How many civs are actually carried by their UU?
Mongols (have seen also much cav archers recently)
Goths (In combination with the other infantry)
Mayans (about 1/4 of the times)
Bulgarians (Partially)
Indians (In Team games)
Some honorable mentions, but it ssems that strong UUs are not that important. At least if they are castle exclusive.
Best example is the Leitis. Still insanely strong, but you usually prefer knights, they are just easier to mass.
i am not suprised seeing teutons in the tp 5. i have been saying that the armor infantry and cavalry buff has been a groos overbuff for quite some time.
they should atleast revert the farm discount to the orignal AoC value.
once more i think this would be better:
change the civ bonus to +2,+3 meele armor for seige instead, change the unique tech ironclat to give +1 meele armor to infatry, cavalry and siege.
this keeps the total meele armor for siege the same, but lower infatry and cavalry armor to +1 and puts it behind the castle age UT. This is a intended nerf!
(lower elite teutonic knight armor by 1 to keep total armor fully upgraded the same, non elite can have now even +1 armor with the caste age UT so its not a nerf!)
similiar bulgarians were really overbuffed, i mean why trough so much at the in one time, blacksmith discount, and siege discount. it would be better to do it step by step instead now they need nerfes again…
For inca nerf i would suggest, remove chemistry
??? why do Incas need to lose chemistry? Especially when everyone swear by their tower rush?
They are incredibly strong civs so stop picking on them (except maybe the Vietnamese).
All civs must have chemistry, if you want to nerf them just nerf their tower rush.
Yes let’s nerf a civ that actually brings diversity to the meta and isn’t overbearing.
I don’t want to nerf them I was just saying how they should be nerfed if they are to be nerfed. They are one of my favourite civs, why would I want them to be nerfed?
because every single (non siege) unit incas have are FU.
why would the have to have chemistry. it is just +1 damage and fire arrow animation. is not necessar. civs without bracer worse. incas dont have any gunpoweder civs. it can be easily changed in he genie editor without breaking the game. i dont see your point.
The deal with Incas is that so many people play them to tower rush and not to enjoy their diverse unit selection for a meso civ. So if you remove chemistry from them, first you don’t nerf they strongest strat that make them win the most, and secondly people would see just yet another excuse to not play them late-game. You don’t need much of a nerf to make people think something isn’t worth making
i dont want to nerf their strongest strats if avoidable becuase i dont want to remove hwat makes them worth playing and aspecial. instead i want to add weaknesses besides their strengths, like slightly worse archers in imp than others.
maybe the could change the stone discount to 5,10,15 in feudal, castle, imp as a nerf, but i dont really like it
That’s the reason why they are one of my favourite civilisations.
The fire animation makes siege weapons look a lot cooler, besides if it’s not much use then why take it away, after all doing that won’t change their winrates at all since all ranked games end in either the Feudal age or the Castle age.
ok let’s not overdo it lol, ofc many ranked games end in imperial age. Less so with Incas cuz their tower rush make the oh so much shorter regardless of who wins.
By many do you mean the 1% of all ranked games?
Sounds like a good intention, but when one unique feature (the strong tower rush) completely overshadows other unique features (like their good tech tree as you pointed out) it’s not fair to remove the one that gives the most possibilities while leaving the one that, let’s be honest, is the exact same thing all the time while also making rage most of the playerbase to no end.
i think incas high winrate might have a similiar root as (part of) franks high winrtae.
frans ultra cheap, and therfor fast castle drops are not to be underestimated, similiar with incas tower/castles.
we currently cant lower the franks castle discount (by 5%) because then it would be the same as the more general inca discount (wich would be weird.)
then i would suggest following numbers:
incas stone discount form 15 to 10
frank caste discount from 20 to 15
i like this much better than a disount changing over ages! and it would addres the strategy to see as problematic.
hinestly i care mire about teutons and bulgarians being recetly overbuffed than long standing incas.
its more difficult to find the right thing to change with those long unchanged bonuses than with recently buffed ones
Sounds like a better idea ig
when the siege buff came out, i also thought it was way too much on top of the blacksmith… but after facing them and using them more, it might actually be ok, like yeah they’re arguably an s-tier civ now depending on the situation, but after all its only a food buff in imperial, when food is worth a lot less
they still miss a pretty important stepping stone (the xbow and arb) and they still dont have much of an eco bonus that helps them either diversify out of the knight line or even help their mangos in castle age
not saying they’re remotely weak, i just think the siege discount might not actually be too much. could be wrong though, if anything they could reduce it by a small amount
and lastly, their win rate actually drops off with time, meaning the food discount on the siege, is likely not a contributing factor for their high overall winrate, im guessing it is more to do with their awesome m@a into knights
i think the cheap blacksmith is what carries their winrate mostly in feudal age
yeah it certainly is useful… +1/1 m@a and spears for 50 food, eating vils and scouts