Samuai buff?

I think samurais are a bit odd and weak now with champions being cheaper (which is very nice).
I think maybe a plus 15 hp or some buff would be very good just to make japanise a top tier civ.
Take in count that hp doesnt really mean they are way better against archers (they would still get oneshoted) , but i would like that samurais holded better against paladins.

I just dream of a cool and funny aoe 2 where every civ is top tier.

1 Like

Japanese have a good winrate, no need for buffs. If any civ needs any kind of buff, it is portuguese, as they have a below 40% win rate.

Japanise are obviously ok. Good civ on arabia and one of the best on water. But just think about the samurai itself. Do you think they are ok?


It does not amtter, it only matters that the civ as a whole is.

If a civ is good, increasing it’s power in any regard will only make it stronger and drive the win rates of worse civs down. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Samurai is only supposed to be used against Boyars, Cataphracts, Throwing Axemen, and other units of a similar type. It is a specialist, which Japanese does not even need, but get anyway because they need an UU.

Basicly making archers free for persians is ok and making khmer have insane farms is ok, but make samurais SLIGHTLY better is broken and unnecesary.
Well, I dont think adding +10 hp to samurais is broken. I would love it


Making Archers free for Persians and Khmer good farmers, made them viable. Japanese are already viable.

For Samurai to be buffed, a much stronger nerf would have to happen to the Japanese, like losing a full bonus, or an Imperial Age unit.

What you or I would love, is meaningless to balance. Balance is more imporatnt.

Make your own game, if you want to have changes you love.

I don’t think it would change a lot the game balance since samurais are slow infantry and easy to counter by a lot of units. But I get your point and is respectfull.

It would, by virtue of snowball effect. Civs that are heavily dependant of their UUs (which Japanese is not, but Goths and Tatars are) would see a much lowered winrate against Japanese.
This is to be avoided, and balance should be focused around bringing failing civs closer to 50% winrate, rather than making civs with over 50% winrate stronger.

Goths are bad anyway. Tatars… Don’t you think they should just go cavalry archers? They are actually a cav archer civ! If you want to kill Tatars uu well you can make halbadiers any way.

And yes. There are some civs that would need a buff over japanise, becouse japanise are already good.

Goths have a 53% winrate, and are amongst the best civs right now, in 1600+ ELO.

1 Like

Chinese are like 47% win rate and they are like almost the best civ among the pros.

Not anymore, taht was HD stats. The new stats are very different.

Your link says 46.6%. Chinese win rate

I meant that they are not one of the best civs anymore.

You mean chinese?? They are one of the best civs. Ask to hera and viper. Whether they have good win rate or not.


Hera and Viper were wrong, the numbers do not lie. Viper said Britons are a S Tier civ, but they only have 46.6% winrate.

Pros can be wrong, and they often lose games aswell. Numbers, however, are never wrong, specially when the sample size is large enough (7860 ranked 1v1 games).

I do think the Samurai could use a bit of a bonus of some sort. They are supposed to counter unique units, but right now they really don’t do so very effectively, other than infantry, which are rarely seen.


So you are saying britons and chinese are bad?

They counter Cataphracts, Konniks, Tarkan, Huskarls, Keshiks, Boyars, Kamayuks, Woad Raiders, Throwing Axemen, Berzerkers and Jaguar Warriors cost-effectively. That is already a huge number of UUs to counter.

No, I am saying they are average, at the higher levels of play.
Definitely not bad, but not great either.

Lithuanians, Portuguese, Koreans, Burmese and Etiopians and Magyars are bad.Portuguese are the worst, with the worst pick ratio and results, below 40%.