Suggestion: Small & Practical Civilization Balance Change - Malians

Civilization balance with so many civs is no easy task, and introducing many large changes would only make this more difficult. There are many potential tweaks that have come to mind over the years, but at this time I’d like to narrow it down to one in particular, one that is for a civilization which on the “Statistics” page [] is currently less frequently used and has the lowest win rate…

Losing Halberdier was huge, what about a compromise that makes their Pikeman attack less sad in the Imperial Age? My thought is if you changed their Imperial tech, “Farimba”, to also now include +2 attack for Spearman-line (making for a normal attack strength when fully upgraded). Perhaps the tech could then be called something like “Farimba Craft”, “Farimba Craftsmen”, or whatever you like really. This certainly wouldn’t be the first time a unique tech had more than one application, take the Briton’s “Yeomen” for example.

And some other practical side notes that come up due to the newly added civs…

What if the Cuman’s special “Steppe Husbandry” tech were to apply to the Steppe Lancer and their Kipchak? After all, Steppe Husbandry reads: “Light Cavalry and Cavalry Archers trained 80% faster”, with the Steppe Lancer description saying it is a “Light cavalry unit”, and the Kipchak saying it is a “cavalry archer”. For one, I think this would stand to make the Steppe Lancer of the Cumans and the Tatars a little more differentiated from each other. If it required that the cost of Steppe Husbandry go up, or even if the resulting creation speed had to be toned down, I think this could definitely stand to give the Cumans a desirable niche that is balanced (to feel like, yeah so the Steppe Lancer and Kipchak required a nerf… but now they at least produce these weaker units more quickly).

Also, I question if the uniqueness of being the only one that can build a 2nd TC and a Siege Workshop in the Feudal Age is too much for any one civ… maybe these should be distributed among civs as other bonuses have over the years, perhaps something like: the Goths trade out their hunting bonus for the Cuman’s 2nd TC bonus?

In like manner to the Steppe Husbandry concept, what if the Tatar’s special “Silk Armor” tech were to also apply to their Steppe Lancers? Again, not too much of a stretch, where Silk Armor reads as: “Light Cavalry and Cavalry Archers receive +1P armor”. The end result for the Elite Steppe Lancer would then essentially be the stats of a fully upgraded Elite Magyar Huszar, but with 1 range, 5 less hit points, and a notable gold cost.

Another balance thought for the new civs pertains to the Lithuanians. I like the civ, but I feel that losing the relic bonus entirely for the Light Cavalry line is a bummer. Granted, it was too much fun when Hussars could receive +5 attack! :slight_smile: What about restoring the Light Cavalry line to eligibility for this cool bonus, but capping them out at +2 attack? With some Scenario Editor testing, I find this could ultimately make them more on par with the Bulgarians and the Malians fully upgraded Light Cavalry lines, with “Stirrups” and “Farimba” respectively. The Lithuanian bonus after the balance change reads: “Each garrisoned relic gives +1 attack to Knights and Leitis (maximum +4)”, so it might then read something like: “Each garrisoned relic gives +1 attack to cavalry (maximum +4, Light Cavalry +2)”

Many thanks to the developers who have worked so hard to keep the game functioning and balanced!

I like the ideas for both cumans and tartars. I think steppe lancer was a little bit overnerfed, so that would make it a even again. Altough, i think bonus in creation speed should be less for cumans.

Regarding to the malians i think they’re fine as they’re. They have the best live cav of the game with +3 attack, and their pikemen have more pierce armor. More attack in their pikemenwould make them too good at trashwars.

I don’t have an opinions on Lithuanians. I guess it could be done.

1 Like

I’m not sure whether these stats take into account unranked or not, but with DE’s ranked mode being more accessible than say Voobly, there are a lot of low-level players whose performance are taken into account, but since at low-level civs barely make a difference, the results can’t be used to assert whether a civ needs buffs because it would be used/win less.

The +2 attack don’t really matter on pikes since they rely much more on their bonus damage anyway when fighting cav. Also the Malian happen to have +3 on their camels, which is more meaningfull and makes them better against non-cav enemies.

It’s an innacurate description, like it often happens in the game. Medium cavalry would describe them better. As of the kipchak, it’s already created pretty fast.

First one is faster, second one has better elevation damage, they already are differentiated

People who play Cuman often go with these units over Knights and CA. Would they do that if these units were that much weaker? While stat wise they look weaker, they have many tweaks that give them good uses. SL have that +1 range, and still a lower gold cost than knights, Kipchaks have perfect hit-and-run, are better vs rams and cost no gold to be upgraded to elite. Also they are less gold intensive than foot archers while being much bulkier and faster.

Welp, they also have the uniqueness of having only 2 bonuses after Feudal, with the palissade wall one becoming barely relevant at all, so it feels more like 1. Only portuguese on land maps are stuck with the same amount (only the gold discount is usable) And while their feudal bonuses are unique, they don’t beak the feel of the game, so they are fine. And copy pasting one of these bonus on another civ would be super boring.

A Hussar with 13 attack can’t be possibly on par with a LC with 14 attack, since +15 HP and a faster attack rate more than make up for that 1 attack point difference.

I have zero interest in a debate, and I see we have rather different opinions here which is just fine, but I would like to politely ask that you please read and consider more carefully when replying with so much criticism. In reference to what you quoted and wrote, here is what I mean…

  1. The “Statistics” page is simply a single reference, it certainly would not be the authority, however it does shed some light on the universal game data. The statistics page is not the reason why I suggested a tweak for the Malians, but at the very least it does seem to lend support to the case that the Malians are not overpowered.

  2. In trying to avoid writing a novel, here are just some of my other observations that lead to my suggested tweak… Not to be overlooked is that the Malians are classified as an “Infantry civilization” and yet they have some of the worst Pikemen overall in the late game, in fact they lose 1v1 to a Spearman fielded by the Turks (when both are fully upgraded). Their pierce armor is great, not taking anything away from that, and their bonus attack although less than that of a Halberdier is still a key player, but their base attack when fully upgraded is a sad 6 and this makes them far less versatile. Also, their Camels are indeed great, but when gold runs scarce then the Pikemen line can decide games, and by way of comparison the Indians have Imperial Camel and Halberdier. It shouldn’t make their “trash” units too strong overall with the suggested tweak, as they still lack Bracer for Skirmishers and their Light Cav line can’t gain the extra HP of the Hussar upgrade.

  3. Agreed, there are many inaccurate descriptions / tooltips in the game, but again I referenced this not as the reason for the suggestion but as a situation that at present would easily lend itself to this option. It simply provided interesting food for thought as to one way the Cumans could be further balanced out.

  4. Context matters here, and even the wording that was quoted reads “to make… a little more differentiated from each other”, so I wasn’t saying each currently had Steppe Lancers that were identical.

  5. Again, the context and the wording, I was referring to the fact that Steppe Lancers and Kipchaks were recently nerfed, and thus weaker than they were. I wasn’t saying that these are poor units.

  6. My experience is that in all-in-Feudal situations the Cumans have a tremendous amount more versatility and staying power than other civs. The Cumans are not alone in falling off in late-game bonuses. Although trading civ bonuses may seem boring, it can be practical for game balance, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the devs have moved bonuses, for example the Chinese getting the Teuton’s LOS bonus.

  7. Fire up the scenario editor and you’ll find that the proposed tweak for Lithuanian Hussars would land them smack dab in the middle between a Malian Light Cav and a Bulgarian Hussar (fully upgraded). A simple 1v1 head-to-head test as an example puts the Bulgarian Hussar slightly in the lead, the proposed Lithuanian Hussar (with relic bonus) in 2nd, and the Malian Light Cav not trailing far behind in 3rd. Pretty cool stuff :slightly_smiling_face:

But the point of the forum is to be opened to discussion…

You mention a very true aspect of the forum, another aspect is that this is the official channel the developers have chosen for people to be able to report bugs or provide them feedback.
My point is that there is zero interest in a debate with you over what was largely a misinterpretation of what I presented in this thread, I’m simply not going to feed the fire to have us argue about this.
What was presented here in the interests of potential civilization balance was because I feel these tweaks (in their full context) could benefit the game, or at least be given a trial run to find out. Some will like the concepts, others will hate it, and the dev team makes the tough final judgement calls.