It’s great to see that the production team said that the Chinese dynasty system would be greatly improved in the later version, so I also put forward some personal suggestions for the production team’s reference. It would be better if some of them could be adopted.
As we all know, the cost of entering the dynasty is too high, and the benefits of landmarks are generally mediocre. Therefore, it is suggested to reduce the cost of China’s second landmark.
There are two options: Scheme A: All second landmarks are half price.
Then there are suggestions for improvement of individual landmarks:
Barbican of the sun is a very important defensive landmark for Chinese in the early stage of the game, but it is still too weak compared with other civ landmarks of the same type and has no sense of existence in the later stage. Therefore, it is suggested to modify Barbican of the sun as follows: 1. The initial Barbican of the sun comes with two fire gun shooting slots. After all, it has two towers, doesn’t it? This can alleviate the weakness in the early stage of the game to a certain extent. 2. Add subsequent upgrades such as springald, cannon and boiling oil, so as to improve the value of Barbican of the sun in the later stage of the game. ---------- The imperial academy can produce “imperial officials” to make their actual role closer to the meaning of the name. If possible, this landmark can also increase the upper limit of imperial officials from 4 to 6 (if this will lead to OP, this gain can be moved to the later stage of the game). ----------
The effect of astronic clocktower is changed to the price reduction of nearby siege weapon factory (cancel the clocktower siege device), because the high HP siege device itself is a strange concept. After all, why should the siege device play the role of tank? Therefore, reducing the cost of surrounding siege devices can not only improve the appearance rate of astronic clocktower, but also improve its practicability.
At the same time, astronic clocktower itself can continue to produce siege devices and can be accelerated. Of course, only ordinary siege devices are produced.
The value of the Great Wall gateway should be the lowest among all landmarks in Chinese, so it is suggested to change it to: the effect of increasing DPS by the wall unit is not limited to nearby, but all walls.at the same time, from a practical point of view, it should exchange the position of the times with astronic clocktower. ---------- Imperial Palace:The current use is too single and has little significance for China’s defensive civilization. Since it is a palace, it should be connected with the palace guards. The palace guards produced here can reduce the price or increase the training speed.
Nice to see an article discussing the landmarks of Chinese civilization. I recommend
The Great Wall Gate can refer to England’s beacon system to increase the attack speed of nearby troops, which is far more practical than the original setting of only increasing the troops on the city wall. After all, no one uses the function of garrisoning troops on the city wall at present. The effect is not as good as Barbican of the sun.
Barbican of the sun is a landmark, but it is just an arrow tower with more HP. Although he can come out in the first era, it is still far worse than the landmarks of other civilizations.
Change the design of Chinese dynasties to a fixed order, which is irreversible, in order to better grasp the balance of dynasties. It can be designed like this: every time a dynasty is changed, the collection efficiency increases by 5%, so as to encourage players to upgrade dynasties , instead of the current situation, everyone only upgrades to the Song Dynasty 1v1, and only upgrades to the Yuan Dynasty and Fire Lancer in the team battle, there is no change at all.
Also, while enhancing Chinese landmarks, perhaps it should be considered that China can actually build twice as many landmarks as other civilizations, so the landmarks of Chinese civilizations are designed to be so weak. Maybe make the first landmark look like another civilization’s Landmarks are just as powerful, and the second extra Landmark is a weakened version of the Landmark? I’m not sure. But I doubt it would be too OP to enhance the Chinese Landmark while reducing the cost of the second Landmark?
I would like to know other opinions on this design.
I like the 1st one. 2nd one is worthless. Siege just tears it apart and its not like keep which you can build constantly everywhere so its always in one specific location and upgrading it when it cant cover up whole base isn’t really good.
Walls are very niche and this cannto really be utilized at any level well enough. Ppl just go around the walls or take them down with siege.
Gate needs complete rework and needs to go away from mindset of having something to do with walls. Pointless way to try make it useful
Like it. But Palace guard itself isn’t great unit. Too easily countered and dealt with so while buff for PG training time or price is great idea the unit is still crappy. Tho I would use this with my PG all ins with fast castle if it made them cheaper to train so it would have some uses
Chinese landmarks are in general weaker than other civs’. This is understandable, since they can build both of them (with a hefty investment). The problem is that, currently, they are so weak that two Chinese landmarks combined are still worse than the landmark of other civs. For instance, spirit way + gateway < red palace, which provides a discount influence circle for more units as well as better defense.
On the other hand, if we buff them too much, they become OP (imagine your opponent with 2 red palaces).
So here’s an idea: Give each Chinese landmark a bonus effect which only applies if it’s the first landmark you build.
For example, if Barbican is the first one you build, it gains increased range and have upgrades. If it’s the second you build, so such bonus applies. However, if the imperial academy is the first landmark you build, the academy can produce IO at a 33% discount.
This way, the player will have to decide which landmark to build first more carefully, and every game will feel more different. The first landmark will function more like a landmark to the other civs, while the second landmark will be more like a step stone for the next dynasty.
I don’t exactly disagree with you but its not that they can build both or all landmarks is reason why they’re “weaker”. Landmarks itself can be fine as they’re now if it means that dynasty bonuses carry over.
The fact is that China builds 2 landmarks to unlock dynasty bonus (song -35% reduction on villager training, yuan +15% movement speed, ming +10% hp for military) but the issue is this. China can only have 1 bonus up all times while other civs can have 3 bonuses. So either building both landmarks need to be total of same as other civs build 1 or bonuses carry over to next dynasty even as weaker version.
Barbican of the sun is a very important defensive landmark for Chinese in the early stage of the game, but it is still too weak compared with other civ landmarks of the same type and has no sense of existence in the later stage. Therefore, it is suggested to modify Barbican of the sun as follows:
1. The initial Barbican of the sun comes with two fire gun shooting slots. After all, it has two towers, doesn’t it? This can alleviate the weakness in the early stage of the game to a certain extent. 2. Add subsequent upgrades such as springald, cannon and boiling oil, so as to improve the value of Barbican of the sun in the later stage of the game. ---------- The imperial academy can produce “imperial officials” to make their actual role closer to the meaning of the name. If possible, this landmark can also increase the upper limit of imperial officials from 4 to 6 (if this will lead to OP, this gain can be moved to the later stage of the game). ----------
The effect of astronic clocktower is changed to the price reduction of nearby siege weapon factory (cancel the clocktower siege device), because the high HP siege device itself is a strange concept. After all, why should the siege device play the role of tank? Therefore, reducing the cost of surrounding siege devices can not only improve the appearance rate of astronic clocktower, but also improve its practicability.
At the same time, astronic clocktower itself can continue to produce siege devices and can be accelerated. Of course, only ordinary siege devices are produced.
The value of the Great Wall gateway should be the lowest among all landmarks in Chinese, so it is suggested to change it to: the effect of increasing DPS by the wall unit is not limited to nearby, but all walls.at the same time, from a practical point of view, it should exchange the position of the times with astronic clocktower. ---------- Imperial Palace:The current use is too single and has little significance for China’s defensive civilization. Since it is a palace, it should be connected with the palace guards. The palace guards produced here can reduce the price or increase the training speed.
N4C has proven the Chinese to be capable on Altai. It’s the other maps that’s the issue.
On another note, the single game you provided doesn’t prove anything, given how MarinelorD 3:0 DeMuslim, he’s just the better player here.
