Why Do We Accept Goths as a Low Tier Group in Our Community?
- This topic has 30 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Out of all the civs, some of them have to be near the bottom – not evert civ can be top tier – it’s basic game balance. Goths are just unlucky to be in that spot, but somebody has to be, ya know?
Goths were originally designed to be on the weaker side but with a very clear identity. Curiously, a large part of the community agrees that Goths can actually be very fun to play, because their late game is both potent and unique.
In all, I think it’s fine for there to be civs like that. It teaches newer players that solo infantry is bad at most stages of the game, and it still offers a unique experience to, well, experienced players.
I just build walls as goths, walls of barracks. I consider it a failure if I don’t have 60 barracks up and instantly replace battalions as they die.
To fix Goths, you’d have to remove one or more of their existing bonuses before buffing them in some way.
I think goths is slightly stronger than pros think, if one does the maths, goths eco bonus on open maps isnt bad, not amazing, but average. I kinda like goths where they are atm.
Really good in a team setting
They can use help but touch them too much and they become too good. They have always been controversial, they were designed that way back in Age of Kings.
Upping their pop bonus from 10 to 20 only helps their super late game(when they are already oppressive against most civs). It would be a win-more buff.
What if goths started with their pop bonus innately? +10 pop cap straight from dark age. That only technically saves 50 wood and some building time(staving off houses for a few minutes), but that extra dark age time could be well spent not needing to worry about being housed off the bat, and I am sure pros can make good use of the saved wood and build time. But then you have to consider that this makes their dark age militia rush come to fruition that much faster with 50 saved wood and build time savings. Which pros will use to their advantage. So even something like this may not be a good solution to buff goths. Or maybe it is, who knows.
Since when skirms/hussars is a counter to 35% discounted champions?
Because we love Goths the way they are <3
Goths are unique because infantry goes brrr is their main selling point but infantry itself is niche. It’s very hard to balance infantry to fit in the meta where all rounder units like xbows or knights dominate. You can simply play kts into cavalier then switch to infantry, but you will just fall behind to many civs in terms of military bonus or eco bonus.
Make Longswords a unit and we’re fine
I would give them +5 pop per age, for 20 total by the end (free of buildings) extra house space early, but not too oppressive.
I would give them +1 pierce armour to militia/spear line in imp. This would only leave them 1/1 down not 1/2 down and I think would be a nice instant boost that would not be too overpowering.
I think these 2 small tweaks would be enough to help them do better somewhat pressuring early and then being slightly better late.
I think having them have stone walls would not be breaking and think this would help a little too
I think it’s just that people are okay with their identity as a civ. They are an infantry civ with a spooky late game if you let them get that far. They are somewhat one-dimensional, but it’s because they have such a powerful dimension in the late game. I still find Slavs to be worse, just because they’re unremarkable across the board, and I find that boring.
I’ve mentioned it in discussions [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/11crhts/comment/ja6ktev/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), but it really is an issue of keeping the unique identity of the Goths as a strong late-game infantry flood civilization with an early-game weakness without making them feel oppressive to play against. Buffing their early-game bonuses has historically changed their identity into either a super drush, super flush, or laming civ that was considered oppressive. Buffing their late-game bonuses enough to bring their overall win rate up to 50% as they win more games post-Imp also risks them becoming oppressive. The answer seems to be either leaving them alone or giving them the most minor and incremental buffs possible to their late-game army and bonuses.
Goth being not very good on almost any map is a valid point and I think everybody agrees that they need a buff and i hope that we will see one.
I think the reason why its doesn’t get talked a lot about are a few reasons:
1. Goths are hard to balance.
Goths can win against almost every civ if they get their eco going. If you buff them they get very oppressive and hard to counter. Its also hard to balance infantry civs, because infantry gets not used a lot.2. Goths were very good when they had instant free loom and higher discount in dark age, which resulted in Goths picking on ladder and long drushes and m@as which was one of the worst times to play ladder.
3. A small reason but I think they are better at lower levels and hard to counter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
