The win rate of Goths is currently slightly above average, sitting near civs like the Teutons, Berbers, Malians and Indians. Seems fine…
Also, I’m usually not one of those people, but I noticed you are cancer really cancer saying the cancer word cancer cancer a cancer lot. This can be interprated as cancer inconsiderate to cancer cancer survivors. I’m all for a curse word for emphasis ones every now and then, or sometimes more like ones or twice per average post, but you’re currently at the point where I might tone it down a bit.
I am really sorry for that and i totally didn’t notice and i didn’t mean anything by saying this or to hurt anyone, i will take what you said in consideration, the this is when i get mad about something i just can’t hold myself back and say rash words
If I look it up now those Koreans are switched out for Berbers. As a person who likes camel civs I can confirm I’m a little intimidated by several of the infantry civilizations, because the camels do nothing and the knights need to find the right places to engage. And that’s probably good, given how little infantry gets to do in the current overall meta. Weakness to archers or not doesn’t mean a lot if I don’t want to be forced to rely on archers anyway.
Uh what? Goths are one of the only FOUR civs in the whole game who is cursed with a lack of both siege engineer and siege ram, only BBC is making up for the rest.
That’s simply false. Siege ram + halbs is an army composition that push entire civilizations to their knees because of how hard it punishes the enemy for not making infantry.
Heck it is obvious the original ES developers wanted the Goth siege to be bad, just look at all AoK and AoC civs, besides the Goth not one of them lack both siege ram and siege engineer.
You could argue Huns and Turks have worse siege because they are stuck with mangonels, but they both at least have siege ram + a bonus for other siege weapons.
Not at all, suince SRs are also a counter to Archery Range units, while Tebs are not.
Goths are one of the most extremely one-dimensional civs in the game.
Their game plan is solely Infantry, because everything else they have is sub-standard.
If goth is only good at one thing and subpar on everything else, why nerf their only specialties? Because someone does not like dealing with huskarls? Actively nerfing a civ to make them below average or at least weaker seems a bit over the top to me.
If anything the huskarls would do well with a pierce armor buff to reduce certain archers(Mangudai) dmg from 2 to 1 - all this talk about changing them by nerfing them annoys me.
Better the archer unit that huskarls are supposed to counter not be as much of a problem so they might worry less about a near uncatchable foe and focus more on the civs actual weaknesses.
They do not need to catch them, they need only bare their presence - currently ignoring them is deadly even to huskarls - yet catching them is certainly no real option in most situations - best to buff so that at least it is bareable to ignore them.
I have an idea what they should do to nerf goths a tiny bit:
Generic changes:
Buff longswords, 2-handed swordsmen and champions with +5 HP. Reduce their bonus damage to eagles by 1.
Remove supplies but reduce base cost of M@A line to 50F20G. More drushes, yay.
Goth changes:
Reduce goth bonus to infantry being 25% cheaper starting in feudal age. Dark age nerf but M@A line would be cheaper in feudal/castle age.
-> Huskarl cost to 75F35G resources -> 56F26G new cost compared to old 56F28G castle and 52F26G imp.
-> New champ cost for goths is 38F15G compared to old 39F13G on imp and halbs would cost 6 resources more
-> Champions would be cheaper counter (no need for supplies) against goths and Huskarl would tiny bit more expensive on imp.
Now this would be flat out nerf to goths in dark age and imp while giving them a clear counter so following would have to happen also:
Goths get siege engineers so they can use heavy scorpions and bombard cannons lategame so they don’t lack backline.