Eliminate or Revise Britons and Franks
- This topic has 17 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Britons are mainly problematic because of team games.
Yeah the extra range is annoying but at least in a 1v1 they have to foot the bill for their own defense with their blood-lines lacking cavalry, generic infantry, and generic food eco.
In a team game that balance is gone and on top of that it’s harder to flank archers in team games because the cross-section of the map per player drops as player counts increase.
Franks have the opposite problem where they’re much more problematic in 1v1s.
The micro asymmetry of defending against knights combined with the raw resource advantage is simply not well designed for the average player.
Regardless of it’s ability to be countered at higher skill levels the design is clearly problematic.
>Britons and Franks are two of the most one dimensional civs in the entire game.
Exactly.
I’ve been calling this for years.
But expect nothing, these two are fan-favorite civs, they’ll never be changed.
In fact, check the new civs we have, Burgundians is heavily inspired by Franks, in fact it’s a worse version of Franks design wise.
The system works exactly the opposite as it should.
I don’t think they need a nerf or rework.
Im generally very successful vs franks (about 80% winrate, second most games played vs) still have no idea how to beat Britons unless I make it to siege ram.
They are both incredibly predictable which is a good thing when playing vs them.
I think the Gurjaras and Hindustanis need attention first.
Especially Hindustanis with one of the best ecos in the game, and a counter for everything.
I feel at a loss if I don’t gain a lead by mid-castle when tech switches become easier.
Introductory civs shouldn’t be this powerful.
They should only be flexible.
Britons are too specialized, and they distort expectations regarding archer play.
2
The Britons and Franks are great introductory civs.
We shouldn’t change them.
I agree Britons need a rework.
I’ve been playing for 18 years and yet still think that they’re poorly designed, only kept the way they are because they’re a classic civ.
They need serious change, because the fact that their Archer line has the same niche as their UU makes the UU obsolete in most games.
This is actually a problem for a fair few original civs, their UU’s niche overlaps with their civ bonus.
Franks just need the cav hp bonus to only start in Castle Age, imo, like it always used to.
Recently Sobek played franks vs poles and went for axeman + halb.
Mbl played franks and went for long swords into onagers (both in a tournament game).
Franks are geared towards cav, as a cav civ should be, but they are not one dimensional.
And while in the past I could see an argument that franks OP, with the power creep of gurjaras/hindustanis/poles/burgundians, that is no longer a valid argument.
Britons are disgustingly OP for TGs flank.
Not sure how to go about it without removing their extra range identity though.
Franks are better MAA into archers.
The 20% equal to or worse than free bloodlines until imperial age.
Franks – kind of agree, but I just think knights are a bit too strong in general after reaching castle age – would be good to have some additional upgrade to make them as strong as right now and to not have that power spike.
Castles could be a bit more expensive for them also.
Britons – I don’t agree, there are also other good archer civs and IMO Mayans are better.
The range is important, but if the opponent plays skirms, knights, other unique units countering archers the range is not that important.
They just can counter mangonels in an easier way.
The win rate of Britons is just a bit above 50%.
[deleted]
As someone who got stomped 3 times by franks today
Please don’t ever delete Britons or Franks or rework them
Hehe knights go brrrr
On today’s episode of civ rage that won’t change anything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
