I really dislike the argument that they are "fine" because of their nice tech tree - sure, on ladder games where both player randoms they will be fine, because against an average civ they often stand a chance, and at lower elos all civs can be fine anyways, so to me balance mostly really matters...
Feel like Mud Flow is pretty close to acropolis/land madness/etc.
I do agree that Magyars aren't horrible, but I could easily see them deserving minor adjustments upwards. That being said, it doesn't necessarily have to be an ecobonus specifically.
The villager rush typically doesn't make non-villager infantry anyways, so it would leave the villager rush largely unchanged. On the other hand, it would be a pretty big nerf to any inca player who wants to play standard, which already was a bit underwhelming compared to the better civs. So IMO...
Feel like it's also important to note that while incas used to be extremely strong on maps like socotra and chaos pit, this was largely because of the villager blacksmith upgrade bonus, which again, just got removed until castle age, so it remains to be seen whether incas still are all that...
That is a somewhat fair statement, but the villager blacksmith upgrades is a large part of the reason behind the civs popularity on socotra, which is now being removed. More importantly though, Socotra (and maps like it) are very rarely part of tournament map pools. There is the Not Socotra map...
Not that I'm a pro, but to me the main issue isn't whether they rank around the middle or close to the bottom, but if they have circumstances where they would be a natural pick. I would assume that teuton's would probably be in the lower half of rankings, but if you play on Arena or Hideout then...
The difference though is that a lot of civs, while not being among the best civs at least have situations where they excel - spanish aren't the greatest, but people might pick them on nomad in tournamets, teutons might not see much play on arabia, but will be drafted for a map like arena or...
If it is a good civ, then why is it so rarely picked, and when it is, it's almost always for the tower rush? It's a flexible civ, it's an average civ, but it's definitely not a good civ (since good civs actually get picked and played a lot)
It does make some sense in that either the trush is completely dominant at lower levels of play, or it is not strong enough at the top level - so it makes incas very hard to balance. However, now they also feel like they have no identity - why would you ever pick incas over aztecs/mayans (unless...
I like playing inca in the standard fashion (kamayuks and slingers are cool, etc.), but they already felt a bit underwhelming, having average ecobonuses and no military bonuses. And not only did they now lose their strong gimmick, they also lost a lot when playing normally, as their villagers...
I mean, to me playing with massive lag feels almost unplayable, so to me it feels like the thing that should earn matchmaking bans over time, intentional or not - or at least match up the people lagging against each other, as I'd typically rather concede than play a laggy game because that just...
Not a realistic one though, though I think some amount of redesigning them might actually make sense personally, especially some of their oneshot techs.
Feel like Lithuanians, Vikings, Chinese and Mayans all could use a minor nerf, though not sure what is the best way to do it.
As for buffs, I think the sicilians/burgundians come to mind, and also some of the civs that were more or less completely ignored throughout all of hidden cup like...
Would it be interesting if cumans got some kind of bonus upon hitting castle age if they only have 1 TC at that time? Say Cumans spawned 2 knights from their TC upon hitting castle age if they don't have a 2nd TC.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.