We often see useful Unique Units. Period.
And again. The main problem with the boyar is cost. But it should certainly not be 60 food and 65 gold.
It beats a knight in pretty much every category. Tge only reason you don’t see it now is the 80 gold and castle cost
It should cost 60F and 65G - It is just 10 gold less than a Knight which can be made from Stables starting in the Castle Age.
And it has more armor and attack than a knight. And elite is better then cavalier in almost every regard.
2 Likes
Compare it to Paladins. We don’t compare Elite Plumed Archers to Crossbowmen.
Who cares they have more attack than a Knight? They are an Imperial Age unit and another civ already has the same unit from Stables.
Slavs don’t get paladin. But okay. It has equal attack, more melee armor, less health and costs 600 less food and 450 less gold to upgrade. It’s also available a minute after imp starts as opposed to the paladins 270 seconds.
Like I said. It should be cheaper but making it cheaper then a knight overall is overkill.
1 Like
If Slavs had Paladins we would see 100 times more Paladins than Boyars
Knights are available to make in Castle Age, therefore you can have many of them, while Boyar is only “great” in Imperial Age and one Castle is idle for a long time.
No, it is not an overkill.
At 80 gold of course. At 70 gold? Not so much. At 70g they are cheaper gold wise then Paladins, cheaper to upgrade, and do better against anything that isn’t an archer
I could say the same of other unique units. Why aren’t you crying to buff them too? Face it. The boyar is only bad because the cost and Castle requirement. Not the stats.
They already beat Paladins as is. They don’t need a 15 gold discount on top of that
2 Likes
Perhaps some ideas for which techs will be enabled or disabled for which civs including for balancing reasons:
[General]
-Cavalry Archer removed from Britons, Goths, Italians, Khmer, and Vikings
[Civs]
-Berbers receive Sanctity but no longer have access to Fervor
-Burmese don’t have access to Elite Cannon Galleon
-Chinese receive Crop Rotation
-Celts receive Bloodlines and Atonement
-Khmer don’t have access to the Parthian Tactics, Onager, and Elite Cannon Galleon
-Koreans receive Redemption
-Malians don’t have access to Heavy Cavalry Archer, Cannon Galleon, and Block Printing
-Malay have the Hand Cannoneer
-Sicilians don’t have access to Sanctity
-Tatars receive Redemption but get their Atonement removed
I dont get the point of most of those
Why?
Dear God why? Nome of these civs need buffs (first two, or nerfs)
You’re changes as a whole are all over the place and don’t make any sense
1 Like
The fact that you don’t care means that you don’t think ahead…
By not worth, I meant that the buff don’t compensate your nerf, so all you obtain is that you trow away a decent balance for a worse balance.
Diversify them on what if all you do is reducing the FS discount? Indians have the discount staggered because it’s on vills, the core of the game, FS are a side note instead.
SE would help on all maps, to no die to franks BBC. And instead of 20 resources more on the BBC, I would prefer to have a 33% cheaper SE, more useful and unique.
Also, koreans full uni isn’t a “unique feature” more than it isn’t a unique feature having a full blacksmith, or a full stable. If 2 civs would have it instead of one there would be no harm.
The FS discount is good only in the dark age, and a bit in feudal maybe. You staggered and you just end up nerfing it, since at some point even if the discount is bigger, it’s too late to use them.
In the dark age, you train between 3 and 6 FS, depending on the map, which means that you save between 33 and 66w, so you can even have a FS for free with the savings, which is even better. You instead want to trade that for a 25f more after aging up.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see a 20% cheaper age up, but not in exchange of a nerf on the docks or FS, since it’s not worth in my opinion get 95 more food and 50 more gold through the entire game in exchange of a good start in maps with fish.
That 3% less does not compensate for the 5% increase, it’s the opposite problem.
3% less on the laster tech of the dock is nothing when compared to the possibility of aging up even sooner. It matters little if the raw numbers are higher.
His suggestion at least was of a nerf in the same age, even if it would have made Italians useless on hybrid maps.
Ah hello. Khmer needs nerfs. For example, their Onager needs to be removed because their unique unit can already destroy trees including being able to do so in the Castle Age. Khmer also have to get their CA and PT removed because Khmer are already powerful without those as you can be creating a bunch of Elephants in late game and also because historically, Khmer didn’t use horse archers (that reason is also why I suggested for some other civs to no longer have that either) as they relied more on Elephants than Horses. Celts need to have Bloodlines because right now, there’s no Western European civ that has Bloodlines.
khmer are not the powerhouse they were last year, they don’t need nerfs.
yes because ballista elephants are used so often aren’t they?
and what if they are against an opponent who elephants wouldn’t work well against?
okay, but this is a video game, and it has to be balanced and it puts emphasis on balance over historical accuracy. we literally have meso civs running around with steel, siege, xbows and arbalests. i don’t see you asking to remove those based on historical accuracy.
that’s not justification to add bloodlines to a civ that is already one of the better civs in the game. you don’t buff or nerf just because.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t mind that some civs like Italians, sicilians and vikings that never used such tactics lose the CA, but it should be just a handful of civs, and civs that anyway never use those units.
1 Like
I totally agree. I don’t have enough historical knowledge to know exactly which civs should lose access to these units, but I think it wouldn’t be bad for the game.
It could add some historical accuracy without hurting the respective civs gameplay-wise. For example, in case of the Vikings, you couldn’t even call it a nerf, because with all the missing uprades (Bloodlines, Husbandry, Heavy CA, Parthian) it’s not worth investing in that line anyway, so why not remove it entirely.
Yeah but all civ that are CA focused, like britons, but have even a small bonus for them (like the 20% faster training) should keep them.
I think that about just 2 or 3 civs should lose CA, and I was wrong about sicilians, they should keep it.
Sure, as I said, “without hurting the respective civs gameplay wise”.
I’m quite curious… what civs did never use CA? After that we could then pick out a few that don’t rely on CA gameplay anyway.
Difficult to say… at one point in history a lot of cultures either use it in small parts or hired CA…
Italians comes to mind, but even them used it a bit with WRE, or the barbarians and Easter riders that end up settling there…
For sure, it wasn’t used by the city states of the renaissance, but is it enough to remove them completely?
as you said, I think we could make a case for maybe 2 or 3 civs.