I really have no clue what games you are watching or playing but you usually can’t produce from 6 stables knights non stop because setting up that much trade usually takes time and on some maps it’s not even that easy to put a safe trade to begin with so yes it still matters in teamgames.
Don’t tell me you never see trash units in teamgames, wtf.
No one starts at 6 stables non stop lol. Even in early imp you’re only likely to see 3 or 4 stable. You slowly ramp into more and more stables as you add more trade.
Did I say never? I said rarely. And mostly in the early game.
Either way fact is that lithuanians were rhe ones nerfed but If you look at Stats franks are better then lithuanians are, and pros agree on that, so why are lithuanians getting hit hard?
And yes. I almost never see trash units in late game 3v3 and 4v4 at the pro level
Or just revert Blast furnace and Leitis buffs and make Winged Hussar unique to Polish, replace the +150F, remove extra speed and extra PA from Tower Shields from spearmen, so Lith players will have reasons to use Leitis against cavalry, remove Elite Cannon Galleon and Fast fire ship.
Imho the best way to nerf lithuanians would have been reducing starting food to 100 or make it +150 food and -50 wood that slows their start and hybrid map supremacy and keeps the late game as is.
Yes and before you don’t produce anything u rather do some hussars, because even those will do decent vs archers.
I mean what do you do if u lose some trade? Just produce nothing?
Probably because they don’t know how to nerf franks, idk. I think in low elo the pickrate is also higher cause they are obv. easier to play. Maybe any elo likes them to play because they are smoother to play…i don’t think they were really stronger than lithuanians…but maybe i am wrong about this.
Or I could keep producing knights/cavaliers which would do better then Hussars.
If you’re losing enough trade that it’s impacting your production the game is over. Even if you rush out pikes and hussar you’re not going to trade well enough to get your trade back up and running.
Pick rates high at high elo as well.
The pros rate franks higher then lithuanians. And after this I wouldn’t be surprised if cumans, teutons and burgundians join them
Which were the pros who were saying this?
Because in hera’s tierlist not that long ago he put Lithuanians in S Tier overall and Franks in B Tier. I haven’t seen somebody do a Teamgamelist tho
And still Khmer eles were OP as hell at TG
Doesn’t matter when Burmese have Manipuri cavalry.
Again, Battle elephants still needed a nerf at the time.
On top of this is the fact that franks team game pick rate is 2 times what lithuanians is. And thats pre nerf to lithuanians.
Best overall civ is different from best 1v1 civ or best TG pocket civ. Hera’s criteria was which civ is the best to worst in game regardless of settings and maps - 1v1, TG, Arabia, Arena, open maps, closed maps, hybrid maps, water maps all were considered. Franks is good at open maps both in 1v1 and TG - top 3-5 in both cases. Lithuanians overall more versatile - top 2 together with Chinese according to Hera.
Only BE from khmer were bad cause they could catch archers, then they had that insane farm bonus without a single nerf, it was only khmer eles, the BE from burmese on rise of rajas got nerfed cause of the arambai strength, yes they nerfed the ele instead of the arambai, archer ele has 9 PA and its really far from being OP, specially cause everything back at that DLC had 9 or 10 PA like the imperial skirm or the rattan archer.
I can tell you in advance that the extra armor on burmese BE wont break the game as much as the cavalier from sicilians will do, that is what makes me angry, +1/+1 armor would have been enough to make those cavs resistant enough vs arrows, but no, the devs had to go to +2 to break the balance.
Maybe because the elephant archer is just a bad UU that is too expensive to field?
What’s the confidence interval on that win rate estimate?
Because sufficiency is not the same as necessity. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s necessary to learn how to do it. You can just not pick Lithuanians or, as of right now, just use paladins.
In either case my point stands that all this dooming is totally divorced for any kind of epistemological rigor.
Yeah sorry. Every time I’ve seen leitis used in team games post nerf it doesn’t end well. There is a reason knights/paladins are preference
Let me guess they went full leitis and were forced to fight archers?
There’s a reason I gave the example of leitis+ paladin and not full leitis.
Currently there’s no reason to do such a mixed comp because paladin is basically pareto superior. So not seeing it now is confounded by this when inferring how the civ will play out post change.
I think it looks very obviously broken
maybe +2 attack and a slight (and I mean very slight) gold discount per relic? (although, my own opinion is just leave +4 untouched and just nerf the 150F to 75F)
No. They didn’t. It’s almost impossible to go full leitis due to castle.
Which is super expensive btw.
Lithuanian Paladins are too OP with relics… For civ without hallebarders (only pikes) like aztecs there is no counter.
You need 3 Azetc pikes (fully up +8 attack) to kill 1 paladin.
People will tell doesnt matter it’s trash units but when you are limited to 200 pop and you have 100 villagers so you cannot clean 40 paladins with their officiel counter (except maybe high spam).
This isnt acceptable.
Just make their second TC cost less wood.
Even that is not as OP as -100 for stables and archery ranges. Plus, makes a lot more sense and feudal TC will be more frequent. Their original bonus will finally be used.
And if the con argument is that the wood discount can be adjusted to -75 or -50 for stables and a.ranges, then the same could be said about the second TC. Make it -75 and start from there.