Should a Civilization be Given Free Heresy?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
  • Author
  • #21918

    I believe that heresy has limitations and even if it were freely available, it wouldn’t necessarily make a civilization overpowered.

    Perhaps its use could be dependent on having a monastery and conducting research, for example.


    I mean anything can be made not OP if you nerf other aspects enough.

    Something ranging from no stable, to a stable with only scout cav/knight and no cav upgrades would probably do it, but it wouldn’t be very fun to play.


    in some ways given it is rarely researched i think it could be ok, but then I think about how strong the Teuton bonus is on arena even in 1v1.

    you are essentially making that bonus but better which would make me say it would be too strong.

    The other comparision could be to Burmese, they get half price monk techs but it has been removed.

    This is probably more due to elephants (civs with elephants usually dont get heresy) but the cost reduction might have made it a viable tech.

    its basically the same cost as redemption at 50% off


    Would probably be fine for a civ that doesn’t get Paladin/boosted Cavalier or Elephants


    free heresy removes the only shared counter to knight+mangonel+monks combo for free so yeah it would be a bad idea making the civ annoying as fuck to play against (unless I guess you try to make their bonus useless by removing knights or monk upgrades, but then what’s the point?).




    New Portuguese replacement for autopick on arena


    It would completly remove the ability to monk rush against them.

    If you want that than change is fine, if you dont then its broken.

    Even just having teutons as a teammate makes monk play a lot harder to execute, but still somewhat possible.

    Heresy being free just kills that strategy completly.


    Heresy free in imperial age maybe?


    I think the Japanese should get it

    But you have to be careful that it doesn’t become op


    Weirdly I had the exact same thought earlier because of another post talking about monks.

    Why not.

    I think it’s fine.

    If the same civ had atonement then that would be a bit scary.

    Might suit a papal states civ if that ever became a thing…


    Nope, it wouldn’t be OP.

    Its a power spike that would only come into play in castle age IF the other civ makes knights and the defending civ makes monks (which to be fair is pretty common, but also archers are just as common as knights).

    You would just need to balance the civ out by giving it a worse dark/feudal age.

    I know I would still prefer playing with a civ like Franks that has a smooth dark and feudal then only a castle age powerspike.

    That being said, I think its a pretty boring civ bonus and its pretty lame to just automatically nerf an opponent unit like that.

    Especially ones as interesting as monks.


    Depends what the civ is good at.

    If it’s a dedicated archer civ with a weakness toward siege, no.

    If it’s an elephant or a knight-heavy civ, then yes.


    Only in combination with very strong Elephants, but even then Elephants are probably not good enough

    So, it’s a big no.

    It only avoids being monk rushed, how’s that “op”?

    It’s not like you ever HAVE to Monk rush in that game

    Beyond me how people consider something niche like that “overpowered”.


    Why would you want this?

    It essentially removes monks as an option against the civ for free, when a lot of civs depend on having monks to deal with infantry/siege or cavalry/siege compositions.

    It wouldn’t be OP in general, but it could make civ matchups frustratingly unfair in particular circumstances.

    Heresy is expensive for a reason.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Back to top button