Bulgarians 50% stone discount for tc is an eco bonus. Incas literally have 3 eco bonuses (Start with a free Llama, Houses support 10 population, Buildings cost -15% stone.). Byzantines and Magyars have ‘‘reduced cost’’ bonuses which directly affect you eco ( advancing to imp with a 33%, cheap scout rush…)
You can try to find a civ without a civ bonus but there isn’t. The only civ with 1 minor ‘‘eco’’ bonus are the spanish with that 30% building speed (as the blacksmith bonus doesn’t really work in feudal age).
I wouldn’t count cheap imp as an eco bonus because realistically it does nothing for your eco itself, it’s more like a military bonus since it lets you unlock the strongest military options more easily, and it’s used as such with all the fast imp arbs/monks trebs shenanigans it allows for.
Exactly, so you make Spanish rely on their Conqs even more now.
Imagine a scenario where you can actually go for a castle-free strategy, solely utilizing the Missonaries. That’s how it should be.
Lol, it’s not, the fact it involves resources doesnt mean it’s an “Eco bonus”. It’s such a reductive approach to strategy, omg
Unless we’re talking about a far niche BF games where people go for 6 TC over-boom. In 95% of maps Bulgarians are eco-bonus-free. Period.
Again, these are not enough to define the civ as an eco civ, Incas house bonus is roughly equivalent to Spanish building rate bonus, and the Blacksmith discount equals to the Castle minor stone discount. We’re left with just the VERY poor Llama bonus, are you kidding? is this an eco bonus that makes the change?
It barely impacts the Dark Age even, since you dont consume all of your sheeps this early.
Magyar and Byzantines are forced to create their discounted units in order to utilize their “eco bonus”, which is much more elegant of a way to introduce eco advantage in the game. Besides that, their units are not part of the bulk of their compositions to begin with, AOE meta is mostly abount Knights, Xbows, CA. When you make Trash/Scouts at the mid-game, you’re mostly likely behind.
What you suggest is as poor of an attempt that developers done to Vietnamese, gave them one of the worst conceptually designed eco bonuses. That’s how you kill diversity and work systematically towards a fixed standard of civ design, rather than accept the vast differences that create such a complex beautiful game.
this is interesting, im assuming changing the conq fire rate to match the current one. and then let the 25% affect the rest? it would actually make a decent impact and encourage the use of HCs a little more often, atm people only use this bonus for the BBC really since FU champs, conqs, HCA can already do the anti infantry job. 25% is a lot more appealing than 18% while possibly not being OP
another interesting one. so for example double bit axe will cost 50 f 50w and 50g? certainly makes techs much easier in the earlier game. but also makes imperial techs much more punishing. afaik the reason why spanish didnt pay gold for BS techs, is to give them extra gold compared to other civs, which ties in with the whole gold from the americas (even if its anachronistic)
whereas your change ends up with spanish having less gold than other civs
this is a very difficult one to judge, since they’re losing a fairly powerful (if situational tech) to gain a potentially strong attribute in certain cases. i think its a nerf at higher elos where missionaries are more effective, and monks in general are used more, even if it helps lower elos grab relics with buffed missionaries
being able to pick up relics with a fast unit is completely negated by the fact that fast unit is only available after a UT. meaning a normal monk wouldve done the job ages ago
usually its accurate with regards to things the game is ambiguous about (like all the ambiguity around yeomen, italian bonuses etc, are clarified in the wiki)
I frequently use hand cannons as Spanish in Imp, because while Castle Age conqs are strong, it’s not really a unit that scales as well in large numbers/Imp Upgrades as cav archer UUs. Castle Age conq is a very strong unit. Elite Conq is an okay but far from amazing unit, and especially in a game with limited gold (i.e. not a teamgame or gold rush) I get a better bang for the buck from hand cannons. Also in my experience, Turk hand cannons are more common than Janissaries for a Turk fast imp (SW +Uni or SW/Monastery is cheaper than Castle, and then they can make cannons right out the gate).
I mainly play BF TGs, and the Turk player almost always goes FI +gunpowder, which usually means hand/BBCs for the reasons outlined above.
Agreed. Which is why if I find myself in Imp in a position to tech switch, I’ll either go cav +HC or infantry + HC
This is true, but for the same reason, going heavy into conqs isn’t rewarded the same way that it is for good CA UUs.
I’m no pro, but I’m not sure about that (again, not an arena player tho). Pretty sure I’ve seen T90 casts of top 16 with successful Turk FI (maybe it was jannissaries + cannon?) , but I’d have to check.
FI is quite outdated nowadays, especially since it’s outclassed by castle drop janissaries. Why wait imperial age for hand cannons when you can have better hand cannons that don’t die to kts nor mangonels?
On arena, sure, because break one wall and you’re in, and there’s limited space to retreat. On BF Fast Imp BBC + HC is usually better because there’s space to wall behind a castle drop.
There was a time when this was popular shortly after DE launched. At the same time this popularity was due to streamers making fun content with it not necessarily because the strategy was good. Anyways people figured out how to play against it so nobody does it anymore if they intend to win (sometimes you see a strat like that for entertainment purposes).
It continued to be a thing and every like 20th game I play against turks I still face it but it got pretty rare within the last year overall I’d say. And really the only time it works is when you get caught off guard and don’t expect it while trying booming to imp (which shouldn’t happen if you don’t spend the game talking on your phone or so).
All this is for arena 1v1. For tgs the strat is certainly better (although I think still jannis is clearly the way to go). And for bf I’d imagine as it’s easier to wall behind and all you have to do is buy time for like 2 min it should be even worse here, no? I mean you get like 1 or 2 bbc so your opponent can still rewall but I didn’t play bf for quite a long time so that’s just a guess. On the other hand you get choke points on bf so that’s good for hc I guess.
Well you don’t really choose between those as versions of fast imp because that’s two entirely different versions of fast imp. If you wanna do the hc bbc thing you go to imp straight with a specific BO. If you play jannis you usually don’t plan to go imp because you already have the unit you wanna make and early castle age on closes maps there is no real counter. If opponent masses skirms or you want to get rid of buildings you add mangonel. However sometimes your opponent will respond with defensive castle or guard tower play and at that point you stop production, maybe use the market and click imp for access to bbc.
Turk early imp is strong but (at least on arena) you usually don’t go imp unless you need bbc. And if for whatever reason you’re not convinced you can make dmg in castle age you probably go boom and hussar cav archer bbc late game play as this comp beats almost every other unit comp.
He is right tho, if you expect stone savings to boost your eco you’re going to be sorely disappointed. The savings are too low and on a ressource that you can’t really use to boost your economy anyway, so even if you want to consider it’s an eco bonus it’s one of the worst in the game. Unless you float tons of wood (which is not a good idea) you’re not actually getting more TCs out of this bonus, just as many TCs as other civs + 100 stone left. That’s why it’s much more impacful militarily as it lets you defend with a tower in feudal more easily or get a krepost up earlier.
Ok what? How does the first part of the sentence lead to the second one? If they are rarely seen isn’t it better to buff missionaries when monks units are relevant (castle age) rather than when they aren’t anymore, and the civ doesn’t exactly need them anymore either?
The fact unit isn’t as viable as it should be - doesn’t mean we should buff it no matter how.
Not every suggestion is justified just due to the fact a buff is needed.
It has to be deeply reasoned and elegantly done.
