Unofficial Rebalance Patch Mod?

[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.