I have noticed that people are not happy about arambai being too powerful in team game, and Indian dominates team game. And I think there will be more complaints about units being unusually powerful in team game while not too viable in 1v1 due to whatever reason.
So, do you guys think developers should balance team game or not?
Generally from what I see 1v1 is the focus of balance and anything that becomes too problematic in team games also gets hammered, but they tend to let more stuff slide in team games
Yes.
I understand 1v1 Arabia is getting very well balanced, and hopefully in this setting all civs will be A- or B-tier soon.
Perhaps it’s impossible to make balance just as tight is team games. But they should be able to make team games somewhat balanced. (Same for other settings BTW.)
I’m not aware of any mechanics which are unbalanced in team games but which have a really good reason for being there, for the sake of 1v1s or whatnot. People who claim things can’t be changed without ruining 1v1s usually suffer from a lack of imagination.
A significant amount of balancing could be achieved via the team bonuses, by giving good team bonuses to weak team game civs, and weak team bonuses to strong team game civs.
This hasn’t been done at all AFAIK. Team bonuses are purely determined by flavour and 1v1 strengths.
I’m not certain whether this should be fixed. It would be a major overhaul.
If it was fixed, Arabia team games could be balanced just as tightly as Arabia 1v1.
I guess there isn’t too many but there is some for sure. Most notably they refer to civs which have great eco and stable units. Like Indians aren’t a good civ in 1v1 unless you play against a cav civ. Some people want to nerf them because camels with +1 pa, upgradable to imp camels and great food eco are very powerful for virtually all team game matchups but this would make them even worse in 1v1. If you face a civ with good infantry and archers (vikings, mayans, aztecs), here, there isn’t much you can do past a certain stage of the game. Similar arguments have been brought up with regard to Khmer which ofc are also a great 1v1 civ because you can use your bonuses for knights but in tgs people complain about elephants which aren’t too good in 1v1. And lastly, you have arambai which so many people complain about because it might be op in 4v4 arena but in 1v1 scenarios this unit is decently balanced.
So balance for tgs isn’t an issue but balancing for 1v1 and tgs at the same time rather is the issue.
going trought your exaples:
indians: Grant only non elite battle elefants so indians have something in castle age, and somewhat decent meatshield in imp + the pierce armor bonus is changed to elefants instead of camels. Now we have to nerf their eco so we take insipration from aoe 3. villagers food discount in changed to viallgers cost 40 food and 10 wood starting in feudal age.
Nerfing camels and eco helps put them in line in teamgames, giving them non elite battle elefants with 1 pierce allow them to have something in castle age and meatshield unit against archer or infatry. also finally solves a long outcry becuase of historically aggegating incosinstency.
Khmer: Remove hunsbadry, nerfs khmer light cav spawn which is op in 1v1 and nerfs their elefenats that are op in teamgaes, increase ballista elefants speed so that this unit doesnt get nerfed.
Arambai: Make the UT building damage only give half the current bonus damage to arambai (unchanged for other cav units), Make train time of non elite arambai 3 seconds longer. Should fix the proble in teamgames of these units nuking buildings and being massed so fast nothing to do against.
The examples you give are hard problems for sure, but I am confident there are solutions out there which respect both 1v1 and team games.
The design space available to the devs is so vast…
Such as Teutons 
? Jokes aside:
For Indians they would need a significant nerf to their Eco if we ever want to see Berber/Malian/Saracen pocket play, and after that they’d need a significant buff to their military options. Maybe buff their archers/cav archers, maybe make camels good against archers but bad against skirms (or the other way around), maybe give them BE… Probably most of these ideas are bad, but there are so many options there has to exist a good one 
To maintain their identity I think they’d need to keep at least a 10% villager discount and ImpCamel.
Vikings Mayans & Aztecs are all considered pretty good both in 1v1s and in team games, at least at the pro level. Arguably they should be nerfed, but there isn’t a discrepancy there between 1v1s and team games. It’s true Aztecs fall off a lot at low ELO (around my level) because players don’t use monks as much, but I don’t really have a problem with that.
For Khmer, Khmer elephants are just too good. Unless we actually want Khmer to be the 1 true elephant civ, like Indians are the 1 true camel civ. I’d transfer the elephant bonus damage over to burmese and turn the elephant speed bonus into a UT. That might create enough space to buff BE again.
BE are a bit tricky. I suspect reducing the EBE pierce armour would help, as would reducing the halb-to-elephant bonus damage, but at that point you might trigger a cascade of balance changes which culminates in making Persian War Elephants 2 pop. I don’t think that’d be a bad thing, but there would be a significant amount of resistance, and I’m sure there are less drastic solutions.
For Arambai, what are the aspects of the unit that need to be preserved for the sake of 1v1 games? It sounds like it’s problem in 4v4 Arena is that it’s strong against both mobile units and against buildings. I don’t understand their balance challenge well enough to suggest any kind of ‘solution’, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
This is precisely the point. You do that and Indians become terrible in 1v1 and Khmer becomes mediocre again.
It’s not even a joke^^ Only reason Teutons are balanced for tgs right now probably is them lacking husbandry so the others team’s knights evade theirs.
No. It should not. Since team games allow trade which can lead to no gold issues in the late game. In team games, turks are very powerful due to no gold issues.
Plus some teams win by sheer skill alone. No matter what civs are picked… sometimes at least.
11
I can’t remember Turks being picked in a team game tournament except in those cases where almost all of the other civs had been picked earlier.
same for 1v1s
Try turks on michi/infinite resources. Bombard tower spam enemy to death. Or normalish game of black forest.
they should, but the bigger problem is position-picking
most of the teamgame balance problems come from front players being able to pick overpowered archer civs and back players being able to pick overpowered cavalry civs
and the game doesn’t have enough counterplay to this combination
without team positions, they can’t guarantee this combo, so it would let people pick from a wider range of civs