What do you think about the New Deccan for treaty?

I feel that the middle is too empty without he 2nd native settlement while Im not sure if I want a trade route less🤔

1 Like

I disagreed with most of the comments from Waifu and Erchere for that map. I think that was one of the ones that was mostly fine the way it was. It certainly was one of the most popular treaty maps in Legacy. The only change IMO that would make sense for treaty mode to me is maybe some more trees either all over or along the back. Civs like China, Sweden (torps) and Mexico (wood trade) need to be viable on all treaty maps. I know they compare everything to Andes Upper which is boring, but different maps should require players to adapt to different play styles, Just as long as there is enough res for everyone consistently and its even, it’s good. I also disagree with removing the Pop Cap treasures and Inf HP from this map and others… Part of the fun knowing those treasures are there and fighting to get them. I’ve been playing with it like that since 2005, but what do I know.


Totally agree, nobody complained about it. If people dont play it on DE is caused by the bad placed hills.

Feel free to disagree. I for one love the changes since all civs are viable now and it isn’t determined who wins by whoever has the bigger start army.
Nat Posts on the side allow for more tactical splits instead of just moving straight trough the middle to gain an advantage and the ramp instead of the cliffs open it up a bit.

But then again you weren’t to keen on the changes when they were discussed so that’s an expected outcome and everybody has different preferences

I personally feel that the map didn’t loose its defining factors and only got less reliant on rng

How civs werent unbalanced on legacy?? It was one of the most played

On tad the only wood heavy civ that was almost unplayable on old Deccan was China. Maybe India. On de it was Sweden (no trees to torp), China, Inca and maybe India
That’s 4 civs you can’t properly play on this map since there isn’t enough wood.
The rest of the changes aren’t civ specific. But for example if you had one team with Inca and let’s say durch and the other team with something like port and Germany, the Inca team would get both nat posts giving them a harder advantage with more free pop units and the eco/unit upgrades from the nat posts. Meaning if you loose the start fight vs those civs (which you will in a balanced matchup) you’re loosing the game. Now they still have their normal advantage but don’t get the nat post boost by default aswell. You actually get a chance to fight back.

I understand that in lower games this isn’t a problem since it seems to be impossible for some players to simply move their army forward at 40, but if there is a total of more than 10 briancells in a match it is a huge problem

1 Like

Why Inca and dutch get 2 native posts?? on legacy there werent native post inside the treaty radius. Also Andes is too famous cause natives are game-changing to finish the game (thing that I dont like cause they are too much units per post)

China (That currently doesnt depends on wood to train anticav) and Sweden have factories, Inca has Kanchas and both India and Inca have wood crates. So no problem. The only civ that struggles is Hauds.

But now It’s plenty of trees, fix that I didnt complain about. Im disagree about removing a trade route and moving a native to one side.

For some reason I completely forgot about haudenoshshsjsn. Add those to the list.
I’m not going to explain why China needs more wood, if you think they don’t you’re probably using the wrong army. Same goes for the boom choice of going Kampha on wood, relying on cards to get wood etc.
i understand where you’re coming from but to play the optimal version of those civs your argument isn’t right. No flame

Inca and dutch in that example have a way bigger start army than ports and Germany, that means they will be able to take the nat posts immediately and deny it to the other team.

If we dumb it down and give each nat post a +1 advantage that means the team (which already has a civ advantage) also gets +2 advantage of there are 2 nat posts central on the map, while the other team gets 0.

That means you’re already in a rough matchup which gets exaggerated by the +2

And there aren’t as many nats as there are on Andes.

It hasnt to be optimal in every map, I mean you can save wood changing the army for a while. You can use arquebusiers and changdao, its not like Hauds or legacy aztecs that couldnt train cavalry.

They would keep having more units anyways while both, germans and ports have artillery that can defeat incas quickly (defending from chimus of course)

So true.

Me and my friends playing since ~2005 decan has always been our favourite.

We still once a week play legacy and 99% of time its deccan. And as mentioned, knowing that there are those treasures, is the part of charm.

As for the natives, having 1 native its a lil less IMO. Also Deccan is the most suitable map for Bhakti native, can be made permanent and the other can be anything between Udasi or Sufi

1 Like

OK. So I’d like to clarify some things here. The large treasures granting techs are only removed from treaty games as they present more of a balance issue in this game mode.

There are more native posts now. 4 total on the map instead of just 2 and they’re better located for both fighting and booming.

Go ahead and express your opinions, I like to hear opinions that differ from my own and I like to learn from others as much as I can. I just felt it important to clarify these points as it seems there’s some confusion in this thread (and other forums) regarding some of the treaty-specific changes.


I hadn’t commented before because this time I didn’t use the beta version, but now that I’ve tried it I can draw conclusions.

The first thing I will comment on is that there seem to be errors in the generation of the route TP slots. They appear very far from the trade route. I guess this was with the intention of both teams to start with a road TP, but it is very far from the road.
Captura de pantalla (491)
Captura de pantalla (492)

I also like that there are 2 trade routes, always 1v1 or in teams. I think this should remain unchanged.

I like the idea that there are now more than 2 local populations, but I don’t like that the center of the map (the plateau) is uninhabited. What I would suggest is to do something similar to the rock map: One near the bases of each player, and another 2 in the center to dispute. I think the center of the map should be the main focus of attention.

I also think there could be 6 native villages: 2 near each player of different types of natives, and the other 2 in the center of different types (in this way we would have the benefits of 2 populations from the beginning since I suppose that is the intention), and leave the trade routes as they have always been.


It’s a matter of functionality, not an error. This ensures both teams access to a trade socket during the boom.

It will certainly be a focus of attention. Also, the rock map is maybe Guianas? That has also seen extensive changes for treaty, however, given the popularity of Deccan, I doubt it would garner near this much attention/scrutiny. :sweat:

It’s simply not competitive to have the natives in the middle as a civ with a strong opening will have an easier time snowballing to a victory. This was explained well by @xystonian .

There simply isn’t enough space for this many settlements.
Edit: this could also present additional balance issues.

I understand, but I think they are very far from the route. Although functionally they fulfill their mission, aesthetically it is better that they are close to the road.

I suppose the road was moved aside to allow free construction of the wall, but I think this could be fixed by allowing gates to be built on the trade route. [Poll] Would you like to be able to build doors on the trade route after the imperial era in the standard game, or at least in the treaty mode?

1 Like

Route PT sockets are still very far from the commercial route. That is why I propose the following for the treaty:

Why not create a trade route for each team that runs behind the player bases? In addition to this, why not allow gates to be built on trade routes? In the treaty there is no monopoly.

1 Like