In the upcoming patch standard Monaspa will lose 5 HP and Elite Monaspa 10 HP, this means Halbs and Camels will be better counters than before (for instance they will be the first cav UU to die in 3 hits from halbs), while 25 arbalest shots will be enough to bring down one, however this will be enough to nerf them and Georgians?
I think the nerf goes in the right direction I just don’t know if 5 HP in Castle are enough.
But we’ve seen on different examples that sometimes miniscule looking changes can make a lot of difference on units that are considered “broken”.
The civ will still be very strong. If other OP civs like Chinese, Mongols get nerfed, Georgians should also get additional minor nerfs. Either -50 wood or reduced default workrate boosting range of churches or hp regeneration removed from scout line, any one of those 3. But Monaspas shouldn’t be nerfed anymore.
Technicality apart I’m not too much bothered about the tag. My worry is Monaspa are still going to “appear” very strong because Georgians is still solid. And repetitive nerf posts is going to get that unit nerfed to stone age. And when Georgians finally get nerfed, that unit will become unusable.
They were designed as a defensive civ. That’s what the tag indicates. And they have a strong late game economy and strong defensive bonuses. My understanding of their intended playstyle is that they raid with cavalry to buy time while they set up their strong late-game Fortified Church-supported economy. And then kill the opponent with a cavalry deathball (which is another thing that takes time to set up).
As for the poll, I don’t know yet. It’s the sort of thing that needs playtesting to see how it is in practice, and I haven’t done that yet. It will definitely be easier to whittle down the Monaspa’s numbers though. I suspect Monaspa will still be strong, but that’s fine. Just need to be a little less OP.
The way to fix this is to remove the cavalry healing bonus. My Georgians design didn’t have any bonuses for cavalry and didn’t even have any for infantry, even though the latter was their listed specialty. Instead, in the early game, the only aggressive bonus they really had was for towers, with an extra 1 range, and even in the midgame, the only real advantage they had was cheaper towers with the Svan Towers tech. Instead, the late game is where they shone, reflecting their historical Golden Age being relatively late, and once they researched their UT Aznauri, giving Swordsmen +30 HP, they started to become strong. Perhaps my design took away too many things, but making them aggressive in the early game and oppressive in the late game is just bad civ design. Make them strong defensively in the early game when they are weak so they have a better chance at making it to the late game, when they can actually start to be aggressive.
Their bonuses incentivize castles, towers and fortified churches, they are able to keep buildings up for much longer by repairing or placing them on too of hills thats why they are clasified like that
I dont want to sound mean or anything but old civ concepts wont change how the civs are in the game already, hoping the civ changes to be more like your civ concets is a bit silly
My Georgian civ design was built around having a hard to raid economy in early game (since Georgia was able to grow economically in a region torn by warfare) and a discount on technologies from previous ages to make you lean into your economy and rush into later ages, but I dont hope that the current civ plays anything like that. It was just an idea I had to move on from.
And thats despite the fact that I dont like how mediocre Georgian cavaliers are nor the auras from monasteries
I’m not saying it should be EXACTLY the same. That ship has sailed. I’m just saying that making the official Georgians play out similarly to my own concept would not only make them more balanced, but they’d be even more historically inspired, as well as interesting. Having another scout-to-knight spam civ isn’t very interesting.
As long as you have a free mule cart without any penalty, you will be the most aggressive civ. Unless of course Lithuanians get back their 150 food at the start or some new civ bonus get introduced.
Back when they had 50 food penalty, yes.
It is dumb classification now.
Anyway, I don’t wanna put too much emphasis too much on civ classification that considers Berbers is a “Naval” civ but Japanese is not.
My point is Georgians is just not played as slowly grind and reach Imperial Age and then crush your enemy with strong military. They are played as 17 pop scout aggression into small knight transition to Monaspa ending the game in mid Castle. Removing 5 HP regeneration won’t stop 17 pop scout.
They are many civs come with strong eco, but only the ones with strong UU became OP. The problem is that some UU can beat both knight and archers, and can’t be countered by camel and pikes.
Monaspa is too cheap in gold and few units can beat it with the same cost
TBH Slam was already doomed to Britons Longbows (+ not even having arbalest) and Bloodlineless Paladins aren’t even good vs Elite Monaspa spam, and the other side was holding wayy better (mostly because of Gen xbows). also at some points the HP nerf helped Boyars and Burgundian Halb spam to do better (before was a lost cause for Boyars and Halbs weren’t enough).
Anyway mid game eco Georgian boom was soo busted (too ahead to Slavs) and as I said before that one now needs nerf.