AOE-II DE Until when these things will remain without nerfs?! (Part 1)

[MAE_ME]

i also think that cross bow update is too cheap. and yes hauberk is indeed too strong in my opinien. not shore about the other points.

i dont get why com unity is mocking you. this is a forum for deep and intellectual discushions so we shood discuss about the points some one made in a respectful way you now.

Thanks man, I really appreciate your words. The community won't only mock on me, they will mock on anyone who suggest any balance suggestions to this game, because they are just slaves to the meta and to their grandfathers traditions and think the game is fine. They don't care about the fair play or bringing a better balance, all what they want is just play the game even if the game will have 100 civs with trash balance, this is all what they want. On the other hand they don't think, they let other people (the pros for example) and some useless numbers think instead of them, they always think everything is fine. It exactly when you come to a person who worship a stone and then you ask him "hey! Why do you worship a stone that does not harm or benefit?!" then he will answer you: "Becasue everybody does and my fathers and grandfathers were doing the same!". LOL, this is just how it is.

 

[NextLever]

Winrates don't matter and don't say anything but half the civs are broken and OP. Source: trust me bro.

 

[dodageka]

i dont get why com unity is mocking you. this is a forum for deep and intellectual discushions so we shood discuss about the points some one made in a respectful way you now.

He’s given the answer himself:

Sicilians are broken whatever anyone say and whatever their winrates are.

This whole thread is just a joke and unfortunately doing a massive disservice to any reasonable balance discussion with all these random ideas that would completely ruin balance and half the civs

 

[MAE_ME]

He’s given the answer himself:


This whole thread is just a joke and unfortunately doing a massive disservice to any reasonable balance discussion with all these random ideas that would completely ruin balance and half the civs

Ruin the balance? 11, but the balance has been ruined from long time and more and more since DE came out with all it's DLCs. I don't know how anyone see a civ like Sicilians for example and think they are fine with all their weird broken bonuses that make the counter system doesn't work vs them, instant army, 100% faster castles and TCs, Huskarl cavs, etc. Burgundians with their OP eco, instant army, cheap dirt Paladin and cavs even with no bloodline, insane gunpowder, etc. Gurjaras, Hindus, Lithuans, Mesos, Britons, Chinese, Franks, Huns and this weird civ Cumans a civ that have 2 TCs in feudal and at the same time cheap buildings, capped rams castle, and way many bonuses. I am not kidding or trolling, there is like more than 10 civs in the game need major nerfs and tweaks most of them DE civs.

 

[TheCapybara]

The issue with some of what you're talking about is that it's about game design rather than competitive balance. A civ like Sicilians is not strictly imbalanced in terms of being too strong overall, but that it's poorly designed and disrupts a lot of established norms in the game (e.g. First Crusade and having high-armoured units which also resist bonus damage). Yes, some of its features are situationally imbalanced but the civ as a whole isn't, it's just out of place in the game.

Plus you've also suggested some really bizarre changes and identified complete non-problems, so those will detract from areas where you have more of a point.

 

[MAE_ME]

The issue with some of what you're talking about is that it's about game design rather than competitive balance. A civ like Sicilians is not strictly imbalanced in terms of being too strong overall, but that it's poorly designed and disrupts a lot of established norms in the game (e.g. First Crusade and having high-armoured units which also resist bonus damage). Yes, some of its features are situationally imbalanced but the civ as a whole isn't, it's just out of place in the game.

Plus you've also suggested some really bizarre changes and identified complete non-problems, so those will detract from areas where you have more of a point.

Isn't clear how a civ like Sicilians make the counter play is useless with their broken bonuses? I mean do you realise how the 50% less damage, instant army from nowhere, 100% build TCs and castles are just ridiculous bonuses?

Do you know the Sicilian knight kill camel raider in 1v1 fight with 35hp left? Do you realise pikes do nothing? Arbs and xbows do nothing, 100% castle drop faster have nothing to do against? 8 mean how civ have all this is fine?! You people are so weird! Burgundians too another cancer civ with stupid bonuses, whatever you do their eco will be always better than you and require 0 skill with them to macro and micro, this 50% discount with age before is just a toxic bonus. Cav upgrade in castle that cost 150g, 150f even with no bloodline but it is just like giving a civ a normal knight +2 attack and bloodline at sametime with only 150g, 150f. Cheap dirt Paladin and how many do you see Paladin in 1v1? But this is not a problem with cancer civ like Burgundians who have OP eco and cheap dirt everything. On the other hand that instant army, farms make gold and bla bla bla....


Anyway, 90% of DE civs need nerfs, Lithuans, Cumans, Gurjaras, Hindus, Sicilians, Burgundians, Bohemians and add to this things from 20 years like Huns, Britons, Franks, Mesos, Eagle line food cost, even Byzantine cheap dirt counter units discount need a nerf, many many things need nerfs and tweaks.

 

[Akos04]

Everything will be the same if you nerf this many civs. The developers should follow baby-step balance changes to see how the meta evolves, not nerfing 30 civs at the same time.

 

[MAE_ME]

Everything will be the same if you nerf this many civs. The developers should follow baby-step balance changes to see how the meta evolves, not nerfing 30 civs at the same time.

And I agree with this thing. Those are just suggestions, I didn't say to do all of them but the devs should really be aware of how the balance is just bad especially after DE and it's civs. Even if the devs want all these suggestions they can't do it at all at once not even in 5 patchs maybe.

 

[Sextilidan]

I am not really a fan of achieving balance via taking away stuff from the player. Example, Viking losing Thumb Ring or Lithuanians losing Blast Furnace. It's slowly turning the game into AoE 1 where having a civ bonus that buffed a unit almost 100% guranteed not having a full tech tree for that unit. Not a fan of these kind of drawbacks.

I think Sicilians are in a good place. Their Arbalest lack thumb ring and final armor upgrade, they take same damage from skirms as a generic archer with final armor upgrade. Before Hauberk, Sicilians were one of the worst Cavalier civs in the game, they'd lose value fight against almost any other Cavalier civ. (either directly vs better Cavalier bonuses or better ranged support)
Hauberk just turns them into the equivalent of a Paladin with +1/1 armor but 2 less attack and 40 less HP for 2/3 of the cost of Paladin upgrade.
It literally only makes them better vs units with 7-9 melee attack/ 9-11 ranged attack.
Hauberk Cav can take 2 more hits from 9 melee attack/11 ranged attack, but Paladin takes more attacks vs any higher attack value.
Most elite ranged units have 7+4 or more attack, requiring 2 more hits against Hauberk compared to Paladin. The only ranged unit that is significantly impacted by Hauberk is the Arbalest, requiring 10 extra hits.
Elite Mangudai, Elite Camel Archer, regular and Elite Chu Ko Nu are all gonna have an easier time taking down a Hauberk Cavalier than a Paladin.

Nerfing Hauberk to +1/1 would literally just turn it into a shittier version of a Teuton Paladin. You get 1 less melee armor, 2 less attack and 40 less hp, but it takes up a Unique Tech slot.


I think Eagles need to be left "unfair" to account for the fact that meso civs lack the stable as an option.

The last thing I would like to see is some nerf to Mayan archers in the form of taking away fully upgraded status. I know this trend is prevalent for other discount civs (Berbers no Paladin, Huns no Armor, Goths no Armor, Italians no Siege Engineers), but I think the fact that Mayans lack stable options justifies them having access to fully upgraded archers. I really wouldn't like to see them lose survivability to make up for the reduces unit cost.

I hate Frank castle drop as much as anyone else, but I think lack of Bracer and Treadmill Crane makes them not as bad. They have a timing which one needs to learn to play against, it's one of the rites of passage of multiplayer, but in lategame the Castle's power is proportional to the cost.

Lithuanians already have a **** blacksmith for halbs. Let them at least have one fully upgraded trash that actually benefits from their civ bonus (again to the point of AoE1, where we give units cool bonuses, but make them unable to reach full potential by restricting tech tree)
Plus, Thumb Ring makes Cav Archers a reasonable choice in some mobile army comps.

 

[MAE_ME]

I am not really a fan of achieving balance via taking away stuff from the player. Example, Viking losing Thumb Ring or Lithuanians losing Blast Furnace. It's slowly turning the game into AoE 1 where having a civ bonus that buffed a unit almost 100% guranteed not having a full tech tree for that unit. Not a fan of these kind of drawbacks.

I think Sicilians are in a good place. Their Arbalest lack thumb ring and final armor upgrade, they take same damage from skirms as a generic archer with final armor upgrade. Before Hauberk, Sicilians were one of the worst Cavalier civs in the game, they'd lose value fight against almost any other Cavalier civ. (either directly vs better Cavalier bonuses or better ranged support)
Hauberk just turns them into the equivalent of a Paladin with +1/1 armor but 2 less attack and 40 less HP for 2/3 of the cost of Paladin upgrade.
It literally only makes them better vs units with 7-9 melee attack/ 9-11 ranged attack.
Hauberk Cav can take 2 more hits from 9 melee attack/11 ranged attack, but Paladin takes more attacks vs any higher attack value.
Most elite ranged units have 7+4 or more attack, requiring 2 more hits against Hauberk compared to Paladin. The only ranged unit that is significantly impacted by Hauberk is the Arbalest, requiring 10 extra hits.
Elite Mangudai, Elite Camel Archer, regular and Elite Chu Ko Nu are all gonna have an easier time taking down a Hauberk Cavalier than a Paladin.

Nerfing Hauberk to +1/1 would literally just turn it into a shittier version of a Teuton Paladin. You get 1 less melee armor, 2 less attack and 40 less hp, but it takes up a Unique Tech slot.


I think Eagles need to be left "unfair" to account for the fact that meso civs lack the stable as an option.

The last thing I would like to see is some nerf to Mayan archers in the form of taking away fully upgraded status. I know this trend is prevalent for other discount civs (Berbers no Paladin, Huns no Armor, Goths no Armor, Italians no Siege Engineers), but I think the fact that Mayans lack stable options justifies them having access to fully upgraded archers. I really wouldn't like to see them lose survivability to make up for the reduces unit cost.

I hate Frank castle drop as much as anyone else, but I think lack of Bracer and Treadmill Crane makes them not as bad. They have a timing which one needs to learn to play against, it's one of the rites of passage of multiplayer, but in lategame the Castle's power is proportional to the cost.

Lithuanians already have a **** blacksmith for halbs. Let them at least have one fully upgraded trash that actually benefits from their civ bonus (again to the point of AoE1, where we give units cool bonuses, but make them unable to reach full potential by restricting tech tree)
Plus, Thumb Ring makes Cav Archers a reasonable choice in some mobile army comps.

So you literally don't want any change and want to leave everything as it is, but unfotunately this is not our case here since most of these civs are really broken especially Sicilians. You focused so much on Hauberk about Sicilians, Hauberk is not a major problem as much as the broken 50% less damage, first crusade and 100% build for TCs and castles. The 50% bonus less damage need to be cut by half at least, and Hauberk need a nerf too becasue Sicilians have many options against archers especially they have already siege, rams and their UU have tons of armor and their skirms take less damage from other skirms. Hauberk actually is just a bad design, it is just bad concept for a civ that doesn't need it. Sicilians need 3 nerfs, Hauberk should down to +1/+1 8f not even just +1Pa and their 50% less damage should down to 25% and their castle build and tcs down to 50%. It is so clear how this civ make the counter play is useless by the bonuses they have regrdless the useless winrate that people keep talking about, the civ is just broken. Franks should at least lose completely the castles bonus because the civ is too easy to play and have many options and their UU already counter pikes and halbs very well, cheaper castles make them get it easier. Mesos eagle food cost indeed need a nerf because the unit is cheap dirt and hard to counter same for their eco. In general When DE came out, it brought 11 new civs, literally 8 of them need nerfs and tweaks. On the other hand we have civs from 20 years need nerfs too, like Britons team bonus at least, Mesos Eagle line, Huns, Franks. But what the devs did? Nothing, they just keep add new civs, and here another major problem; as long as the devs keep adding new civs without fix balance and pathfinding the game will never get a good balance and will be more and more harder to fix.

 

[-R-]

You need to stop opening stupid balance threads for at least two years.

 

[baobab]

This is one of the best troll thread I've ever seen. Congratulations @MAE_ME on baiting so many people, that was truly inspirational.

 

[Lokalo]

This is one of the best troll thread I've ever seen. Congratulations @MAE_ME on baiting so many people, that was truly inspirational.

Sadly at this point it doesn't seem like he is trolling nor is fun :|

 

[MAE_ME]

You need to stop opening stupid balance threads for at least two years.

You are welcome

 

[MAE_ME]

This is one of the best troll thread I've ever seen. Congratulations @MAE_ME on baiting so many people, that was truly inspirational.

Thanks bro! If you have something better then I am listening because I am talking seriously, all these things need nerfs and many many others

 

[Elvaenor]

I am not really a fan of achieving balance via taking away stuff from the player. Example, Viking losing Thumb Ring or Lithuanians losing Blast Furnace. It's slowly turning the game into AoE 1 where having a civ bonus that buffed a unit almost 100% guranteed not having a full tech tree for that unit. Not a fan of these kind of drawbacks.

Hasn't this always been done like this, though? For Frank you have insane pala but lack bloodlines, for Britons you have very strong archers, that lack thumb ring. Teutons have very tanky cav but lack husbandry. Mongols have stronger hussar but miss the final armour upgrade, etc.

 

[Sextilidan]

Hasn't this always been done like this, though? For Frank you have insane pala but lack bloodlines, for Britons you have very strong archers, that lack thumb ring. Teutons have very tanky cav but lack husbandry. Mongols have stronger hussar but miss the final armour upgrade, etc.

Yes, but I was referring to releasing the Civ with access to a tech and later removing it in order to "balance" things out.

For Frank Heavy Cav, the civ bonus is objectively a better version of Bloodlines, so there isn't really any tradeoff directly impacting the potential of the Knight line. It's basically just pooling HP away from light cav into heavy cav.

I would say I dislike it more when there's a civ bonus that buffs one particular area of a unit, but then removes a tech in order to gimp the same unit in some other way.
For example, British archer offensive attributes, they get extra range but lack thumb ring. Or yeah, Mongol light cav defensive attributes: extra hp but lacking final armor.
But I think these two are actually quite well designed.
I dislike stuff more like the old Indian +1 Pierce armor bonus in Castle and Imperial age at the cost of Plate Barding Armor.

I would much rather have bonuses that buff one attribute with penalties in a different area. For example Mongol cav archers have an offensive bonus (25% attack speed) at the cost of full defensive potential (lack of ring archer armor). Or Malian Champskarls have extra defense potential at the cost of offensive power.
That's why I also feel Teuton lack of husbandry is not that bad.

Imagine seeing balance changes such as Khmer losing access to Siege Engineers due to Double Ballista or Ethiopians losing Bracer to compensate for their faster firing archers. These are the type of design decisions I hope we'll never get to see in the game.

 

[Lokalo]

Well some of these things indeed feel bit weird, for example we have winged hussars for Lithuanians and Poles. But none of them have it fully upgraded, well sure Poles have unique tech for it, but Lithuanians not having blast furnance. And they are far from being weak, they still have +5hp and +1 armor, which is nice, but feels bit weird when not a single civ have that unit fully upgraded.

 

[Faultier321]

I find many of theese suggested balance changes pretty ridicoulus, but I agree about the Sicilians thing.
I hate this civ more then anything.
I dont claim they are broken in a way that they are OP; their eco is too bad for that.
However I would say that design-wise it is the worst Civ that the Devs have brought to us. Reducing Bonus damage - especially as a general Bonus for EVERY Unit - is just bad and the first of their many uncreative Boniuses. With some Civs like Malians you might be in an even game and then suddenly realize there is nothing to do against the Sicilian Knight line, since Camels&Pikes dont really work, you dont have Bracer for an early Imp Powerspike, you dont have Halbs in Imp, only thing to do is trying to mirror them and go Cav, then sicilians mix in some of their own Halbs and its over.

Lets go through their Thingys and see if there is one thats not bad or uncreative except their Farm Bonus:

- The damage reduction thing really breaks the counter System to a degree and IMO goes against the spirit of the game - dont think about Counters and Unit comps, just go for one power unit and kill all.

- 100% faster building castles is ridcoulus, its almost impossible to stop a Sicilian castle drop, they just need to hold that map control for a few seconds. But building castles on an ongoing Battlefield, pretty sure thats how it was done in the middle ages aswell, right?

- Everyone agrees that First Crusade is a pretty stupid Tech, and very uncreative

- Their UU is just another slow, champion-like Infantry Unit that does not have anything special about it except for building those Donjons

- The Strat the Devs had in mind - a Feudal age rush with Donjons and Serjeants (thats why they have extra stone and thats why they can make the Unit in Feudal age) - simply does not work at all

- The Hauberk Cavalier is the most lazy and uncreative design I have ever seen. "We dont want another Paladin Civ, so lets just make a UT that makes their Cavalier as strong as Paladins", seriously does it get more uncreative? The Hauberk Cavalier does basically everything an Elite Cataphract does, while having more attack, better pierce armour, can be build from stables, can be much easier massed from castle age on, is way cheaper to tech into and also their Civ relies on a stronger economy then Byzantines.

And last but not least... I get the Vikings have settled in Sicily, and this is why that Island is not beeing covered by the Italian civilisation. But neither Vikings nor Italians have great Cav. There is simply no reason for a Civ from a mediterranian Island to have Heavy Cavalry. For every other Civ, I can see that they have a "role model" in history, but sicilians just seem generic. If I saw their buildings or Units or even read their Bonuses without knowing the Civ I would have no clue whatsover who they are supposed to be.

 

[dodageka]

And last but not least... I get the Vikings have settled in Sicily, and this is why that Island is not beeing covered by the Italian civilisation. But neither Vikings nor Italians have great Cav. There is simply no reason for a Civ from a mediterranian Island to have Heavy Cavalry. For every other Civ, I can see that they have a "role model" in history, but sicilians just seem generic. If I saw their buildings or Units or even read their Bonuses without knowing the Civ I would have no clue whatsover who they are supposed to be.

I am not a history expert, but as the Vikings that went to Sicily had settled in France before heavy cav for them makes somewhat sense - I however have no clue whether the Normans used heavy cav in France or whether they brought it/the concept to Sicily, I am just saying I can see some reasoning there.

I also agree with you that Sicilians is not an ideally designed civ, I just don’t like the everything is broken comments

 

[akku]

Well such topics are quite hard, because many of such stuff works very differently in different situations. Like you said @akku , for foot archer civs is hard to deal with Sicilians and they need to finish them quick. Yeah, but that's quite hard to finish them quickly due fast tc and castle building, they can defend early aggression and castle drop quite easily. And their winrate is bad due they have pretty much nothing early game and are quite strange to play. However if they do get into hauberk cavalier it is completely broken against half of civs as you yourself agreed. Also I remember Viper winning game due first crusade, well his approach would be different too if it would be removed or different. But sicilians were picked in kotd not that rarely I believe. But yes, that civ overall is very average and only starts shining hard in early imp after hauberk, but again, half of civs still have good answers, although if you play with arbalest civ often it feels awful to play against it.

Franks should be slightly nerfed, maybe castle cost decrease removed or like -5% on berries boost. They are clearly super easy and super smooth civ with strongest paladins. They are usually super easy to guess what they will do, but they still very good at what they do. And winrate shows that, they are super simple to play and even if you know what they will do they still do great. Around 56% for years kind of asks for SLIGHT nerf.

As for wagons, well war wagons might be bit too OP, but at same time koreans barely have anything apart that, so maybe slight nerf could happen, but not much.
As for hussite wagons, well I kind of hate that advice, just go mangonels. Well that works only until bohemian player gets redemtion, then that mangonels plan is completely screwed. After their reduction on monastery that takes bit longer, but it's far from perfect to go mangonels, that usually helps only for early stage.

Mayans. I think eldorado should be nerfed and give like +25-30 hp, is bit dumb that mayans currently has best archer play and best eagles. Without as good EW switch, they are quite fine I think(not sure about TG).

Lithuanians... Well they are for sure quite good civ, but don't think they are OP, unless you let them get relics super easy without a fight, then sure, can be super though, but you should at least fight for it.

However all of those civs are far far from Hindustanis and Gurjaras. Yesterday I literally won only due I had gurjaras, they are just so easy, you can counter xbow/hc or knights with stable units, meaning you dont even need separate upgrades to counter different type units, which is huge benefit, not to mention their early eco is nice too. I don't really understand what to do against gurjaras, as even if you go halbs, then throwers shows up and kill all. Not to mention raiding with shriwamsha riders is just a blast.

Honestly I really feel bit confused about how Hindustanis and Gurjaras are super good civs and they both have BBC too, while other 2 civs are quite bad on new DLC and have no BBC. I mean they not neccesary bad, especially dravidians, their early game is good, but feels quite weird with light cavalry not even having bloodlines, feel like bloodlines and maybe BBC would make them quite good civ.
And Bengalis are very good late game, but feels super akward due pretty much everything gets countered by skirms early, so without getting game late into rathas they dont really have much going for them.

P.S. longswordsmen do counter EW nowadays quite hard, how that's "laughable"? Everytime I went longswordsmen against EW I have won quite easily, sure is more tricky due adding xbow with EW, but if you are walled, EW spam nowadays is way less scary than it was before longswordsmen buffs.

Like you yourself said, they have pretty much no eco bonus until mid castle age (i.e when horse collar farms start running out).
So, the foot archer civ has the option of ending it early.
Also, foot archer civs are only like 25% of the civs. The rest have the option of matching or beating Sicilians with their own gold units.
And finally, inspite of halbs not being as strong as usual against Sicilian cavaliers, they are STILL COST EFFECTIVE. A FU halberdier kills a Sicilian Cavalier in 7 hits, while requiring 5 hits to be killed. A standard FU paladin however dies in 5 hits, while killing the halberdier in 4 hits. Point being, they are not THAT much stronger than a paladin against a halberdier; they die slower, but also kill slower.


Franks have this win rate only because people play open maps all the time. There are maps where they underperform too.
Still, I can understand the need for a slight nerf. Their berries have already been nerfed, maybe not have crop rotation for free? IDK


Nah, going straight war wagons almost never work.
We've seen Koreans get picked a lot in BOA, and they almost always just lose.


The Hussite Wagon play almost never works except in Arena. Not sure why they should be nerfed just because of one map.
You have the option to go for redemption yourself. And the Bohemian monastery clown strategy, rightly, got nerfd.


Yeah, I can agree about a ED nerf to +30 hp, while also balancing for it by reducing it's cost.
Either that, for slightly nerf their archer discount.


Lithuanians lost blast furnace, their infantry lost final armour upgrade and Leitis lost 1 PA. They are already super nerfed, nerf them any more and they'll not be picked at all.


As for the new Indian civs, people say the Elephant rams are powerful.
I say, they are WEAKER than regular rams. They are more expensive and melt against pikes. This has to be addressed sooner or later.

 

[MAE_ME]

I find many of theese suggested balance changes pretty ridicoulus, but I agree about the Sicilians thing.
I hate this civ more then anything.
I dont claim they are broken in a way that they are OP; their eco is too bad for that.
However I would say that design-wise it is the worst Civ that the Devs have brought to us. Reducing Bonus damage - especially as a general Bonus for EVERY Unit - is just bad and the first of their many uncreative Boniuses. With some Civs like Malians you might be in an even game and then suddenly realize there is nothing to do against the Sicilian Knight line, since Camels&Pikes dont really work, you dont have Bracer for an early Imp Powerspike, you dont have Halbs in Imp, only thing to do is trying to mirror them and go Cav, then sicilians mix in some of their own Halbs and its over.

Lets go through their Thingys and see if there is one thats not bad or uncreative except their Farm Bonus:

- The damage reduction thing really breaks the counter System to a degree and IMO goes against the spirit of the game - dont think about Counters and Unit comps, just go for one power unit and kill all.

- 100% faster building castles is ridcoulus, its almost impossible to stop a Sicilian castle drop, they just need to hold that map control for a few seconds. But building castles on an ongoing Battlefield, pretty sure thats how it was done in the middle ages aswell, right?

- Everyone agrees that First Crusade is a pretty stupid Tech, and very uncreative

- Their UU is just another slow, champion-like Infantry Unit that does not have anything special about it except for building those Donjons

- The Strat the Devs had in mind - a Feudal age rush with Donjons and Serjeants (thats why they have extra stone and thats why they can make the Unit in Feudal age) - simply does not work at all

- The Hauberk Cavalier is the most lazy and uncreative design I have ever seen. "We dont want another Paladin Civ, so lets just make a UT that makes their Cavalier as strong as Paladins", seriously does it get more uncreative? The Hauberk Cavalier does basically everything an Elite Cataphract does, while having more attack, better pierce armour, can be build from stables, can be much easier massed from castle age on, is way cheaper to tech into and also their Civ relies on a stronger economy then Byzantines.

And last but not least... I get the Vikings have settled in Sicily, and this is why that Island is not beeing covered by the Italian civilisation. But neither Vikings nor Italians have great Cav. There is simply no reason for a Civ from a mediterranian Island to have Heavy Cavalry. For every other Civ, I can see that they have a "role model" in history, but sicilians just seem generic. If I saw their buildings or Units or even read their Bonuses without knowing the Civ I would have no clue whatsover who they are supposed to be.

Really good explanation my friend. Do you know what is the problem with people? They don't care about what you said because they gonna tell you: bUt sIcIlians wInRate is bElOw average wHy tHey aRe bAd?!".

People literally don't think and just copy paste.

IMHO you really should write a sperated topic to expalin to people how Sicilians are broken and copy what you said here because you are really telling the truth in details and they think I am trolling, I know that I wrote many nerfs suggestions but they are really make sense to most those civs.

 

[Potkeny]

People literally don't think and just copy paste

If you say "nerfs", that implies the civ is too strong.

Too strong is either by winrate or by top-players (when the civ is not suitable for less skilled people, like chinese).

What you want is not nerfing the civs, but redesigning their non-aoe2-like bonuses.

Changing a badly-designed bonus from 50% to 30% is a nerf.

Replacing a badly-designed bonus with something more suitable for aoe2 is a redesign.

 

[MAE_ME]

If you say "nerfs", that implies the civ is too strong.

Too strong is either by winrate or by top-players (when the civ is not suitable for less skilled people, like chinese).

What you want is not nerfing the civs, but redesigning their non-aoe2-like bonuses.

Changing a badly-designed bonus from 50% to 30% is a nerf.

Replacing a badly-designed bonus with something more suitable for aoe2 is a redesign.

Whatever it should be. The Sicilians 50% less bonus damage, Hauberk, Flemish militia and 1st crusade should be removed completely from the game. You know what? It is not something need a nerf, it is something THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE GAME. Add to this the 2nd tc for cuman and Lithuand relic bonus and the 100% build for TCs and castles and even Burgundians bonus economy

 

[Instinctz]

THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE GAME. Add to this the 2nd tc for cuman and Lithuand relic bonus and the 100% build for TCs and castles and even Burgundians bonus economy

Then do everyone a favor. Since you don't like any of those things, go redesign all the civs so they
1) aren't using those.
2)still remain balanced, playable, and most importantly unique from other civs.

Go ahead equalizer. Put your money where your mouth is.

Just because you don't think something should be in the game has zero bearing unless you yourself are going to ensure all 3 the above remains true

You complain endlessly about sicilians but all I see is nerfs without compensation to keep them balanced.

All you scream is nerfs, and not rebalance, redesign, etc.

Prove you actually give a crap about balance instead of just nerfing whst you don't like.

Sicilians cavaliers might be too strong against archers, but sicilian aren't overpowered and don't need nerfs.

Lithuanians might be too strong on hybrid maps but on everything else they are about average these days


War wagons, organ guns, and hussite might be too strong but none or their civs are lighting the world on fire.

Eagle Warriors might be too food cheap but the overall cost is more then fine.