So the last years since DE, Microsoft brought once again many new Civs into the game, which some of them are really interesting and well designed, like Poles or Bulgarians, even though for Poles some minor balance changes might have to be adressed.
It brought some Civs with Bonuses that have been or at least looked OP in the beginning, but have been more (Cumans) or less (Burgundians) balanced over the last years and months. At least those bring the potential for very interesting strategies, especially what we have seen so far in Tournaments.
- Burgundians might need some changes, but they are not a cancer to the game.
- If you are up against Cumans, only scouting is even more important than against other Civs, and you are forced to adapt even more to what the Cuman Player is doing then you would be compared to any other Civ, but you can be fine.
- Tatars still feel super weird to play for me, with their weird Bonuses like weird Sheep spawning under weird TCs and that weird extra Hill Bonus and all of that weird stuff which is weird, but doesnt seem overpowered in any way, just weird.
- Lithuanians feel a bit strong in many situations. That +150 food is the most uncreative eco Bonus ever heard of, but it is interesting what you can do with that and has brought some creative openings for Land and Water maps. Overall i guess Lithuanians are fine.
- Have not seen or played enough Bohemians yet to judge, but the Civ looks very Clowny,
However there is one Civ that is significantly worse designed than any of the above, which is the Sicilians.
I dont even know where to start, with the bad and uncreative design in a game balance perspective or with the historic perspective? Lets start with the game design:
- Of course the developers knew that the community was deeply missing another average speed Infantry Unit with average attack that is relatively tanky but not great against anything. Its excactly what i have been praying for for months prior to the release.
- Also everyone was dreaming about playing with AEGIS activated and beeing able to just select some vils and drop Castles on ongoing Battlegrounds or just into the enemy Base without your opponent having a chance to react to it. Thats how it was done in the middle ages and thats why we are plaing this game, am I right?
- And finally,Paladins Cavaliers that are basically Mini cataphracts, but waaay cheaper to get going and way more resistent to archer fire. The only way to Counter those things is getting up to Pala or Battle elephants yourself, since you have to overpower them. Lets not bother with Counter Units, those do not work aganist this Civ anyways.
And last but not least, what would you expect of a civilisation from a relatively small and not too populated mediterreanian Island ? Navy, Gunpowder, acher Units? No, its an endless flood of Infantry Units accompanied by the Heavy Cavalry of the great sicilian grasslands....
It brought some Civs with Bonuses that have been or at least looked OP in the beginning, but have been more (Cumans) or less (Burgundians) balanced over the last years and months. At least those bring the potential for very interesting strategies, especially what we have seen so far in Tournaments.
- Burgundians might need some changes, but they are not a cancer to the game.
- If you are up against Cumans, only scouting is even more important than against other Civs, and you are forced to adapt even more to what the Cuman Player is doing then you would be compared to any other Civ, but you can be fine.
- Tatars still feel super weird to play for me, with their weird Bonuses like weird Sheep spawning under weird TCs and that weird extra Hill Bonus and all of that weird stuff which is weird, but doesnt seem overpowered in any way, just weird.
- Lithuanians feel a bit strong in many situations. That +150 food is the most uncreative eco Bonus ever heard of, but it is interesting what you can do with that and has brought some creative openings for Land and Water maps. Overall i guess Lithuanians are fine.
- Have not seen or played enough Bohemians yet to judge, but the Civ looks very Clowny,
However there is one Civ that is significantly worse designed than any of the above, which is the Sicilians.
I dont even know where to start, with the bad and uncreative design in a game balance perspective or with the historic perspective? Lets start with the game design:
- Of course the developers knew that the community was deeply missing another average speed Infantry Unit with average attack that is relatively tanky but not great against anything. Its excactly what i have been praying for for months prior to the release.
- Also everyone was dreaming about playing with AEGIS activated and beeing able to just select some vils and drop Castles on ongoing Battlegrounds or just into the enemy Base without your opponent having a chance to react to it. Thats how it was done in the middle ages and thats why we are plaing this game, am I right?
- And finally,
And last but not least, what would you expect of a civilisation from a relatively small and not too populated mediterreanian Island ? Navy, Gunpowder, acher Units? No, its an endless flood of Infantry Units accompanied by the Heavy Cavalry of the great sicilian grasslands....
Last edited: