I think Huskarl is actually closer to a UU redesign case.
Its identity comes from its own stats, esp. its high PA, rather than Goths removing core infantry upgrades to compensate for it. Goths missing Stone Wall is also different because it doesn’t make other options more expensive, and Palisade Wall still covers the basic need.
That’s why I think Tiger Cav can be balanced by redesigning the UU itself. Removing Plate Barding Armor affects the whole armored cav line, not just Tiger Cav.
And removing Platemail Armor effects the entire gothic infantry game. Heck they even dont get Arson because they technically get it free and dont get gamesons to promote the archer slaying power of huskies
I understand the Goth example. Missing techs can definitely shape a civ identity.
However, I think Huskarl actually shows why UU redesign can sometimes be a better solution. Its anti-archer role mainly comes from the UU itself, esp. its high PA, rather than removing techs to balance the unit.
My point is missing techs work better when they define a civ identity, rather than just being a balance tool for a UU.
For Tiger Cav, my concern is that removing Plate Barding Armor affects Heavy Hei Guang Cavalry and the whole armored cav line, not just Tiger Cav. The compensation may help Tiger Cav, but the downside is spread across more units.
That’s why I think redesigning Tiger Cav itself is worth considering.
But the removed tech is a balance issue and its that way to really encourage the use of swordsmen to counter them super cost effectively
But what’s the point of having full blacksmith for every civ tbh?
Please quote the part you’re responding to. Right now you’re responding to your interpretation of my post, not to my actual argument.
I think the focus should be on the importance of Plate Barding Armor, rather than on an argument I didn’t make.
I’m not saying every civ should have a full blacksmith. Wei is actually a good example: even with Plate Barding Armor, it can still keep other missing techs like Plate Mail Armor.
My point is that Plate Barding Armor is a major upgrade for the armored cavalry line, so removing it to balance Tiger Cav affects more than just the UU itself.
The Wei imperial UT give melee armor to all cavalry units. So missing PBA means your cavalry is better against melee units and weaker against ranged units. Therefore Wei become a civ who (late game) should avoid (light cav for 1v1 and gold either way) cavalry against archers, but should use them against melee units.
Yes, that is the point: slightly changing the way you play melee cavalry as Wei.
I pick a civ because I like using what they have and am fine with what they lack.
When you play Turks/Burmese, one of the question you get is question “Do you mind having bad skims in castle age?”. When you play Celts, one of the questions is “do you mind having bad range and bad stabled in imperial age?”. When you play Malians, you get the question “do you mind having underwhelming range units and pikemen in imperial age?”.
If you do, then do not play them.
I would agree as a general rule, but disagree if it has to be this way for every civ. These kind of UTs do not give it back exactly, it is always stronger in some aspects and sometimes weaker in some other aspects.
And there is also the castle paywall. For instance, Vikings lost Thumbrings and got +1 attack UT to avoid the fast imperial into FU arbalesters strategy.
Malians UT is good to put them at a right spot balance-wise, because high PA infantry usually lose to FU champions, and Malians lack halberdiers and BF does not change how little they would be used. Malians getting Hussars/Paladins/imp-camels/BlastFurnace while replacing the UT is too big of a buff.
Players aren’t against limitations.
Players are against limitations without a clear purpose.
A good civilization design should make players think:
“I play this civ, so I use this style.”
Not:
“I play this civ, so other options were removed.”
A limitation should create meaningful choices, not simply take options away.
I agree missing techs can be part of civ identity. Some civs are defined by what they lack, and that’s fine.
But there’s a difference between missing a unit and missing a blacksmith tech.
Missing a unit is usually clear. Turks lacking some infantry/skirm options is obvious because they aren’t built around those units.
Missing a blacksmith tech affects an entire unit line. If Wei is a cav civ, removing Plate Barding Armor doesn’t just balance Tiger Cav; it changes the role of all cavalry.
If Wei is too versatile, there’re many other ways to adjust it. Keeping Plate Barding Armor would also let the Imperial UT add something new instead of replacing a removed upgrade.
I agree this approach can work for some civs, but my concern is that it’s becoming more common in newer civs. When every strong feature is balanced by removing more technologies, it increases the learning cost for players.
There is a meaningful choice for the Wei cavalry is to say oh no I have a struggle with archers and spears good thing I have full Skirms or even Parthianized Xianbei!
Wu: “Our cavalry is the strongest among the 3K. The only problem is that our warhorses come from Shu — a civ with only Forging and no Bloodlines.”
If you want me to argue the historical trash fire of 3k against you then you aren’t gonna find me in dispute of any dissent you may have. That is however not a gameplay argument