My two cents. I think the game is more balanced now than it has ever been. I used to play this 20 years ago when Huns 1v1 arabia was all anyone would ever play and I was bored to tears. That being said, I hope the strong civs in this game are left alone. It makes more sense just to make the weak ones stronger. i.e. Provide the goths an eco boost, give Teutons some advantage, byzantine eco boost. Leveling the playing field this way makes more sense than ruining people’s favorites civs…i.e. Mayans, Chinese, etc. IMO.
1 Like
i think eco boost are good to nerf cous now all the top civs have them. so it looks like no eco boost means you are auto lover then a eco boost civ in most situations
I have always said this is teh best option. Nerfs only make the game more restrictive, and are seldom needed.
1 Like
That goes back to ruining people’s civs. There is no need to do that. What is the problem with just making the weak ones stronger so each is viable? Eco bonuses are great. Why not spread them out instead of taking them out of all the top civs? I really hate the idea of taking things away.
In football/basketball, the weak teams get the top draft pics (i.e. Michael Jordan), and then become strong. That to me makes much more sense than taking celts 15% wood cutting or mayans 15% resources lasting longer bonus.
1 Like
not take away stuff i agree there but number changes should be made.
I think that eco boost for every one isnt a good option maybe just changing the tech tree would help. Vikings dont have direct eco boost but the free tech from age up make them great and they are not op becous every one can have that just a little later.
so if you have an eco boos you dont get someting later would help - simmilar to celts
You’re saying buff all the civs except two, the chinese and the aztecs to the level of them? I don’t agree with this. Rather choose a “balanced” civilization, and nerf all stronger civs and buff all weaker civs so they have the same strength as that civ. How to choose the civ: Try to search one which has balanced matches with the most civilizations, so there only remain a few to nerf and a few to buff. If you want to only make buff changes then that means you should buff everyone to the level of aztecs and chinese. I’d much rather see them nerfed instead.
totaly agree not nerfing civs and just buffing all would make the differences between civs go away
Buffing everything would be better I guess but it would be much harder and quite prone to make some civs OP in the process. Furthermore I think the dev are already being more generous on buffs than they are on nerfs (just look at the latest update) which is a good compromise imo to have a lot buffs while avoiding being stuck in situations were you can’t buff all civs to the level of the top. For instance, remember when Chinese were god tier on Nomad because people would abuse the 6 vills start to win vill fights for free? Something had to be done, but it couldn’t be giving a similar bonus to the 34 other civs. It had to be a nerf, and the solution FE found proved to be quite good as it only impacted this map significantly (Steppe was a on the map pool at this time and Chinese were still a strong pick there as unlike Nomad you were guaranteed a close and convenient food source)
3 Likes
Some civs needs to be nerfed, in order to get balance. Live with ir
2 Likes
I generally agree but sometimes nerfs are needed because you cannot get all the civs buffed to the level of op civs.
You mean the slight plumed archer cost increase? That’s not even a substantial nerf.
Chinese is a nice example to discuss. It was obvious that their monks had to lose something. Imo they never should have received block printing so that you could have used redemption in castle age which indeed was useful but not overpowered because you usually couldnt continue with converting siege in imp. So the main problem wasnt the nerf but the buff before that. I think civs just should not get overbuffed that way we wouldn’t need nerfs such as those given to Persians, Khmer or Chinese.
1 Like