I don’t know if British is balanced, why would there be so many posts in this forum to argue about the balance of British? Why are there no 5 threads discussing Dutch or Haudenosaunee balance?
Thanks for the words.
Invitationals with legacy civilizations limited as concept are not in the line of fully competitive tournaments in today’s standards, because currently we have 22 civilizations available in the game, where legacy concept doesn’t cover around half of them. Which is why we can’t really draw balance conclusions based on the limited input from concept invitationals which doesn’t cover many civs. For the reference, Sweden, Ports, Otto, China, India have rather better performance than brits right now, there are also some civs which are not above average but does good against brits, such as Russia. there are also around 7-8 match ups which can be considered as fair, and eventually brits perform good against civilizations that don’t have fast age up options or falconets, which is why Brit does good against civs like Germany, Ethiopia, Hausa and such. The same concept works for most of the civs in Aoe3, Russia for example can’t deal with Spain ff or France, Otto, Germany while it is a strong pick against Brits.
To answer your question fully, there would have been more required data to evaluate, meanwhile it’s not enough to draw such conclusions from a concept invitational with half civs not available sadly. Can only take tournaments without civ restriction as reference, back in when brits had 140 wood houses, it had the lowest win ratio in the tournaments, which resulted 140 wood houses to get reverted back to 135 wood. Also not like brit hasn’t been nerfed already, -100 food start from crates have been added, LB’s deal around -7% attack right now as well. I think the main focus about balance approach should stay at monitoring the S tier civilizations with data support.
How are Portuguese Musketeers better then British Musketeers, though? British Musks can get a 20% extra Health Bonus at the cost of 10% less Speed (which can be mitigated by sending Drummers from the Homecity). Portuguese Musks can only get 1 extra range by comparison if they spend an extra 100 food to age up to Age 2. Besides that, British can get all the Cards for their Musks one age earlier than Ports.
Delis were absolutely busted for awhile so that’s not a fair comparison. Am I missing something for Sweden? I only see +30% health on their Hussars (one of their cav cards is only ranged cav) and British have that plus an attack upgrade and RG. As far as I’m aware, British have the best actual Hussars and all of the cards that buff them also help Dragoons.
This is a mess and really needs something done about it. I don’t know why they don’t just make Rangers available by default in age 4.
I’d argue that Sweden also needs a nerf to their boom. I’d give them slower villager production to nerf them earlier but let them get 99 settlers again.
I’m not saying the British are wildly out of balance, just trying to counter this narrative that British has been perfectly balanced for 15 years based on this “totally objective data” which is actually just opinions. Brits are undeniably strong and it would be fair to consider bringing them in line with every other civ with a villager production bonus by limiting their villager shipment cards. In other areas, maybe they need a little buff (GMT isn’t viable in most situations, and the whole Ranger thing is a mess).
Sweden gets +45% HP from cards.
British gets +30% from cards and +10 from RG.
So brits get 15% attack and 5% less HP. I’d argue they are at least evenly matched, even though HP is more important to cav than attack. I personally take Swedish hussar over brit any day
Range is better.
As I have explained, It’s just an information to keep in mind that that the civilization had been reverted with even 140 wood manor houses because it had the lowest win ratio for a long time in competitive tournaments, I think Brit win ratio was around 30% to 40% or such, it’s still available to check. Which is based on data from the past years. And again, getting civs changed in a nerfing way which functions the same with almost no remarkable changes since the launch of the game doesn’t bring many reason to actually believe brits need to be nerfed, yet can’t see a data about brits being in a problematic position either, meanwhile there are actual stats which brit were unplayable just for +5 manor houses cost for a long time, turns out to discussions around 150 wood manor houses or other questionable demands which would directly make the civilization from avarage to unplayable. It doesn’t make much meaning in my opinion, The discussions regarding brit nerfs are far from being objective, but more of manufactured based sadly.
Okay, I didn’t see the one that boosts hand inf and hand cav. Doesn’t RG also boost attack? So British Hussars should have +25% attack and -5% HP versus Swedish Hussars. I’d say that much of an attack advantage more than makes up for the small difference in health.
True, it is 25% attack, typo on the phone ^^. But overall hussars are easier to integrate in Sweden army cause the better fit composition. For brits you normally compose around muskets and cannon, hussars are either for rading or reactive.
My point still stands, their units aren’t outstanding. They are good, but not very good.
And we should probably avoid going down the muskets rabit hole, all new muskets from TAD on are better than RG red coats.
By only 1, hardly that big of an advantage when, if you’re British, you can have +20% extra health and can pretty much eliminate the downside in your Speed with either the 4 Drummers in Age III or aging up with the Black Duke (though I admit an Infinite Drummer shipment would be nice). I’m not saying that British Musks are superior to Ports Musks, but claiming that Port Musks are superior to British doesn’t make sense.
But with an economy that can be well above average you don’t need very good units to be very strong. Solidly good units and a great economy is already extremely powerful. Sweden having great units and a great economy doesn’t excuse the British from being overly strong. They can both be overpowered civs.
One thing could be balanced in high Elo and unbalance in mid and low elo at the same time. For example i who am a medium level player cant defeat a same level player if he plays british unless I will play sweden.
I see where you are coming from, I think it’s better to work on strategies against civs or realise where you made mistake, it can help overall. But unfortunately balancing the game to make both competitive and causal side applied is not easiest thing to do.
Brit economy can expand if it’s not punished in a right way, build orders such as virgina company have also been nerfed in the previous patches, its not possible go for that either.
I think I saw 4 threads talking about British
It just shows how unhappy players are with british
I think it’s just mass psychosis.
It’s not about if a civ is getting nerfed a lot. There were many misinformations and rather exaggerations about brits it was necessary to point out from a competitive player’s approach.