Unofficial Rebalance Patch Mod?

[fsdavilagaming]

A small but focused Unofficial Rebalance Patch for AoE3:DE, aimed at addressing some long-standing balance concerns - particularly with Ottoman Empire and Baja California (and some outlaws) - while preserving the core feel and flow of the game.

Visualize the proposal, documentation and installation instructions in the Modding thread: Age of Empires III: DE - Unofficial Rebalance Patch

Download Link for the v1.0 Patch: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qzRd0nDecN5ox9MFTXAUj33SBJfm8Zv-/view?usp=sharing

Full documentation and changelogs: Age of Empires III: Unofficial Rebalance Patch - Google Docs

[M00Z1LLA]

I already attempted something like this awhile back:

Community Balance

With the abandonment of developer support, it’s time for the fans to take a crack at fixing some of the more obvious errors. Below is my start at this by reining in the overtuned units of the infamous bottomans, along with a few other miscellaneous tweaks to other civs. But to really do this justice I need some input from the community. Does this go far enough, or are the nerfs too harsh? Are there other shipments/timings that are very problematic? And don’t just limit it to Ottomans. Units …

It’s a work in progress and it also includes some bug fixes and benign bits of flavour for a few cards/techs, but the goal is similar.

As for your changes, I don’t really understand wanting to nerf the basic Ottoman units like Janissaries, Sipahi, and Great Bombards. Ottomans had all that in vanilla and weren’t being called broken back then. What’s changed is cards and techs that make them busted and new units that are massively overtuned. I think that’s what needs to be addressed, not the original stuff that wasn’t historically a problem.

[fsdavilagaming]

Hey there. I am a legacy player myself, only migrated to DE recently (also, keep in mind this is a work in progress). Could you give some card and tech examples for Ottoman rebalance? Also, what is your opinion on the rest of the changes regarding Baja?

I took a look at your thread, and what a waste that not many people are looking forward to a unofficial community rebalance solution

[M00Z1LLA]

@fsdavilagaming

Could you give some card and tech examples for Ottoman rebalance?

A lot of it is the Mosque techs getting buffed which makes the Mosque Construction card extremely good.

I believe Sipahis originally got their resistance buff from a team card, but then it got moved to be a Mosque tech which makes it synergize way too well with Mosque Construction.

Topçu Corps is another one where it got changed to reduce Great Bombard pop.

Then there’s other cards like the one that reduces heavy infantry cost. Back when jans were the only infantry it was just mediocre, but now it also discounts massively overtuned units like Humbaraci.

@fsdavilagaming

Also, what is your opinion on the rest of the changes regarding Baja?

I’m not as familiar with Mexico, but one of the big issues with Baja is the massive bounty from Soldiers of Fortune so I think that needs to be addressed. I didn’t get around to nerfing outlaws yet but I think you’re on the right track with that. I had also reduced the population boost from all revolutions from +200 to +150 so a similar idea as you (though I think I may have left it as absolute so I’ll have to double check that it works as intended).

@fsdavilagaming

what a waste that not many people are looking forward to a unofficial community rebalance solution

I didn’t post it anywhere other than this forum so it probably could have some more traction if I shared it elsewhere. But I also wasn’t too eager on soliciting opinions from some sections of the community because lots of the pros are just drama queens that want their main civ buffed and others nerfed.

[Kingfisher1787]

Ottoman’s historic weaknesses have all been removed…

Disclaimer: I’m talking about history within the game, this is a game balance discussion, not one about history. Ottomans were, for a long time a civ with a very good military and poor economy. They have incredible age 2 builds available to them, largely based off of crates sent from the home city to power the production of powerful units that punched above what their cost implies. Add to that an amazing FF with great cards and you have a powerhouse of a civ. It has also long had great FI and R…

The above thread is a little old, but I actually still think it’s fairly relevant with regards to the issues with Otto.

Regarding Mexico, I have two main issues;

1. they are insane in treaty.
2. Age 2.5 Falc pushes in team games.

Having 4 falcs and 30 Janissaries in your base before you can have 2 falcs is really obnoxious because some civs basically can’t kill artillery in age 2. This could probably be fixed with a -20% attack/hp that goes away after you return to Mexico.

The former requires I explain what the issues are in treaty, so I’ll direct you to part of an argument from another thread.

@Kingfisher1787

@hamletlopez

And those are plain units wich are representative, imperial units are just the same but with an increased percentage of attack and HP each upgrade.
HC shipments and Native improvements are situational on every map and civ.

Native improvements vary by map (excluding the ones obtained via the Federal cards Mexico has, but those specifically help others units so I’ll ignore those for the moment).

HC shipments aren’t “situational” in treaty mode. You can always have the option for Fully Upgraded Chinacos (and realistically Salts and natives) in a single deck.

Chinacos don’t straight up beat FU Musketeers, what they do is cut what should be a massive win for the Musketeers to a modest one.

“But Chinacos are lancer cavalry! They’re supposed to trade better into Musketeers!” You say.

Lancers are supposed to lose harder to Hussars, and Chinacos don’t if you conduct an actual test with full upgrades (FU, or “Full Upgraded” meaning all techs and cards available that buff attack, and or hp within the homecity, or buildings available to you on any map) and an upgraded flag aura. In fact, at that level, Chinacos will have a significant advantage (and “significant” here, could mean a margin as small as say, 10-20% of total hp left after an even pop fight.). It’s also worth noting that Dragoons are less-used by most civs in treaty as they’re quite pop inefficient. If you say “just make dragoons”, half the civs won’t be able to trade efficiently into a mixed army comp (especially when Mexico might have like 50% more units already).

A unit that kills Skirms faster, takes a much-less-bad trade vs Musketeers, and soft counters other heavy cavalry is concerning in its own right. But as I’ve said numerous times now, that’s not the only overtuned thing Mexico has in the late game. Their skirms, their pop efficient eco, their guaranteed 35-40 pop equivalent of natives, all work together to make a civ that’s unmatched in treaty.

On their own, Chinacos would probably be fine, but when you look at all of it together, it’s stronger than any other civ in treaty.

Now, please, look through the below and explain to me how all the below changes, taken together, would unreasonable hurt the civ in a 1v1.

@Kingfisher1787

@hamletlopez

the game is more or less balanced at the moment. Mexico as civ is not even the most picked nor the one with the most wins, that is still otto.

Let me start here, firstly, your chart shows an over 50% WR with Mexico. Usually WR is an unreliable balancing metric because the ELO system is designed to produce 50% winrates. This can result in inflation or deflation of players’ Elo in order to keep a near 50/50 WR. I don’t think Mexico is op in Sup 1v1, but your own graph, if anything, implies they are. Pointing to pick-rate isn’t fair here because you can only pick a civ you own and I think a majority of players don’t own all civs.

Secondly, we’re talking specifically about Treaty. I’m not sure if we track WR in their, but everyone who plays treaty seriously knows Mexico is extremely OP in that mode.

What had I suggested nerfing? Did I consider balance effects on 1v1 Sup?

First off, things locked behind age 4-5 will have relatively little impact on a 1v1. Age 5 is rarely reached and, unless things have changed a lot, most games end before age 4. With that in mind, let’s look at my list:

@Kingfisher1787

• Charged attack from Presidential Lances is now an attack that just adds +2 AoE to what is otherwise a normal attack.

Presidial Lancers (4). I suggested a nerf to the changed attack as it’s insanely strong late game. It won’t show up in most 1v1s but a simple solution if my nerf was too much would be adding to the card: “Guard Chinaco” tech costs 40% less. That would off-set the nerf to it as a 1v1 card while still being a significant nerf in Treaty.

@Kingfisher1787

25% less Conqs, and Aztecs from the TP-less native alliances. That’ll keep round numbers.

Nerfs to Tlaxcala Alliance (Fed 2) and Aztec Pueblos (Fed 4), neither of these are used much in 1v1. They might be taken, but usually aren’t sent. In treaty both are extremely powerful and should be nerfed. Lets balance these cards based on where they are actually used.

@Kingfisher1787

• Smokeless Powder should be nerfed, half the cost for half the effect (not just for Mexico).

Smokeless Powder (obtained via Tlaxcala Alliance or a Jesuit Mission) adds 10% attack to Gunpowder Inf and Cav, and 5% to artillery for 250f and 250c. An across-the-board nerf will not be an issue 1v1, especially if the cost is cut in half. Just make it 5% for GP units and Artillery. This is rarely used in 1v1 (unless someone built a Jesuit Mission TP in which case it’s a good nerf because Conqs are op as is). Mexico rarely uses the card that allows it to be accessed.

@Kingfisher1787

Skirm combat card in age 3 now adds +10%/10%, researches Veteran Salts, and adds the big button stealth ability. (Currently +15%/15% and adds the stealth big button).

This is the first one that might be an issue in a normal 1v1, but I don’t think it’s unfair. Guerilla Tactics (3) would be +10/10% for Rifle Infantry and would Research Vet Salts and give them the stealth ability big button. It’s a small nerf with a small buff that won’t change much but will be big in treaty as Salt nerfs continue to pile up.

@Kingfisher1787

Age 4 Skirm range card now adds +1 range, down from +2.

Plan of Miramare (4) transforms all your Salts into Guard French Skirms and adds +2 Rifle Inf range. I suggested cutting the range in half with no other changes. If needed cut the cost from 750f 750w to 600f 600w. +1 range and the power spike is still nice, but +2 range is OP in treaty Skirm wars.

@Kingfisher1787

• Hacienda trickle rate from livestock is 10% lower. Livestock trickle is 10% lower.

This is the second one that would have an impact on 1v1. If you consider this a major concern just have aging to 2 give a second cow. At that point it would basically be a straight up buff to 1v1 while nerfing something that is an issue in treaty where people regularly have like 57 livestock working.

@Kingfisher1787

• Age 5 Federal Flag card’s improvement to the damage aura is cut in half. I think the base is +10% to current stats, and I’m guessing card makes it +20%, so make it +15% with the card. That’s still huge as a Current-Stats-Upgrade.

Land of Juarez (Fed 5). +20% damage on all Infantry and Cavalry near the flag (which also gets +70 range) is too much in treaty and will have no meaningful impact on 1v1.

For the number of overall units Mexico gets (115 pop space plus approximately 35 pop worth of natives), both Chinacos and Salts are too good late game. Mexico gets an army similar in size to the Dutch but with an economy that matches or surpasses that of a regular European civilization. Most of the changes required to fix Mexico’s treaty issues won’t have a significant impact on 1v1 and therefore should be made. The only reason not to balance Treaty would be if it would have a meaningful negative effect on 1v1 or team.

@hamletlopez

Mexico as civ is not even the most picked nor the one with the most wins, that is still otto.

I’ve been a very vocal supporter of nerfs to Ottomans, but I’d like to think it possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Ottomans are a scourge to 1v1 and Team, but the level of imbalance in those is dwarfed by how strong Mexico is in treaty.

[OperaticShip743]

@M00Z1LLA

I believe Sipahis originally got their resistance buff from a team card, but then it got moved to be a Mosque tech which makes it synergize way too well with Mosque Construction.

Topçu Corps is another one where it got changed to reduce Great Bombard pop.

Move both improvements to the Imperial era.

[hamletlopez]

It’s been mentioned before that Treaty and Late Game modes are niche, with very few players and quite negatively segregating for newcomers.
It’s in 1v1 that the developers sought to achieve a competitive balance, as evidenced by the graphics. Top players rarely use Mexico or the USA because they know their weaknesses, and in that game mode, standard matches don’t last more than 20 minutes.

Therefore, it’s best to make a patch specifically for Treaty, and for 1v1 make very few changes to the core stats of civilizations so as not to end up destroying their essence.

[platypus_slayer1]

Mexicoz namely for baja, is currently in the top most played civs at 1800+. At 4th now and climbing.
Teams climbing too but slower
There is 100% an issue when a paid dlc civ is jumping past old favorites our relatively conservative higher elo folks. Its win rate is spiking similar to ottos where people playing mexico are inflating their elo, albeit i havent quite seen enough data to say its “as bad” as ottoman is. And its every elo bajaxico seems to be doing this just most pronounced at 1800+ elo in 1v1s

[Kingfisher1787]

Lots of late game things have been nerfed over the years because they caused issues in treaty or team (team is popular and sometimes goes late). To name a few, insta-cuirs, 20 range dragoons, 50 range mortars, Team Dueling School, etc. None of those things showed up in most 20 minute games.

Age 2 falcs, among other things, cause major issues in team (which I think probably sees more players than 1v1).

Also, you always seem to forget to explain how the things I’m suggesting would

@hamletlopez

end up destroying their essence.

Almost none of what I suggested would matter to any meaningful degree in most 1v1 games.

[hamletlopez]

Mex may became some popular, I think because of players having curiosity of streamers showing them play.
But the win rate is still pretty bad, not really competitive

@platypus_slayer1

There is 100% an issue when a paid dlc civ is jumping past old favorites

Bro, the DLC is like $1 USD in steam offers. I don’t think its pay to win, and most players dont even use it.

[platypus_slayer1]

Its popular due to baja being an extrenely easy revolt with a solid win rate. Our 1800 plus players have sat consistently on legacy civs so its not them suddenly playing baja, its mexico breaking through from what I can see
Win rates are always going to be a bit hard to parse in a system trying to force 50/50 win rates but fwiw 48-52% win rates arent good or bad. However it gets hard to parse out baja specifically (or any revolt) as many mexican mains dont use baja. What we can see is prior to current patch mexico at 1800+ was played almost 4x less and half a win rate of 46%- suggesting something is pushing the win rate up despite new players/games. That’s not FOMO/trend indicative.
Still im curious if we can somehow lock down revolt games to compare baja vs other mexico win rates. For now I know almost every event recent and going forward is agreeing to ban baja as its too good on some maps.
And to be on topic, really at the end of the day am uonoffical patch wont be adopted quickly but if we ever get 1 more patch devs will be looking to see what the community is wanting shifted and what solutions they are proposing. And OPs are pretty moderate even if I think some cut pretty hard.