The devs would never admit their failure: (1) Adding civs that no one asked for, (2) redundant civilizations, especially with their stupid UT-s.Removal is also an option.
The devs would never admit their failure: (1) Adding civs that no one asked for, (2) redundant civilizations, especially with their stupid UT-s.Removal is also an option.
Mayans - skirm tech needs addressing dont know how.
Don't shoot me, please 1111
I agree, the new Mayan UT seems fine to me. It's a buff primarily vs. siege and the swordsmen line in post-Imp trash battles, which are rare anyway.why? only because t90 kept repeating, that the tech is op, but it was proven not to be, since yo lost? imo that tech is fairly useless. which is fine for mayans, because they already are really strong, so they don't need a strong castle age UT.
Personally they are too effective against rams in their current stateI agree, the new Mayan UT seems fine to me. It's a buff primarily vs. siege and the swordsmen line in post-Imp trash battles, which are rare anyway.
The patch modified behavior of foundations so that broke the rec compatibility, it also happened with user patch during the beta phase, it is not only balancing stuff that breaks the recordings, so far DE has no recordings to study and after a year it becomes annoying to suddenly lose all your game recordings every single update, did you know there were guys with several GB's of aoe recordings, even websites with plenty storage of pure recordings but ever since DE all that data is pure garbage.Ironically, the update that made the HC4 useless made no balance changes. So your argument against balance is basically inconsequential.
And the other argument (is too much work, we won't achieve anything, it's impossible) is an ode to mediocrity.
Even if they were OPcivs as you claim, the answer will be nerfs... I.e balance changes
Britons need to lose the nonsense range bonus (at least on regular archer line) before any other changes are seriously considered. This change would have the same effect of weakening the arbalest light cav comp.may feel a bit wierd but i think britons should gain redmtion but lose the final cav armor upgrade. reason being i feel britons are a bit too good at all archers infintry and cav. they obviously have insaine archers fully upgraded infintry and fully blacksmithed light cav only missing bloodlines. i think if we remove the final cav armor upgrade that skirms will be a more effective counter to briton archers. i also feel block printing and redemption monks could allow britons to do better vs bombard cannons which without armored light cav they could struggle against. my expirince with britons has mostly been facing them on arena and there i feel the arbalest light cav comp is just a bit too strong. this also makes historical sense as briton's calvery were absolutly terrible and most soldired prefered to fight on foot.
I agree that imperial camel and battle elephants changes have been mistakes. Also some other stuff. That the idea of this post. To have data to try to get the changes correctly this timeThe patch modified behavior of foundations so that broke the rec compatibility, it also happened with user patch during the beta phase, it is not only balancing stuff that breaks the recordings, so far DE has no recordings to study and after a year it becomes annoying to suddenly lose all your game recordings every single update, did you know there were guys with several GB's of aoe recordings, even websites with plenty storage of pure recordings but ever since DE all that data is pure garbage.
The balancing has been so poor and delayed to fix broken stuff, see imperial camel and arambai as examples, water has been changed 4 times now forcing old galley meta back, most balance changes are buffing instead of fixing, as result we have tatars with just too many free things, 8 civs with bonuses or techs to skirm line and 4 civs that gives extra PA to light cav, mechanics outside the original design, etc, to the point that playing with a civ with no free upgrades, big eco bonuses, insane military discounts or broken units/mechanics feels mediocre.
Look we complained hard about khmer eco and their eles, as result they nerfed all BE line badly making the unit useless for the other civs, the same happened to camel line with indians several years ago, instead of fixing they have nerfed other civs and units that were never broken, they have been doing the same for just too many years i already gave up with fe devs balancing, so its about time they just let the game playable and release patches every 6 months or even more.
People will always be asking for personal balance changes, just look at those guys asking for arbalest to indians or town patrol for byzantines, one petition broken and the other just to have both upgrades free, others want samurai and zeker with more PA, etc, balancing demands or suggestion is a never ending subject, cause by the excuse that devs are listening they might actually give indians arbalest and there will be mayhem again, now we will have like the next 3 patches trying to fix the 2 new added civs, sadly more broken recordings, bugs and performance issues in the near future.
It is tough because you wonder whether you try to fix from how things currently are or just revert to balance at some prior point (DE release, Forgotten, or even 1.0c) and work from there.I agree that imperial camel and battle elephants changes have been mistakes. Also some other stuff. That the idea of this post. To have data to try to get the changes correctly this time
If you get back to 1.0c be sure to invest in bitcoins!It is tough because you wonder whether you try to fix from how things currently are or just revert to balance at some prior point (DE release, Forgotten, or even 1.0c) and work from there.
I think there should be general changes that would then affect many of the underpowered civs. Ex. improving hand cannons (helps Burgundians, Indians), buffing militia line or removing one stage (remove long-swords and move two-handed into castle age, for example), improving elephants (helps Burmese, Malay), and camels (Saracens, Indians).
Similarly, I would strongly recommend decreasing castle age HP before it rises when reaching imp (similar to how walls' HP rises when the age changes), as ramming down a castle in castle age shouldn't be as difficult as it is. That would nerf that Frank bonus people are complaining about also.