State of the Georgians [Poll]

I’m interested in how everyone is feeling about the Georgians right now. I’ve heared a lot of different opinions on how people feel about them since the Monaspa nerf.

How do you feel about the Georgians right now?

  • Early eco is too strong, nerf their start (e.g. start with -50 wood)
  • Scouts are too strong, nerf the healing (e.g. make it start in Castle Age)
  • Churches are too strong (e.g. +10% Villager work rate is too high or add stone cost to them)
  • Monaspa are still too strong
  • Some other things are still too good (if so, please comment)
  • Georgians are fine now, don’t change them
  • Georgians were nerfed too hard, buff them (if so, please comment)
0 voters

I’d add some stone cost to churches and make the healing bonus start in castle age.

Going further, i don’t like how the monaspa works. I think it should have low base armor and with numbers increase it (only melee armor), instead the attack.

1 Like

My own feelings are that Georgians (and Monaspa) are at a fine power level. However, they don’t feel like a defensive civ to me even though they were designed as one. Though I haven’t played them much since the last monaspa nerf.

I do have to wonder what sort of impact reducing their starting gold would have. It would make it harder for them to get to castle age, but wouldn’t be too detrimental to their Feudal scout play (other than that bloodlines would be harder to get). Though they would need a compensatory buff.

But overall, I think they’re in a good state and don’t need to be changed.

3 Likes

They should lose Architecture and either Siege Ram or Siege Onager

Nonsense. Why would a civ need stone to make monks? You are nerfing it to the ground.

Why a civ deserve to have a powerful eco boost and at the same time being a strong one for defenses without drawbacks in the late game? Why Poles have to keep the drawback of the Folwark eco with exposed villagers?

Even it doesn’t need to be 50 stone, put the wood cost of 175w and 25 stone (same total cost like now), Georgians could get -75 wood Fortified Churches but the workrate boost reduced from 10% to 8%, so is better earlier for defensive use but less of OP economy in late game.

Armenians could get the stone cost removed as civ bonus.

Honestly the fortified monastery should just be for Georgia

1 Like

Dude, nonsense is giving to a building the same attack capacity, HP and armor of a TC, almost the same garrisone capacity, an aura that boost your eco and over that works as a normal monastery… And just costing +25 wood.
Plus, if I get strict, fortified church have the “stone defense” armor class while TC doesn’t and, for balance reasons it cost stone, to avoid what? Exactly, the spam of fortified churchs…
I think that could be a midpoint. Give gerogians and armenians a regular monastery that you can upgrade individually to a fortified church for a stone cost. Because I know, that a monastery that cost stone could be taking as a nerf. A similar case to Sicilians with the Donjon.

1 Like
  1. the design of monaspa is not good for aoe2, and they should be completely reworked

What do you propose?

So they are not paying any extra for the folwark compared to mill. Churches are 25w more expensive.

You can nerf the range of aura or % of boost. But stone cost? You are robbing a civ’s basic option because of its side effects. Bad design

If you agree on this we good

I still would prefer a little stone cost, instead only +25W.
50 stone is not a crazy, taking in count all benefits fortified church gives.
Again, you could see this as a nerf, but this make the civs unique, like sicilians with donjons.

Did you even read what I proposed, 100w 25stone Fortified Church is still a darn good basic option (possibly will be even better than you think), just put a drawback to not being freely spammable at late game, and if you want to use Monks you won’t be needing too many Churches anyway,

1 Like

I don’t know. I think we ran out of viable UU ideas by the time shrivamsha riders were added with their magic shields.

Possibly for the former, and yes for the latter, and give those two to the Armenians.

I thunk you arebeing unnecesarily close minded, not on stuff like the Shrivamsha or the Monaspa but on the game as a whole saying theres no stuff to add left

Theres still no anti archer cavalry for example.

And honestly the monaspa civ bonus is kinda vanilla because in practice once you reach the numbers its just a flat bonus, I dont really get the point of these kinds of auras of “get x ammount of units and you get x buff”

1 Like

It would be cool if the Monaspa had a gimmick that reflected the Battle of Didgori, which was its first engagement. The Seljuks outnumbered the Georgians and their allies by a significant amount, but still lost because of their poorer armor and equipment and David the Builder’s extremely effective tactics.

Persian knight line/savar?

Genitour is the anti-archer cavalry unit if you include non melee cavalry. Sicilians cavalier, persian savar, burmese +4 vs archers.

Savar, Sicilian cavalier, Paladin, Coustillier, Boyar?
Cavalry is already anti cav

Same way you don’t need an anti-inf Archer, or anti-cav infantry unique units. Unique units of that type usually have other bonuses that make them unique