Destroying ■■■■■■ meta ≠ destroying game balance. They can easily rebalance civs after reworking old civs to be less asymmetric.
And yes people only play Franks or Mongols because they only care about how fast they can win a 1v1. This does not mean they are a majority
Mongols arent even top 10 lmao
I just dont think theres anything great to do with this. You could make Cranquinier, Grenadier and mounted skirmishers as regional units (for European, Easr Asian and Spanish + African civs), and I even once thought that could be interesting, but it just would be very hard to make it both balanced and interesting.
??? mongols easily is top 3 best civ on open maps.
Nah. They are Behind the meso civs, Tatars, Franks, Burgundians, Britons, Celts, Khmer, Lithuanians, Hindustanis, possibly even Malians, Ethiopians, Japanese and Berbers as well. Behind Chinese in high level too.
The original civs are fine, I’m worry about the old UU, especially the ones that don’t have any bonus and the Infantry ones. They may need some buff
What I would most like would be a rework for the old campaigns, those really look disregarded.
I like the mix of crazier and less crazy civs. My personal sweet spot may actually be somewhere in the middle. I love Berbers, for example. I don’t mind some updates to civs, the Kamandaran tech for Persians is really nice. Persians were a lower rated civ, so there was room for a nice new extra. Replacing Nomads for Mongols would be a bit more questionable, Mongols can already be a very strong civ when they can play to their strengths, so you basically can’t give them anything that improves upon the things they do well. Something like taking War Elephants away from Persians I oppose, because that’s just one of those classic things about the classic civs that we know and love. I also generally don’t like things that would disturb the balance enough that you’d have to start cutting in other techs and bonuses to accomodate the new one. Basically: if it ain’t broke, think twice before fixing it. If you want to add lots of new stuff, just add actual new stuff rather than trying to replace stuff.
This is what I was talking about. If one user is flagging posts irrationally, it shouldn’t block the post.which means someone is using alt accounts to flag posts
Nothing in your post warranted getting flagged.
I like the idea of spicing older civs up. That being said, all of these are fairly strong civs. So if they were buffed, we would need to see across the board buffing of the worst performing civs or they wouldn’t stand a chance
Currently Britons are pigeonholed into playing archers, so if there’s any rework of the civ, I wouldn’t give them yet more archers to play with, it would be something else so they aren’t so polarising. Currently you can almost auto win against Britons if you have good skirms.
That being said if we were forced to make this yeoman work, you could give it negative pierce or archer armour.
What this means is either it starts off similar to a ram where everything does bonus ranged damage to it, until you take blacksmith upgrades or the second option means skirms simply do increased damage to it.
I don’t think Franks or teutons need any knight like units. Franks don’t have hussars because their UT would work too well with them.
Teutons could probably do with some kind of raiding unit to make them a little more flexible.
The TK is a weird one because it does so well in the rare situations it works. It arguably needs yet another minor speed buff or +1PA (although this will need an increase in TT) but any buff makes it even more difficult for melee only civs to deal with, for example goths already kind of have to wait until they can mass HC.