the Needs of its Citizens Citizens’ Needs Balanced by Civ
- This topic has 6 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is the final video in the series.For the Tatars, we mostly agree that access to flaming camels should be available in the Imperial Age, and they should not require a tech.
The Teutons don’t need any changes.
For the Turks, we’re suggesting removing their bonus of Scout line +1p armor, and replacing it with Stable units receiving +1p armor per age starting in the Castle Age (excluding the knight-line).
They would also lose access to Plate Boarding Armor (3rd Cav Armor) and gain access to Steppe Lancer (SL).
The Sipahi unique technology would give Cav Archers and Steppe Lancers +20hp.
These changes are controversial, but they would give the Turks more interesting reasons to play them on open maps.
For the Vietnamese, no changes are needed.
For the Vikings, we suggest reducing the cost of the Chieftains tech by 50%, and giving them access to Halbs.
This would give them top tier infantry in the late game and make it easier for them to get to.
What are your thoughts?
Missionaries in feudal would be game almost game breaking.
1.
Spanish are fine, they have an identity as a strong team game, closed map and nomad civ.
Also without nerfing feudal age monks they’re definitely not balanced.
2.
Never used flaming camels so this is fine, you can’t always get timurid siege craft.
3.
Teutons are well balanced and have an identity.
4.
I like the +1p on scout line better than whatever you did, if you want them to be good on Arabia then why get rid of a feudal age bonus?
Steppe lancers historically make sense and would be nice on Arabia so they can be added.
5.
Vietnamese are fine, maybe I’d buff their hp bonus but it’s OK.
6.
Chieftains is unbelievably pricey for being situational but viking halbs would be broken, don’t add them
Feudal monasteries are a definite “no”.
The suggestion with Turks was tried with pre-DoI Indians and it was an utter failure.
Just let them enjoy their +1 PA.
Vikings, I can see the logic, but this is too much anti-cav now.
What’s the rule when it comes to Castle Age buildings in Feudal Age, by which I mean Cuman Siege Workshops.
Do they count as one of the two buildings required for advancing to Castle Age or Imperial Age?
Steppe lancers would have the same pierce armor as paladins in imp.
Light cav would have 2 more pierce armor than paladins.
Edit nvm I didn’t read 11
Spanish don’t really need a change: Their a top tier nomad civ that is weak but still playable on Arabia.
If we try to make them too strong on Arabia, we could end up with unintended consequences like the Portuguese buff.
I’d prefer to allow the missionary to pick up relics.
Tatars: Ok fair enough I wanna see more flaming camels as well.
Teutons: Don’t need a change.
Maby give Elite TKS +1 pierce armor.
Turks: My question is why?
Their a really well designed civ that has a distant identity, these changes seem unnecessary.
While their most well known as an Arena civ, it’s not like Turks are bad on Arabia.
Removing their scout line pierce armor in Feudal age also sucks, it’s a fairly weak civilization in the early game and they kind of need their +1 pierce armor scouts as a powerful option.
Vietnamese: Don’t need a change.
Vikings: Not sure about giving them Halb but Chieftains should absolutely be a cheaper tech.
Why does it cost almost as much as Garland wars while having a generally worse effect!?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
