Honesty, just revert cav training time and livestock nerfs and china would probably fix them (in some people's opinion). Or give them a 400w start and keep the other nerfs. But, I honestly dont think that China is too weak, I just dont think that a lot of people know how to play them, but many people know how to play against them.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
n0eL wrote:Well I would have guessed the other way. Not many people know how to play against them and it's why they have a higher perceived strength. I'm really curious what their usage rate and win % was in the later tournament rounds @Mitoe
pecelot wrote:The thing is, to what extent. I don't think we want to see only Chinese mirrors again on maps like Tibet...
Just choose India or Russia and China can't do much.
If steppes were buffed (maybe just an hp buff or something, and ofc 7 steppes would have to be nerfed) than China's colonial would actually be viable enough to pull off some kind of semiff or sth. With colonial cav that could actually do something some sort porcelain tower -> 700w -> 700c -> military shipment build might be viable with a couple batches of the ckn/steppe rider banner army.
Site: Be there or be square
Jakey: I'm square because I'm not around
pecelot wrote:I don't think the EP team necessarily intends to change the way a civilisation is played, so I wouldn't really expect tweaks to Chinese colonial play.
yeah you're probably right, but i just hate seeing "one-trick pony" civs. On EP even civs like Spain and Port can do ATP colonial play, so it just seems dumb that literally China's only viable strat is a naked ff and even then its only good on certain maps.
Site: Be there or be square
Jakey: I'm square because I'm not around
Steppe HP is fine. They cost half as much as huss, and have half the HP (but twice the damage against light infantry and much higher siege I might add)
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Another ep threads where people are crying about any changes (be it buffs or nerfs, funnily both are mentioned here) without actually seemingly knowing what is up.
China is a fine civ really, I found knusch vs goodspeed china vs ports to show that pretty nicely tbh. I think they just have a very weak mu vs aztec and russia and its kinda easy to lose to a cheese as china.
But can we stop convincing ourselves something is wrong with a civ without actual solid reasoning.. I see this all the time in balance threads and it just bugs me. Many people come in and just randomly try to guess how strong a civ is (thats what it seems like to me given how bs some opinions are) and then instantly jump to arguing about a collection of arbitrary changes for some unknown reason.
China was nerfed for a reason. Suggesting buffs to compensate for their nerfs is ridiculous. If China was fine and decent they would not have been nerfed in the first place. Some of you guys (which i wont name) just keep talking and they refuse to back up that with actions. None of you ever played china on ladder, yet you think you are capable of knowing how strong it is.
Jerom wrote:China is not the worst nor the best civ, not even close, so stop talking about what buffs/nerfs to give.
Thats your opinion, mine may be the same as yours, but people are still entitled to theirs. I thought you used to be mod
Yes but at this point I've gotten too annoyed by people easily jumping the gun on changes. I don't really see any convincing argument as to why china is not a middle of the pack civ right now.
I think you can do enough damage to them in age 2 and then just age behind it and they can never catch up. Also high resource tp maps allow you to do very eco heavy build that china cant punish
what you think about that tp+1vilage start that we were testing yesterday in ducks stream? maybe not ideal vs russia, but would you judge that a good bo in some cases?
also, since you are the only person who actually plays colonial china.. do you think its really that bad, or is just shadowed by their better ff? (think german colonal play vs uhlan semi ff...)
Darwin_ wrote:To all he people that main China or at least play it more than me, what makes them "weak"?
How did you conclude that china is weak precisely?
I didnt conclude that, rather I was asking why others think it is weak, hence the quotation marks. In my opinion, they are most likely fine. No one has really played them that much in the past few months tho.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
I like the idea of the TP start but I don't think it's as good as the 2 village. Reason being that you are still slow to age 2 since you have to chop and you are down a villager. I don't think the TP gains you that much if you plan on playing age 2. You will now have to either use your 700 w to add a village which probably means no early consulate or market upgrades (or) chop extra and miss unit batches. If you aren't constantly training banner armies you are losing your mass advantage.
Interesting. What about against more passive civs, wouldnt the extra exp allow for something like 600w or 1000w being added to the build without delaying it? on paper it looks like a even more solid ff then the standard one. you are in fact trading 1vill+200w for an extra shipment...
tp is far superior in every way basically. it allows you to push harder in fortress, it allows you to defend agression easier. You might age 10-15 sec slower, but its negligable really.