Fair enough, tho I have no intention to break the civ into becoming op nor lowering their win-rate below 50% - my intention is to round it out while adding in a useful unit that’s cool to see and would have its niche and focus more on where the civ seems to be focused on mainly, being infantry, siege and defensive structure with a side of cavalry and hand canons.
-
Quite tricky, you basically created a Boyar, though I like the fact you balanced it out with low movement speed, it’s definitely playable, also conversions resistance is blessful, I really want Teutonic Knights to be completely resistant. That’s overall a nice idea, can further argue about this one.
-
Giving Teutons Light Cav is a killer to diversity/identity, Teutons are the only civ who ends up having only Scout at Imperial Age. It’s a little bit too methodical, giving them Light Cav for the sake of defining them as a Cavalry civ.
-
Please, developers, please, remove the Barracks melee armor bonus from Teutons civ’s bonuses, it doesnt contribute to anything balance related in open map, just makes them even more broken on closed maps, plus makes their Unique Unit even more useless. Yes, it’s quite cool and harmonic having UU that is similar to the generic Barracks unit of the same civ, but its a killer to strategy. Leave their Barracks alone.
-
TC range is a dramatic bonus to have, especially if it’s being given passively. It basically eliminate any Castle Mango push which is a fundemental win condition in this game. With that being said I think it can definitely find place in this game despite being very edgy bonus.
In order to implement it, it’d have to be only +1 range rather than +3, it’ll still eat mangos so no worries about that. However it has to be a civ with no eco bonus at all, so this will actually be its indirect power eco ability. That’s how you approach balance elegantly rather than gimmickly, on Teutons its impossible to have. -
I support Lithuanians TC with more damage, though it’s very minor.
-
Agree regarding Celts.
-
Sicilians needs a redesign, not gonna even bother addressing First Crusade… It’s a pathetic design.
-
Once a month there is a guy asking to buff Incas, and it’s always an eco bonus, can we please have one meso civ with no eco bonus, just like Magyar and Byz- Incas have so much military options, they are totally fine without it.
4 Likes
I was talking only about those changes in a vacuum
Because the tcs one is broken and it would still be a massive buff no matter what you do if you implement it like you proposed
3 Likes
And how would you suggest it to be implemented?
From what I remember of the previous conversations:
At the start of castle age before building a castle: broken
As part of the imperial tech: useless
Part of a castle tech: too weak
Middle-ground: after building a castle and having aged up to castle age, no tech required, but may be added to ironclad if that’s really such an issue.
(Added imperial tech stone cost switched out for wood cost similar to the turks’ change for teutons)
I suggest to not implement it period, simply because it’s a pointless change.
Who builds a castle as teutons on arabia in early castle at a good level? No one, because taking 650 extra stone to build a castle is a big time (and res) investment. It’s still a pointless change
3 Likes
It’s the original bonus of Teutons’ returning in a balanced way - I find it far from pointless.
Returning them to their original vision is a great boon returning to the civ where it belongs.
A bonus that was removed because it was not balanced and that has been adapted to be a tech for another civ. It’s not a part of their identity, they are fine as they are
4 Likes
It was certainly part of their identity - the part that remains is the castle range bonus.
The fact that it was rebalanced and re-issued to another civ and combined with that rebalanced tech being considered too weak to consider researching - that tech can be buffed for liths and returned to Teutons with the weaker balanced version.
Key word here is was. And that was back before aoc.
You know what else is part of their identity? Having paladin. Having scout cav only. But you don’t care about ripping those away. Which just shows the only identity you care about is rhe ones rhat pertain to what you want.
4 Likes
And still is part of their identity in the form of extra castle range - meaning half of that part of their identity is what was stripped away.
I don’t believe Teutons are supposed to be one of the best cavalry civs in terms of paladins late-game - keep them having only scouts if it’s a big part of the identity, but with paladins I’d remove paladin and cavalier and replace cavalier with the crusader knight upgrade(cost and research time to be balanced) to refocus their power over cavalier but to lose vs paladin. Effectively giving them a unit that matches them while not overpowering their cavalry, and gives them a window to dominate with cavalry while lowering their potential in the late-game.
All while refocusing the civ where the identity belongs - infantry, siege, defensive structure + a side of hand canons and cavalry.
1 Like
Because extra range on castles, in imperial age, with a tech, is completely balanced. Meanwhile extra range on tc is either busted or weak depending on implementation.
You don’t have too. Clearly the devs disagree with you because they do have some of the best paladins in the game.
Which rips away tgat strong anti melee paladin identity they have. Funny how identity matters when you want it to matter and doesn’t matter when you don’t want it to matter.
Except they literally already tick those boxes you want them to tick. So no change is needed.
3 Likes
It’s sad that it takes until imperial age to regain that part of their identity. It would be beneficial to the Teutons’ defensive structure identity to regain their bonus upon castle age or after that and building a castle.
1 Like
They still have extra garrison space and murder holes. Solid defensively before imperial age.
What you are asking for is either busted or weak and useless.
If busted it would be nerfed. Again
If weak and useless why bother?
The only reason for this change is because it caters to what YOU want.
4 Likes
All valid points, although saying it’s only what I want is a stretch.
I’ll admit that part of this is towards using the fact that it’s the original bonus returning is me using it to my own ends, but I am trying to ensure it’s balanced upon implementation and helps strategies other than my own.
Taking into account appropriate nerfs if necessary.
@MatCauthon3
1 Like
I’ll gladly listen which strategies this change helps
4 Likes
Castle drops, both defensively and offensively.
Normal play, helps keep farmers farming instead of archers denying the closest farms to the tc by attacking said farms with a single archer each which is broken since the farmers automatically stop farming.
(Will still be able to do as such with archers in feudal age but gives a time limit instead of haha archer go vroom)
Defensive camps when faced with overly ambitious archers when using town centers for woodlines/mining camps
(Doesn’t fully deny archers kills, just pushes them slightly further away which is key and vills will still need to ungarrison which opens the window for small-time raiders to get easy kills. )
And just about any defensive strategy as well as some offensive strategies involving castles and town centers.
Which Lithuanians are currently capable of.
There are some players who wish to increase the range of all town centers for all civs, to a degree I agree with them as well. Perhaps starting in castle age for all civs.
1 Like
Castle drop. As Teutons. The civ with one of the most costly UU in the game, that also happened to be one of the slowest, on arabia is going to castle drop?
Why should they be safe from archers? Your opponent is investing in military to idle your farms and you aren’t making units to counter them, that’s
what’s supposed to happen
Three tiles isn’t “slightly”. Three tiles is a lot and the only way xbows gets kills is if the opponent is slow to react with three extra range
And no one does that. Wanna know why? Because castles are costly, the tech is costly and there’s almost no point in going leitis in castle age. You know what that would have in common with Teutons? All the above point, with a worse unit than the leitis when it comes to arabia but not having to pay for the tech. Yep, sounds pretty useless overall since no one is going to play like that at a good level
Then those players don’t know how balance works. Extra range on tcs means you need to give extra range to mangos to compensate that. But wait, extra range on mangos needs to compensated with some archer buff, otherwise they are gonna get destroyed without the possibility to micro against them. But wait, now that we have buffed archers cavarly and infantry needs to be changed as well. But wait, aren’t most civ bonuses in need to be changed too?
5 Likes
Anyway, any meta strategy that would be helped by the “extra range on tcs after you’ve built a castle” thing?
3 Likes
Considering how often I see lithuanians actually use hillforts? Im gonna say none
2 Likes
Personally, I believe that mangos are a military unit mainly aimed at killing other military units as well as a castle age unit defense vs trebs and should not outrange town centers. If they want to push town centers with mangos, then build numbers. There are plenty of other methods to eating tcs, mangos are cheap by comparison and easily defended when compared to other methods.
As for if +tc range helps any strats - what strat isn’t helped by having a little more defense at home?