Well people have been begging for Xolotls to be affected by Garland wars for a while now, so I guess they just decided to do the same for one tech from each American civ. I doubt they’ll even change the tech descriptions.
I would prefer +1 range over +1 attack for Elite Composite Bowman.
Guecha warriors also need a reduction in their gold cost.
Romans need a nerf.
Finally, champi just need to reinstate their movement speed to 1.1 in the Dark Ages OR give them more LOS and cheaper outposts. Currently, the TLC civs have the worst scouting.
It is a regional unit already. It’s not a unit for normal skirmish matches it’s more of a fun gimmick for rare unknown maps that give you a stable or for the very rare situation where you can convert a stable.
They still have no armour upgrades so it’s not like it’s really a viable unit anyway.
That’s fun. Garland wars are +4 atk, Holcans is +40 hp, Fabric shields +1/1 armor, herbalism +15% speed, Caciques +25% atk spd, Butalmapu -15% cost (and affects allies too). Still a meme unit, but that’s fine.
I don’t recall Armenians being particularly weak, and (elite) composite bowmen certainly aren’t.
Likely still overpriced, but at least they’ll be able to tank an onager shot (in addition to a mangonel shot). Don’t think a price decrease necessarily needs to be in the gold cost, though I see no reason why it shouldn’t include a gold cost reduction.
RIght now on AoEstats for Incas, the winrate vs game time has their weak point as 20-30 minutes and their winrate for every other game length category (including 45+) is positive. As I recall, Kamayuks are quite a dangerous unit once massed, capable of defeating almost any other melee opponent. I see no reason why the south american civs would be bad in castle or imperial age (champis are a very capable raiding unit that can also work as a front-line fighter, Tupi refund is very strong, Muisca have great monks, etc.). Imperial age does leave them with the gunpowder tech tree holes that American civs have, but castle age? I don’t see how it’s impossible for the South American civs to be competitive in castle age.
And I still firmly believe that games can be closed out without ever using a raiding unit - not that the South American civs have that problem.
dark age train time is still slow, but a bit faster (which should help on the few maps that tend to have extended dark ages). Feudal age train time drop is a good change, but without testing I can’t say how it feels now or if further changes are needed.
Ummm… in my experience feudal age is the age Dravidians, Mapuche, and Tupi are weakest; I haven’t played Inca, and Muisca enough to really get a feel for them.
I doubt it. I feel like Africa is the continent of the next DLC. Maybe Oceania or “scattered empires” could be a possibility, but I don’t think they’ll go to North America, even though I really want them to. Africa just makes sense.
I agree on the Champi changes, but I think they should go the other way with the slinger cost. That is, replace the wood cost with additional food cost. Also, the conversion resistance will help players remember they are strong against monks.
I think they should do the same for a lot of other hero units and scenario objects. Like Bearded Axe should also apply to Charles Martel, Charlemagne, and perhaps Harold Hardrada, or Shatagni should apply to Janissaries and the various heroes that have hand cannons. Kataparuto, Hauberk, Bagains, Lechitic Legacy, Paiks, Maghrabi Camels, Logistica, Svan Tower, and many more techs could apply to several hero or scenario editor units or buildings.
I was expecting them to nerf the Mapuche bonus and buff the Frank bonus. The Mapuche bonus is already an A or S tier bonus as it is.
I think a nerf to their attack speed would be more effective, but maybe the devs don’t want to do that for some reason.
Yeah, I’m not sure what that is for. Maybe they are buffing Elite Compies because people were ignoring the upgrade too much for their liking.
Almost all of these changes go in the wrong direction. How is that even possible?
Instead of focussing on improving already exploitable unbalanced bonusses they should focus on making civs get “backing up” for their identity.
Idk, but whoever designed these bonusses isn’t in touch with the multiplayer community. We already have too much of this kind of stuff that kills the strategic aspect of the game. Ofc for casuals that might not be as relevant, but for the highly competitive scene we divide the community this way into “hamsters” vs “cheesers”. Doesn’t help at all.
PS: jsut as an example the armenians. they struggle against heavy siege in the lategame. you could eg improve their cavalry a bit, potentially give them BBC (though that would be a bit blunt) or whatever. That’s literally ALL that this civ needs to feel belonging in the game. They see play on various settings, they just often have that weird tipping point when their already massively OP eco can’t carry them anymore against the heavy siege or they just stomp with ferreters. In my opintion the mule cart bonus is already overtuned actually - and the only reason they don’t dominate completely is actually their weakness against heavy siege.
PPS: The game was always attractive for me because it had a lot of games of different approaches. The most basic one is “greed” vs “aggression”. These produced the best interactive games with a lot of different aspects, little nuances, comeback concetps and so on… For this we don’t need civs leaning into super strong exploitable bonusses. It’s actually better to have “staple civs” that are comparably bland in relation to what new civs we get currently. The strong (eco) bonusses though lead to trying to exploit them optimally with most civs actually having very similar optimal basic gameplans. This kills the interaction and leeds to the current state of “whoever executes the early game best just wins”. (ok we’re not quite there yet, but we develop more and more that direction) Which is really bad for a rts. Because it kills tactics and strategies.
