Bulgarians is not a bad or weak civ for the most part. They have 47% W/R at minimum which is okay. The issue is they are not attractive at high level. They are one of the 2 civs that was not drafted in HC_V main event and only one that was not drafted in qualifier either…
Since it is about high level players. I guess we have to see what pros think about Bulgarians. Hera asked to buff their TC stone discount from 50% to 75%. I don’t think this would change anything in HC_V. Edit : And DauT asked to give them the civ bonus that has been removed from Persians - “Cavalry generates 5 gold per kill”
I think this is just one tournament where maps are not in favor of Bulgarians. They are a solid choice in open land maps. But HC_V was full of hybrid maps and closed maps. The only open land map was Arabia and obviously there would be a lot of civs that were better. So I think Bulgarians is fine for now.
As RBW tournament is probably coming very soon, I think Bulgarians will be used there at decent rate. If not, maybe then we can talk about changes for them.
Edit: They were undrafted in NAC5 as well despite having random bans. So they are the only civ that was not touched in 2 consecutive big tournaments. That is a big sign I guess.
They gave Bulgarians a discount on TC’s for stone. Great. That’s not the bottleneck for TC’s. Never has been. We say the point is so that they can drop a defensive tower and then still be able to drop a TC. Sounds good. This doesn’t actually help with a proactive strategy, which is something you would pick a civ for. Ergo, you might pick franks or berbers for very similar reasons, because you’re looking to take advantage of strong knights. This is a proactive strategy, something you pick to plan to do in game.
If the bonus were instead “Towers cost -50% stone” than this would be pushing players towards a proactive strategy. Now, this would probably be frowned upon, as generally speaking they’ve done a whole lot to disincentivize tower rushes with changes, but the point is, discounting the TC’s to allow for a tower doesn’t incentivize a tower strategy directly, it just creates flexibility in defensive, reactive options.
When you look over the bulgarians bonuses you will find very quickly that they lack bonuses that support a proactive playstyle. The few that they do have to show (faster working Blacksmiths, free Militia ups, cheaper techs from the smith) could be argued as defensive boons moreso than a framework for an offensive strategy, though I’d argue the intention with the militia ups is to specifically point them to be proactive with infantry, the main problem being that infantry suffers in practically all phases of the game.
It’s hard to make infantry the backbone of an offensive strategy, given it’s lack of… strategy. You don’t have mobility, range, or really strong value from such an investment, therefore the best offense that the bulgarian bonuses points you towards is something you should be suspicious of immediately.
So, summary. Bulgarians didn’t get picked in HC because people are picking civs that give them a strong bonus to a proactive strategy they believe can win a game. The Bulgarians do not have an appealing proactive strategy plan because the few things they do get that could help are limited in their utility and scope. Their bonuses are clearly designed with defensive, reactive play in mind, with cheaper techs being done faster in order to make smooth transitions as part of a defensive gameplan.
I like the suggestion someone gave to make cavalry affected by infantry Blacksmith techs. It synergizes well with the Konnik and their faster-working Blacksmiths.
I actually find their design somewhat contradictory. The Krepsot and half stone cost TC do give the impression of defensive boom play. But free militia line upgrade with cheaper blacksmith techs call for aggressive play. The cheaper blacksmith tech can be used as defensive quick transition but can also be used as offense which is the case right now.
I’m starting to think this Goths style cheaper and faster bonus is not really appealing in high elo level as this make you too predictable.
Bulgarians bonuses reveal a design push towards the simultaneous play of infantry and cavalry. Therefore the increased blacksmith work rate, the discount of blacksmith upgrades, the nature of the Bulgarians UU being both infantry and cavalry… overall, the civ designation as “infantry and cavalry civ” in all its actuality.
Knights-pikes is an already known composition, strong versus camel riders. With Bulgarians, you can have knights-swords, besides pikes, to be strong versus pikes as well.
They are just another civ that needs militia-line, towers, feudal play to become more mainstream to be a good civ. Most of it once again comes down to wall/house hp, position of resources and a few other things. This is also the reason why as you said they are only popular in RBW which has a decent amount of aggressive maps.
At best I’d give them a tower related bonus or something else that can make them force longer feudal age play.
That’d actually be an excellent bonus for them as well.
While the bonuses indicate that as a strength of the civilization, they have very serviceable, nearly FU HCA and an extensive siege tech tree. You don’t need to give these options to the civ if you want them to be Cav/Infantry focused. I think that pretty clearly contradicts the idea that they have “no transitions”
I think you’ve missed my point. I’m not saying that their lack of a good proactive gameplan is reason to rework or substantially buff them, I’m simply stating that they’ve not designed to give them a strong proactive gameplan and that’s what you draft around when you want to win.
Ultimate siege units like Siege Onager, and Heavy Cav. Archer, may appear more frequently in team games instead of 1v1s. I guess every civ should have some more options available, for team games and to retain some versatility.
Right, but these options are available alongside a faster working blacksmith with cheaper upgrades, making transitions not only easier to afford but much faster to execute.
To say this doesn’t infer a defensive orientated playstyle doesn’t seem to land with me. You say the militia upgrades clearly point to this being a focus. While I agree - especially wrapping in bagains - that this is supposed to be a strong point for the civ, I’d also argue it’s absolutely necessary for the potential of transitioning into them quickly. The blacksmith works faster towards that goal, but the Militia line upgrades would grind this transition to a halt if they aren’t provided as they are here.
So rather than saying this is what they want as a priority, I’d argue the bonus more sharply points towards, again, fast transitions.
I feel similarly about their UTs. each buffs a different melee unit line. generally you don’t want double melee comps. Maybe you have a frontline of THS, backed with some range, and Hussar raids are going on elsewhere, but generally it seems these don’t jive well together.
All that being said tho, I don’t know if it’s necessarily bad. You could imagine if these individual options were just a bit more potent, that Bulgarians wouldn’t be thought of as “contradictory” but “have options”.
Also Bulgarians are conceptually a lot like magyars IMO. You don’t have an eco bonus so you have to put some early pressure on your opponent. Magyars have cheaper scouts with free attack upgrades. Bulgarians have free upgrades to the militia line with cheap and quick researching tech upgrades.
On paper, at a glance, that seems like it should work. Problem is militia line is rarely good in feudal or castle. If feudal and caslte age militia-line could be somehow brought more into the meta, then i think Bulgarians would be fine. It’d still feel like some of it’s bonuses don’t jive together, but it’d feel less like contradictions and more like options if Bulgarians could more often be playing the game they want to play.
The big problem with them is that they are basically centered around brief power spikes when you get your cheap blacksmith Technologies earlier and quicker.
Across most of the player base, this is quite good, but at higher skill levels, they know how to delay for just a few minutes, and that is all they need in order to nullify the advantage.
This is why I think giving them 20 stone per technology research would be a good, synergistic improvement. At lower skill levels, a small amount of stone isn’t going to make a massive difference. However, on higher skill levels, where every resource counts, having an extra 40 or 80 Stone will make it far easier to utilize that brief advantage and capitalize on it via Towers or kreposts.
maybe this would be an overbuff, but what if instead bulgarians generated stone when mining gold? Like the poles bonus but reversed.
Same effect of having more stone BUT it’s also a passive eco bonus. If you don’t think you can get damage done you can sit tight, get some extra res from gold mining, age up to castle and have more stone to work with.
having Bulgarians be the militia line version of the magyars seems more interesting to me, but if feudal/castle age militia line can’t be brought more into the meta, then I think an stone related eco bonus could help.