Once again refer to what I actually said
I asked why Romanians would be just a rename. “Because Hindustani were not just a rename” is not a reason.
refer to what I said
You said a rename would be enough.
It wasn’t in the case of the Indian umbrella so idk why you brought it up even
Enough to make them Rus, not enough to make them Wallachians.
As I said on another thread, you’re deliberately misunderstanding everyone you disagree with.
And if you include this, I didn’t say just a rename would be enough:
Well then let’s agree there’s probably a rework similar to India needed:
Slav = early slavic tribes, maybe Niklot campaign
Romanians = current slav campaign and castle
Serbian = new civ
Rus = new civ
Boyar = regional UU
And who would get the current voice lines?
Also @EliteRiflemann can you move all this discourse about slavs to a new topic? I don’t wanna spam this one with unrelated content after asking for it to be made. 
1 Like
I don’t even know how we got on the Slavs topic.
I think it kept snowballing from when I mentioned Goths being used to represent Russians
If this is a turks general then certainly it’s not that offtopic which civ the Dracula campaign would belong to, as well as a serbian civ. Considering they were antagonists in the balkans
I just don’t want to derail this thread. I’m sure you know what “derailing” means in this context, since you keep doing that in the other thread in which we were talking.
The last three years of patches are full of horrible balance decisions.
- Siege engineer benefiting all siege ships:
Teuton Castles, Korean Towers, and Turk bombard towers aren’t designed to be outranged and quickly destroyed by unupgraded cannon galleons with siege engineer. This isn’t a balance change; it’s the dilution of these civilizations’ bonuses unfairly and handicapping civilizations that lack siege engineer.
And Artillery used to provide a +2 range advantage over other cannon galleons, but now it provides only a 6% range advantage over other elite cannon galleons minus siege engineer’s bonuses.
Also, why increase Artillery’s cost when also downgrading its benefit at the same time?
- Shatagni providing +2 range to hand cannoneers:
This is a ridiculously overpowered tech considering their hand cannoneers already have an armor bonus and are backed by a very strong Hindustani economy. On top of that, this tech is so cheap and doesn’t even reduce the accuracy of their hand cannoneers. Their hand cannoneers should never indefinitely outrange their supposed counters with 75% accuracy.
- Giving Treadmill Crane to Byzantines and Britons and removing it from Teutons:
Giving or taking away techs from old civilizations isn’t a good thing, even for balance purposes, which could have been achieved differently.
- First Crusade and Flemish Revolution:
These techs are just out of place and do not fit well.
- Missionaries:
This unit is overbuffed. First, the range and then the armor buff are way too much. They even tank arrows better than Aztec Monks, which should have never been the case.
- Turtle Ships:
Another overbuffed unit. Why does siege engineer benefit turtle ships? They aren’t even a siege ship, and now they are almost unbeatable, especially if your civilization lacks fast fire ships. Turtle ships are supposed to have short range!
- Pirotechnia:
Giving a three-strong stacked bonus on top of a fully upgraded unit is a recipe for breaking balance.
- Janissaries:
They were expecting compensation after the hand cannoneer buff, but instead, they received a range nerf, and the elite version wasn’t even buffed! Janissaries are supposed to carry their +9 HP and +1 range advantage over Hand Cannoneers, or at least the range advantage. Otherwise, they are nothing but a weaker and overpriced version of the hand cannoneer.
It’s like reducing Mangudai’s range, increasing heavy cavalry archer’s HP by 14%, and expecting people to train Mangudai.
- Food Inflating:
Increasing the initial food cost from 130 gold to 150 gold is unacceptable. It’s just arbitrarily removing one of the player’s choices.
Jesus Christ. Another thread complaining Hindustani and Italians gunpowder while asking buff for Janissaries.
13 Likes
Make Turks great again…
It was done purely to DM balance. It barely changes anything to RM, but is a HUGE diference in DM.
Of course a Condotieri counter(-argument) an Elite Janissary (¬‿¬)
2 Likes
solution:
- janissaries affected by thumb ring, gambesons and gillnets
- janissaries now passively generate gold
- janissaries collect relics and place them in castles
- janissary scout intoduced
- turks start with a janissary scout
- hindustanis removed
6 Likes
even if these were all “horrible decisions” the amount of good decisions they made is significantly more that i could write about for a few hours.
3 Likes
Dude I asked for a thread merger specifically so you wouldn’t pull this crap again, why are you pulling this crap again?
You forgot making it possible to upgrade every individual villager into a villager, and instead of it costing resources it rewards you gold.
Because he’s a troll. I shall notify the mods.
Good going.
(20 characters)
Fair enough, Selim’s not only complaining about Turks, so I’ll let this one pass for now.
Turtle ships are slow, expensive, and unavailable in Feudal Age. It’s difficult to mass a significant number of them, and they can’t be everywhere at once or get to where they need to be quickly. So the best counter is usually to attack the Korean player’s economy somewhere where they don’t have turtle ships, rather than taking the turtle ships head on. Koreans have quite a weak economy anyway, especially on water maps where they benefit less from their wood discounts.
Janissaries’ main advantage over hand cannoneers is – and I think always has been – that they’re available in Castle Age without Chemistry. I suppose you could complain that Bohemian hand cannoneers overlap too much with them, but Turks and Bohemians are such different civs otherwise that I don’t think it’s a problem. With 50ish civs in the game, it’s ok to have more than one specialising in gunpowder.
1 Like