Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

[princeofcarthage]

thanks for your feedback guys. Let me explain some points.

Lancers are broken in treaty. I hit them too hard yes, they should still be more or less core to spain''s main composition but they are simply too strong. When a unit can defeat 90% of the units that should counter it, something is wrong (e.g gendarme).

At the same time lancer is made to counter infantry, so how does it losing to infantry makes sense? Like I said it''s that type of question where x counters y and y counters x. cavalry generally suppose to be more elite than inf makes more sense winning.


Because of this as dicktator mentioned, different playstyles will be more viable for spain now, which is making them less linear and more diverse. I don''t see how that is a bad thing. In general, you don''t really see spain being played out of natives. I''m hoping that removing missionary pop cost along with a small boom boost will make them more viable.


Cuz you are trying to incorporate every playstyle in every civ. if you study game carefully its clearly understandable that game is designed in such a way to give different playstyle for each civilization that makes it unique. I dont get why you want to play musk huss with every civ

Longbows are super strong. I don''t make them because as a player I don''t like that kind of style of fighting (camping). However they can snipe missionaries, organ guns and sometimes culvs. They''re too strong only in terms of their range. 2 range isn''t going to kill them or make them unplayable, but it does reduce some unintended consequences of the unit.


Historically, rabaulds had short range(yes less longbows) so I dont see a prob here tbh lol and why they shouldnt snipe missionaries please explain that logic.

As for Iroquois, they are too gimicky as a civ. They either do extremely well or do extremely poorly, and usually this is based on the map size. They are such a wood heavy civ it''s not even funny. If the map is too small, you won''t have enough wood to drain any of the tier 1 civs. Previously Kanya have barely been made because of this, and since reducing their reliance on wood will mean they can have a better trade, it makes sense to change the cost to gold. Kanya horseman are actually reasonably decent and hopefully we''ll see more cav from iro. Same story with tomahawk.

Personally I don''t like how card heavy the ottoman boom is for a civ that doesn''t get xp for making vills. They also don''t get fulling mills, so livestocking isn''t even as optimal as it could be. I''m unsure if food silos is enough to compensate but now otto will be able to send an extra card, such as church card, which makes their post 40 more smooth.

Btw prince missionaries don''t do anything to hp, they only boost attack.


please reread what I said

[charlemagen]

Lancers too op, missionaries should never be a prioritized target unless they are in front of your army. for a infantry unit to be able to hit organs or other artillery safely is not balanced.

[princeofcarthage]

cuz 1) lancer is prolly the only good unit spain gets. 2) they fight with 90 pop and an average eco. 3) whats wrong in a sniper sniping a artilleryman? you are wasting what like 40 lbs to one hit one organ lol who would do that. if anything less organ gets 2+ shots which returns its full value so anything above it is anyways luxury lol.

[dicktator]

cuz 1) lancer is prolly the only good unit spain gets. 2) they fight with 90 pop and an average eco. 3) whats wrong in a sniper sniping a artilleryman? you are wasting what like 40 lbs to one hit one organ lol who would do that. if anything less organ gets 2+ shots which returns its full value so anything above it is anyways luxury lol.

Lancers are not the only good unit Spain gets. If it was, then that would obviously need to be changed. We gave them 100 pop and a slightly better eco to compensate for the lancer nerf and give them other options. Using lancers as their main unit, like I said before, is still a viable strat, the lancer nerf did not kill lancers. However, the nerf makes it so that other compositions are viable as well, and that spamming 20-30 lancers isn''t their only option, because sometimes, in tight cliff spaces, it isn''t an option. What''s wrong with infantry sniping organs is that infantry isn''t supposed to kill artillery. Also, I have never in my life seen someone "waste 40 longbows" to kill one organ gun. They use like 15 longbows max. Organ guns returning its value is not always guaranteed, getting two shots off is difficult because remember they have to get in range of infantry to shoot it which allows longbows with 26 range to reach it a little too easily.

[princeofcarthage]

Lb gets ~34 atk and organ has some ~300+hp with 75% rr. For lb to one hit organ it will actually take arnd 40 lbs. With 15 lbs it will take 3 shots lol which is pretty low for organ to have its value back. About range lb is going to be most likely at the back of your army. Since both have same range pretty sure if lb can fire so can organ guns. Artillery doesnt fire on itself, it requires ppl to shoot, if they are dead isnt that unit as good as dead, how come its wrong, you gotta remember that technical limitations in an old game. Give one unit which is good with spain other than lancer.

[charlemagen]

your argument honestly just makes no sense

[princeofcarthage]

what part of it doesnt make sense to you.

[pinkgichtenlord]

Lb gets ~34 atk and organ has some ~300+hp with 75% rr. For lb to one hit organ it will actually take arnd 40 lbs. With 15 lbs it will take 3 shots lol which is pretty low for organ to have its value back. About range lb is going to be most likely at the back of your army. Since both have same range pretty sure if lb can fire so can organ guns. Artillery doesnt fire on itself, it requires ppl to shoot, if they are dead isnt that unit as good as dead, how come its wrong, you gotta remember that technical limitations in an old game. Give one unit which is good with spain other than lancer.

Where is your point about lbs in your argument? I dont really know what u want to tell us.

About spain: Im really not sure how your changes will turn out. Right now, I''d say the nerf on lancers is acceptable and it gets compensated by 10 additional military pop and a slightly better eco. But all these buffs dont change the fact, that spain gonna be destroyed by the main nat civs(brit, ger), because of the infinite cannon shipment.
If u wanna see spain viable in the lategame, you have to change something about their artillery. My suggestions are either reduce cost of culverins by 50-100gold or reduce their building time. Maybe also a slightly buff to horse art(+1 splash?)

[charlemagen]

Lb gets ~34 atk and organ has some ~300+hp with 75% rr. For lb to one hit organ it will actually take arnd 40 lbs. With 15 lbs it will take 3 shots lol which is pretty low for organ to have its value back. About range lb is going to be most likely at the back of your army. Since both have same range pretty sure if lb can fire so can organ guns. Artillery doesnt fire on itself, it requires ppl to shoot, if they are dead isnt that unit as good as dead, how come its wrong, you gotta remember that technical limitations in an old game. Give one unit which is good with spain other than lancer.

Where is your point about lbs in your argument? I dont really know what u want to tell us.

About spain: Im really not sure how your changes will turn out. Right now, Id say the nerf on lancers is acceptable and it gets compensated by 10 additional military pop and a slightly better eco. But all these buffs dont change the fact, that spain gonna be destroyed by the main nat civs(brit, ger), because of the infinite cannon shipment.
If u wanna see spain viable in the lategame, you have to change something about their artillery. My suggestions are either reduce cost of culverins by 50-100gold or reduce their building time. Maybe also a slightly buff to horse art(+1 splash?)

I think are most viable option would be too make mayas a decent shipment actually

[princeofcarthage]

Lb gets ~34 atk and organ has some ~300+hp with 75% rr. For lb to one hit organ it will actually take arnd 40 lbs. With 15 lbs it will take 3 shots lol which is pretty low for organ to have its value back. About range lb is going to be most likely at the back of your army. Since both have same range pretty sure if lb can fire so can organ guns. Artillery doesnt fire on itself, it requires ppl to shoot, if they are dead isnt that unit as good as dead, how come its wrong, you gotta remember that technical limitations in an old game. Give one unit which is good with spain other than lancer.

Where is your point about lbs in your argument? I dont really know what u want to tell us.

About spain: Im really not sure how your changes will turn out. Right now, Id say the nerf on lancers is acceptable and it gets compensated by 10 additional military pop and a slightly better eco. But all these buffs dont change the fact, that spain gonna be destroyed by the main nat civs(brit, ger), because of the infinite cannon shipment.
If u wanna see spain viable in the lategame, you have to change something about their artillery. My suggestions are either reduce cost of culverins by 50-100gold or reduce their building time. Maybe also a slightly buff to horse art(+1 splash?)

I dont get why you quoted me on this cuz I dont think what you wrote was for me.

[pinkgichtenlord]

Where is your point about lbs in your argument? I dont really know what u want to tell us.

About spain: Im really not sure how your changes will turn out. Right now, Id say the nerf on lancers is acceptable and it gets compensated by 10 additional military pop and a slightly better eco. But all these buffs dont change the fact, that spain gonna be destroyed by the main nat civs(brit, ger), because of the infinite cannon shipment.
If u wanna see spain viable in the lategame, you have to change something about their artillery. My suggestions are either reduce cost of culverins by 50-100gold or reduce their building time. Maybe also a slightly buff to horse art(+1 splash?)

I think are most viable option would be too make mayas a decent shipment actually

Then you gotta replace it or change mayas to a ranged unit lol

[charlemagen]

I think are most viable option would be too make mayas a decent shipment actually

Then you gotta replace it or change mayas to a ranged unit lol

Yeah we would have to look into that

[djunjuppeke]

Btw, whats wrong with the treaty fan patch? Why start all over again when theres already something (to start from).

[charlemagen]

Btw, whats wrong with the treaty fan patch? Why start all over again when theres already something (to start from).

well the last treaty fan patch was a lot more random ideas thrown together while this one we are actually doing a lot of testing before we set anything in stone.

[ocemilky]

lol so thats just making game linear if you want every civ to be fast and end games in 10 min I wasnt wrong after all. most of your changes are changing the way a civ is meant to be played. nerfing an already weaker civ? what good does that do lol.

Can you point out any change in the notes that attributes to games ending in 10 mins?? I would say most of these changes allow for a longer lasting game.

I swear you are just a spain player who is butthurt that lancers got nerfed. They need a nerf. They shouldn''t be able to do ~280 damage to all infantry.

Also, spains current playstyle is super aggressive - you either win or lose in 10 mins. If this is what you want to avoid, why would we keep spain exactly the same?

[ocemilky]

Btw, whats wrong with the treaty fan patch? Why start all over again when theres already something (to start from).

Because was originally me just messing around with changes and testing them. This isn''t a patch or anything. It''s just a few of us testing changes that could aid in tr. I don''t expect this to be turned into much of an unofficial patch, at least not any time soon.

[princeofcarthage]

lol so thats just making game linear if you want every civ to be fast and end games in 10 min I wasnt wrong after all. most of your changes are changing the way a civ is meant to be played. nerfing an already weaker civ? what good does that do lol.

Can you point out any change in the notes that attributes to games ending in 10 mins?? I would say most of these changes allow for a longer lasting game.

I swear you are just a spain player who is butthurt that lancers got nerfed. They need a nerf. They shouldnt be able to do ~280 damage to all infantry.

Also, spains current playstyle is super aggressive - you either win or lose in 10 mins. If this is what you want to avoid, why would we keep spain exactly the same?

I havent played spain in ages and then again balancing doesnt mean changing a playstyle of a civ. if you want exactly what I mean then current example the EP if you look at it it just nerfs down the stats which are kind off too good for sup, it doesnt change civ playstyle. what you are trying to do is changing every civ in a way were games end up in similar fashion. I dont see a prob with spain being super aggressive in early minutes. its different for different civ. like ger is prolly at at its best after 12 min mark once hc comes in. fyi lancer are mostly out of missionary auro they dont even do max damage .

[ocemilky]

Can you quote the changes that you claim make tr games end in 10 mins?

[princeofcarthage]

Can you quote the changes that you claim make tr games end in 10 mins?

it was an example based on what you said your goal was "I want a bunch of civ to be like otto/iro in sup" when i compared spain playstyle to like otto in sup. what I meant was you are prefering more linear playstyle over current distinct ones

[momuuu]

what i think are current balance issues in treaty' the stem of the problem

general:
- villagers moving around mills/plants causes lag
- cav archer/gren are trash units

aztec:
- ...

+1 to this. I am hoping that after lots of testing we can minimize the amount of changes made to make transitioning easier.

To Jerom: I think the EP is more balanced than the RE patch for tr so I think we will probably use that for tr anyway in the meantime - better maps, some civs like dutch become more viable etc. At the moment we are just trying to figure out what changes to actually make. Then if possible we can load those onto late game cards/technologies to allow both balanced sup and tr on an EP.

yeah, thatd be nice. Hope it can somehow even work together with lategame sup changes.

[ocemilky]

Can you quote the changes that you claim make tr games end in 10 mins?

it was an example based on what you said your goal was "I want a bunch of civ to be like otto/iro in sup" when i compared spain playstyle to like otto in sup. what I meant was you are prefering more linear playstyle over current distinct ones

I did not say that except for quoting yourself. The thing is, Lancers are still an aggressive unit and they will still be used to push. Their slight eco buff and the fact that lancers arent overpowered anymore means Spain will have to diverse at different times - e.g when theyre getting pushed in and need to conserve eco, the best composition was still making a tonne of lancer. They were a 1 composition civ' now they will be able to diverse while keeping their aggressive playstyle. I dont like how some civs force you into one style of play. Previously that was Spain. Now it shouldnt be.

One might then argue my philosophy on brit. I dont like making longbows. But thats just down to my preference of being aggressive and pushing into a base as opposed to playing passive and draining an opponent.

Port being able to have cheaper natives than any other civ means they will also have a place in the cliffs with natives. This diversifies them.

Iro can now efficiently make Tomahawk and Kanya Horseman. This will mean they can go forest prowler/toma/art or toma/kanya art or forest prowler/kanya art and thats even without natives.

Otto can now use cavalry archers properly and have a bombard shipment allowing for more of an abus mass with jan and cav archer or a jan mass with abus huss or jans with great bombard. This is also without natives taken into consideration.

Russia now has an inf hc and strelets have been improved. This is one that I will admit might need to be addressed as musk art cossack will probably be the most viable composition here. However cav archer may come into play with a strelet cav archer art mass, and strelets can be massed with art and nats if you take the cliffs.

Dutch need some buffs but at least they can now compete and actually make hussar and play aggressive with skirm huss art or sit back with skirm ruyter art.

Im running low on time however if you think most of these changes are making civs more linear then I think youre wrong. Prove me wrong

[princeofcarthage]

Tbh spain is a good as it is. Spain is like iro or otto in sup which focuses on early and stronger military. Late game prolly they are weaker. Maybe a 10% eco might drag games longer.

My goal is that there is single or group of civs that are like iro/otto/india in sup.

[ocemilky]

My goal is that there is single or group of civs that are like iro/otto/india in sup.

oops I meant to say isnt. There shouldnt be a tier of civs that are above the rest. There should be civs that are better than others in different situations, and there should be some civs that might be more favourable in some match ups and less in others. there shouldnt be an iro/otto/india tier like there currently is in tr (france/china/japan/russia)

[noissance]

Lancers need a speed buff, they so slow!

[Magnam]

I don't like the idea of giving ottos/russia infinitive cannon shipments. It will pretty much change the whole playstyle of the civ. Every matchup will be like German mirrors after ~10 mins, when we have too many infinitive cannon shipments