Ultimate thread to nerf the remaining S tier civs

But important they still move slower :wink:

Maybe 15 % would also be eough of a compensation, but 50 F less in the beginning is a lot that somewhere needs to be compensated.

1 Like

This buff is stronger than old Viking bonus. With 10% faster villagers, Viking player can make everything faster, faster boar luring and taking no damage from boar, faster walling, faster building eco buildings etc. Militia line also can’t damage to 10% faster villager (villager speed is 0.88 and militia is 0.90). Handcart effect eco less than wheelbarrow, researching faster and in castle age, there is multiple TC but you must idle your feudal age 1 tc 75 seconds in order to get wheelbarrow.

10% extra speed is far more stronger than +50 food. Skirmisher can catch archer with this bonus without any problem. Halberdier speed will be equal to Shotel which is huge.

I also think that free wheelbarrow is stronger than free handcart, as it is very early and allows very smooth feudal age. But I feel like it is the identity of Vikings along with longboats, berzerks and arbalesters. I think with only free wheelbarrow, Vikings would probably still have one of the best eco boni of the game, but will many allow a few other civs to catch up in castle age: 3 villagers 225 fixed resources + ~300 variables resources (I guess 10 farmers harvest +3/min during 10 minutes before other civs research wheelbarrow) instead of 5 villagers + 725 fixed resources + ~ 300+600 variable resources (600 is kind of a random number, as I have no clue when other civs can afford hand cart).

But as you said, having both wheelbarrow 50% cheaper and faster would also be a nice nerf: only 1.5 / 2.5 villagers lead in feudal/castle (I upgraded the research time to be more than portuguese who feel like a better late game civ)

Either case sounds like good nerf while keeping a good economy the the Vikings I think.

For Berzerk, it is another issue: I don’t know what is the “desired usage” of berzerks: a better champion or a raiding unit. Both are fine for me, but I wouldnt make changes as long as this question is not answered.

I don’t know how strong of a nerf it is. With chinese I always have 15 to 30 seconds TC idle time, I think pro never get less than 10s idle time, so the nerf would “only” decrease the villager bonus by 0.5 vils for good players, and would be a buff of villagers by weaker players. And it is a very good deal for poeple chinese as they also get +50 food and a very consistent villager bonus.

Villager nerf sounds good. I am not sure about El dorado.

  • Is +550f/+50 gold a lot ? Against Mayans, it is hard especially against the eagle spam and the arbalesters spam. If the cost increase is enough to delay the eagle paly, then it sounds good.
  • 95hp pikemens sounds like a lot, maybe too much
  • 100hp 2H Swordmen is definitely way too much.

I fully agree that Franks should be defined by top tier paladins. +20% allows them +1 hit by halbardiers, I do not think they need +25%. Even I they lose vs Teuton’s or 4-relics lituanians paladins, it should be fine. It is good if some civs can catch up, otherwise all competitive multiplayers will have franks regardless of the map and setting.

I think removing the berry bonus may be good though. I was hesitating abobut it because in competitive 1v1, people usually prioritize Franks in maps with berries. But you could give this chance to another civ (like spanish, in exchange to losing an important late game tech). Maybe my nerfs for Franks where too weak as I only delay the power spike.

  • I agree with removing Hand cart, but free wheelbarrow in dark age sounds OP. I am sure with only free wheelbarro in feudal age, they will still be good.
  • I do not mind about regenerating champions/pikemens with berzerkergang, would not make the civ more OP.

I would first like to see the pick and win rate of Lituanians after the last patch (esp. removing blast furnace). Maybe they will be fine already. If not:

  • The +100 food would be the next change, as it is the same amount as Persians +50f/+50w.
  • I do not think they need a compensation. I also think 20% speed may be ridiculously high.
    But again, I think they are fine as they are now, and removing blast furnace may (hopefully) already keep many players away from the civ.

At least Turkish Hussars dies easily to tbeir counters, thing that doesn’t happen exactly well with Sicilian cavaliers.

I think you have to see this interview done long time before DE (SOTL with TaToh about Chinese perfomance), here talks about how strong Chu Ko Nu is: The Curious Case of the Chinese Win Rate ft. TaToH - YouTube
Also I will repeat, Chu Ko Nu isn’t used because the Chinese can tech quickly into Arbalest really easy since can be massed from Feudal…(Same as Leitis, barely prefered over Knights, yet Leitis lost 1 PA)

24G? I don’t think is problematic for 1v1, also Franks are at least dealable in 1v1, in team games they are just insane.
Also nerfing their eco nerfs pretty much them at 1v1.

Read this

And who cares about low elo, you can even make the Chinese an auto civ for low levels yet they will underperform.

Who judges what is healthy for the game?
I say Hauberk is fine for me, no need to nerf.


We are all judging what is better for the game, we can all be wrong of course. And I think we should not be the one to take the final decision, it’s the job of the balance team. We are just all throwing ideas, while staying as reasonable as we can.
What pros are saying is also important, as most of the upper half of the ranked player are probably copying playstyle and civ choice of pros. And even pros should not take the final decision.

I agree with your second point, I think Hauberk is entirely fine, and I do not see any reason to nerf it. I do not see any problem with the 50% damage reduction from sicilians either, it is a cool concept, and it should be fine given the play rate and the win rate of the civ…


You guys act like having things that break gameplay/balance are fine as winrates show it…
Saracens had the archer attack bonus ve building yet their winrates all were about just 47%, I guess FE did wrong deleting that bonus then as is basically a nerf.


What does Hauberk break in terms of balance or gameplay?
The arbalesters’ dominance?

Making an unit that makes counter units harder to use to essentially outrightfully undealable

I think we all agree that nobody expects a single halb to kill a cavalier/knight/paladin right?
2 halbs, even Tatar ones, can still kill 1 sicilian cavalier.
Those without halbs, paladins or battle elephants can reasonably kill it with camels, almost in a 1:1 proportion, with lower cost.
If you don’t have paladins or you can’t make them, don’t have camels but have FU champs, you can kill sicilian cavaliers with 2 champs, maybe even with 2:3 proportion, a champ is 65 res, sicilian cavalier has standard 135 res cost. You can almost kill it even with 2 two handed swordsmen, if champion upgrade is too high for you. Burmese/Aztec/japanese 2hs can do it.
Arbalester is not a counter to the knight line as far as I remember.


Not exactly, I do not only think about win rates, but also play rates, and most importantly pro games. You are correct one the following: I do not care whether Hauberk or the sicilian 50% damage reduction “break the game or not” if the civ is barely played in competitive games. Because then I think that it does not give you a too strong advantage compared to the other civs.

Maybe having both of these boni for the same unit is a little too strong, as the paladins and elephants become the main counters, which barely represent a third of the civs. But in that case, we should see some pros trying them in 1v1 arabia maps where the meta is oriented toward arbalests mayans/vikings. And if it is too strong, we should see many players pick the civs in ranked, and then we see the difference in play rates. If the play rate of a civ is of 2% over 39 civs, I will just think “If it is that bead, why aren’t anyone using it to boost their ELO or win competitive games?”

If we remove this kind of tech “only” because it “breaks the game”, then maybe we should also remove some units like huzkarl who do the same. If the Sicilian knight becomes too strong, my first reaction will not be “This rech is stupid, we have to remove it”, but “Do we still want to keep the concept of a civ that is strong against counter ? Maybe we should remove blast furnace to ensure that most civs can beat then with knights”…

I also think something needs a nerf when I think “This gameplay is rediculous” when looking at a pro game while the pro is trying to win. Maybe this is also “breaking the game” for you, and in this case I agree to an extend as most of us felt this way when seeing the famous “TheVipers 1 Million arbalesters” Mayans/Saracens game

1 Like

Unpopular opinion: Out of all civs mentioned here only Mayans truly need a nerf.


Unpopular opinion: when we talk about balance, what do we want to achieve? Tournament balance, Arabia balance, water map balance, 2100+ elo balance, 1500+ elo balance? How do we measure the balance, by win rate, pick rate, win rate on all maps, win rate on best map?

I really hope that the game can be balanced without Arabia tho.

All balances should be taken into account. At least I tried in my proposals to account for the elos and maps te mentioned civs excel in, tweak them down their and maybe even improve them a bit in the other elos/maps they currently don’t.

1 Like

combination of all maybe, using winrate, pickrate, Pro feedback, tournament use, fairness for gameplay and balance around counterplay, especially at 2k


For vikings, I think they suck on closed water maps (river maps) as they lack fireships. One example would be Greenland. If you nerf longboat (which loses to galleon btw) you may as well want to buff it elsewhere imo.

1 Like

And at the same time Longboat is way cheaper and easy to mass, they defeat Galleon at massed battles on equal resources.

Plus can’t remember the last time I saw a 2k at islands as vikings without using Longboat

I think Galleons win against longboat given same resources. Longboat are much better against fireships than Galleon is, that is their selling point (I think production speed also matters but cannot pull out the numbers right now). If you watch tournament games, you should realize that vikings tend to switch back to Galleon at imp age, when fireships are less of a concern.

Vikings are really weak against fireships at Fedual age tho, thats why it is never picked in e.g. Rockslide.

War galleys need more docks to be produced and an upgrade. Also longboats are faster and therefore can chose which fight they want to take.
That can have a huge impact in naval battles were numbers can snowball very fast, as there aren’t as sophisticated as land warfare.

And speaking of that longboats are even better in herassing the enemy shoreline than war galleys.