Well in the first place, you end up TAKING less dmg. For example, you proposed camels to counter them. But if 20 Coustillier engage 20 camels, about 3-5 camels will instantly die (depends on how good the micro is). Afterwards, you retreat. When you fight next time, you will have the numbers advantage.
Yes, you can counter this by forcing longer fights, but how do you force engagments? By attacking their castle with siege. Problem is, Coustillier are increadibly good at sniping said siege - just 3 of them oneshot a treb.
Tho the siege sniping part is very true. Also Burg castles are FU so it really doesnāt help time to use square formation on stand ground and 2 layers of halbs ig
Oh ok. Iām not trying to deny they are OP anyway, it just seems to me that itās way more profitable to use your advantage ASAP rather than trying to whitle down the enemy.
Over the coming weeks I think the new civs will be found to not be broken because they are OP. However they will be found to be broken because they make AoE II feel like not AoE II. And they will be found to be unbalanced in the sense that their power feels like a constant swing with little in-between, rather than strictly underpowered or strictly overpowered.
Using the Goths as an example for comparison of bad civ design, the Goths are unbalanced in the sense that their power feels like a constant swing with little in-between. Yet the Goths still feel like AoE II because their core mechanics, before bonuses, are available to the other 34 civs. And so I donāt have to utterly change my mindset from the beginning on how to play them to be effective. I only need to adjust the numbers of what I already know about the Barracks from playing any of the other civs.
Not that Iām saying the new civs shouldāve been like another Goths 11. Nor is calling the DLC ābad civ designā a dig against RTSās which build their balance from the beginning around factions with completely different mechanics (Warcraft 3, Command & Conquer 3, Starcraft, Age of Empires III, etc.) This is just for comparison relating to AoE II.
If you think liths are the big issue, you should see the wall bug, where you can remove enemy walls by placing buildings foundationsā¦thatās really bad
They have Cavalier in Castle Age but lack Bloodlines, so they end up with a regular FU Knight with +2 attack. It is strong, but not OP, at least compared to Lithuanian Knight with relics or Bulgarian with Stirrups.
The eco bonus isnāt as strong as it seems, since investing in eco tech too early put a strain on the overall game plan, while you try to queue up villagers and save for Feudal/Castle. In the end it will likely be a few minutes saved over your opponent, while still paying full price, so i donāt expect a lot of return compared to other eco bonuses.
Burgundians are among the top late Castle civs for knight line no problem, but the best knight line for Castle Age overall, i doubt it. As I said, the eco bonus is weaker than it looks, and other civs have arguably stronger bonuses for Knights. Franks with +20% HP (basically free Bloodlines), Berbers with their discount, Magyars with free attack upgrades, are more dangerous and stronger in early Castle, and while the requirements are higher, it is still true that Lithuanians and Bulgarians are stronger in late Castle.
Td;dr : Burgundians are a very strong cavalry civ, no doubt. But over the top, no.
New civs doesnāt look so healthy. They have great early game which will be nerfed obviously (at least a little bit). Good Castle Age but not Imp. If we donāt consider Barracks and just look at unique unit, stable, archery range and Blacksmith. We see they all lack archer armour upgrade and bad Arbalesters. Burgundians at least can create good Hand Cannons. Sicilians?
I didnāt like bonuses and tech tree. They feel like too basic. Big tower can create infantry and infantry can build those big towers. All of eco techs available early. Just boring.
