The Definitive Discussion, treaty and supremacy. 💱

[EliteRiflemann]

Yes, I’m back with the same topic, but this time, I’d like us to have a good discussion about it.

I think, if one day the developers have the time available, they should create a separate balance between the different types of game modes that there are, instead of it being one balance for all. You could do all kinds of very interesting balances without limits.

What do I mean by this? Well, since DE came out there is a permanent bid between treaty and supremacy (most of the time) to see how to balance the game. I believe that today we reach the climax of that constant bid, that the goal today is to play very defensively to buy time to reach Industrial and abusing very strong mechanics is directly the fault of the treaty balance, to cite an example, build many outposts, forts, walls, make revolution, have decks with 8 or more cards in industrial, etc, that is all things direct faults of the balance of the treaty and playing in the long run. At the same time, the opposite happens, there are civilizations that are too weak in the treaty, and that simply cannot be buffed, because they break in supremacy, and that’s the fault of the balance of supremacy. To cite the main example, there is the Skull Knight, when he was nerfed by the abuse of the Aztec FI, people went crazy (but mainly the people of the treaty) and now he is considered one of the weakest civilizations in the treaty, but that’s fault that the balance in supremacy did not allow it. This could be easily fixed, if there was a separate balance, if the SK has 5 speed in treaty, they would be acceptable, while in supremacy having SK with 4.25 speed is almost unacceptable.

If one day they decide to work on this idea and it is consummated, I consider that the quality of the game and the balance would improve a lot (which is very difficult, I would not like to be in the shoes of the devs atm)

If a road map is made and this is considered, plus everything that could be discussed in the forum and official channels like discord and steam, I think we could make a really nice game for everyone!

Some similar topic:

Separate balance for treaty mode

Maybe the game needs a separate balance for treaty mode. More than half of the balance complains in the forum are about treaty mode. It’s nearly impossible to balance the game for 1v1 and treaty equally. Every civilisation gets a some (de-)buffs that only apply in treaty mode. Maybe more importantly, card decks have to be made specifically for treaty mode. This way they could also change the effect of some cards for treaty and remove early unit shipment cards from the list of available cards. …

How hard is to balance tr with sup?

How hard is that Dev’s ??? Otto, india, Aztec , hausa , all have very bad train time , on head on fight they lose . Hauda is somewhat better , but hauda works on timer , if furtraded gold run out hauda is lost . Can’t u just make they infantry train faster like 10-15% , and for balancing make their infantry build military building 25-30% slowers with battlefield construction card Also another solution for slower train time issue is giving 15-20 more pop space to compensate for units struc…

Can we establish a differentiated balance between Supremacy and Treaty?

I mean, basically, to establish a balance and special mechanics for treaty, and separately, balance and special mechanics for supremacy, the possibilities could be endless. The benefits, clearly, would be less friction in the balance between both game modes, maybe more work for the developers but I think that it is easier when creating a patch. I can give 3 simple examples, you will say if I am correct or not, but remember that they are hypothetical examples by way of example. The Camayos car…

[FedSmoker5827]

Honestly, alot of balance could be done via imperial stat changes and through shadow tech. There are some cards that will clash for sup and treaty but im sure a middle ground can be found there they dont affect each other. Obviously I say this because all treaty games are played in imperial and rarely do sup games get to imperial, so balance should be done via imperial if you want to balance the 2 game modes. Its actually quite simple, but requires more work on the dev team to consult with top treaty players especially.

[EliteRiflemann]

I think it would be useless, because the problems start from the Industrial Age. And as you said, games of supremacy rarely make it to Imperial (unless it’s a team game), so balancing the Imperial age would have effects right away, but other serious problems in earlier ages would persist.

[Skadidesu]

Imperial Age cards could work too.

[jonasnee4671]

i don’t think separating balance between modes is a good idea, nor that it will be the thing that matters that much.

simply what (normal) cards someone has access to can already balance factions a lot. no one in rush uses the level 1 plantation and mill cards cause they simply aren’t useful, and no one in treaty uses 700 wood.

imperial age cards are only going to cause more problems than they solve.

think about the British ability to cow, no one uses that in rush because its bad, but in treaty its a defining feature of the civ that separates good players from bad ones. its not going to improve balance in either mode to put cow cards into age 5, and its completely fine that the card is better for treaty than rush, so it needs no buffs or nerfs.

@EliteRiflemann

that the goal today is to play very defensively to buy time to reach Industrial and abusing very strong mechanics is directly the fault of the treaty balance

i strongly dissagree.

most treaty strong faction got nerfed, very few got buffed. france got nerfed, i think only the UK and spain got buffed? and i think its arguable how much either really got a buff.

ofc they have released treaty focused factions, such as the USA.

splitting balance is only going to cause confusion to an already confusing game, its not a viable solution to make imperial musketeers in treaty do 20% more dmg than in rush because of balance concerns. the correct way of solving it is by giving factions cards or special economies that lets them in the right circumstances train far more/better musketeers to make up for it.

there are also some factions that play very differently between rush and treaty, in rush russia is mostly infantry, in treaty its mostly cavalry and buildings. its not that russian cav is bad in rush or that cheap infantry doesn’t have its use in treaty, its that your economies fundamentally change what you can do with your military.

[FiveWind6951746]

@jonasnee4671 nice to see you.