’t bad, but as long as the broken civs remain there untouched those civs have to be OP in other maps just to compete with one in the x map, look at Arena, civ like Teutons and Malay were fallling behind because some OP civs were rulling everyone here, now with all nerfs done to these civs other civs finally have a chance
2 Likes
I’m not trying to argue whethere there is a cavalry meta or not. It’s a fact cavalry rule the meta. Plus, the part about archer civs is there to contrast that even civs focused on the second strongest unit in the game can’t compete in terms of winrate.Because…
That’s exactly my point. Franks, as a civ designed around cavalry, are to be expected to dominate low elo matches. Simply because they follow the meta efficiently. And newbies don’t use the tools they have to stop franks because they are not used to play against human players. So their problem is not a matter of “git gut”, it’s a matter of experience. In mid and high elo, they are an average civ.
This is dumb because at some point you’ll end up with a watered down game and homogeneous civs.
Also what do you mean 20 civs lol. It’s only the bottom 5 that need buffs, and 2 other civs that are being bottlenecked by powercreep (magyars, italians). Then there is persians who need a rework.
Finally someone who knows what’s up. A quick reminder that originally only knights were affected by the HP bonus, which was intentional.
Once again. A quick reminder that franks were a bottom tier civ. With a terrible winrate in all maps except arabia (which was decent) before they received the forager bonus and chivalry.
No, teutons were fine but boring. Iirc they had 46-47% overall winrate and consistent 47% winrate in mid-high elos. Back then, viper said they were good but tedious to play. Even Mbl (or was it Nicov, I don’t remember) said they didn’t need any buff because it was supposed to be turtling civ. Then teutons got all their buffs and jumped to 52% overall winrate. Since then, they have been consistently at the top. With 53-54% right before the april 2023 patch.
A good example that some buffs can be implemented to make the civ fun to play.
If anything it was a good change for everybody, because it highlighted that hand cannoneers needed a buff back then.
looks like Vietnamese paper money still isn’t fixed. most players I know would get lumber camp upgrades asap. perhaps paper money b4 or after the last lumber upgrade in imp.
the game sets lumber to gold generation, the resource at a value of 1.5 using additional (ADD, +) while each lumber upgrades granting it 1.2x, 1.2x and 1.1x multiplier respectively. so if you get paper money after all of the upgrade, effectively you have the worst gold generation with wood cutters. or wait till you hit Imp, research paper money first b4 doing any lumber upgrades, then you’d get at least 2.376 value, thus generating way more gold.
2 Likes
Actually…
What if the shaft mining techs don’t increase the gathering rate but instead the amount of gold/stone you can gather?
I think this would be a very interesting change, making it an interesting strategic choice to get it early on to have more gold/stone later.
Okay this will be “Literally” correct.
2 Likes
Not a great solution imo. At pop cap, elephants are already more than powerful enough.
The issue is making them useful earlier on, especially in the very early game.
Y’know, what if war elephants could be built very slowly from Siege Workshops? They’re kinda like a siege unit anyway. That would let players get a few of them out early on without needing to build a castle first, and they could back them up with scorpions or something.
This is a sarcasm.
20 characters
2 Likes
Assyrians fought the Arabs who used camelry in war. Unless you want to disagree with the Assyrian chroniclers? See their stelae.
_Central_Palace_Tiglath_pileser_III_728_BCE_British_Museum_AG.jpg){kind=link}
3 Likes
can we have 9 vils start at ranked?
1 Like