Goodspeed wrote:@
momuuu I agree with most of your points about game design and we do tend to choose more general nerfs over nerfing specific playstyles or units when trying to balance civs. Standardizing is not something we want to do. But there is still a point where a unit or playstyle becomes so prevalent that we find we are not seeing most of the civ's unique aspects, we are only seeing the 1 side of them. Every RE Sioux game is 100% bow rider. Almost every German game is 100% uhlan plus shipments. Every current India game seems to be (nearly) 100% sepoy, and every Otto game is 100% janissary plus shipments.
I dont even begin to understand how every german game is 100% uhlan plus shipments. Thats just blatantly wrong. Not every sioux game is 100% bow rider either, I'm pretty damned sure we see them do semi FF with axe riders and wakinas almost more than half of the time if the map has decent hunts. You nerfed bow riders before we could even see sioux on EP maps (for your reference:
https://youtu.be/sTxOealh_3U?t=33m28s ). Not even every india game is 100% sepoy, as I already said Russia/Otto/Aztec require defensive play and then against civs like Japan, Dutch, British, Germany, China and some others you need more than just sepoy. Actually in reality the only true thing about your statement is that a majority of match ups require you to start with a sepoy pressure, just like how France starts hussar in the majority of their match ups or how china does FF in the majority of their match ups or how Russia goes 5 cossack almost all the time or how spain almost always does an FF build. And then saying otto is 100% janissary plus shipments is such a biased way to describe the otto composition. Janissary mam or jan falc are not necessarily such one dimensional compositions. Thats like saying meh Dutch almost always goes skirm ruyter why don't they go halb hussar that'd be more fun lets nerf skirmishers and ruyters.
There is more to these civs than 1 unit and 1 playstyle. You may not care as much about that because you don't play these civs and are only looking at it from the perspective of facing them. You argue that we are hurting inter-civ diversity by nerfing playstyles that are unique to the civ, and to an extent this is true, but there is a balance to be found here. Intra-civ diversity, that is the diversity in options for any one civ, is also important. When there is good balance between the two, a civ is unique but also has multiple ways to play. When there is bad balance between the two, a civ has only one way to play or, on the other side of the spectrum, the civ is good at everything but not great at anything (looking at you France). You don't need 1 OP unit or playstyle to be unique. After our changes, Germans still have very different strengths than Indians, and Sioux are even more different.
There is also a problem with balance for civs who have 1 possible playstyle, as they become easily counterable by civs who counter that specific playstyle. Especially with civ-countering rules, this can be an issue.
Very petty of you to just claim I don't play these civs. For your information, india is my second most played civ. And yes, if civs have literally only one thing they can do then that is a bit boring maybe, maybe it'd be fun if there is some diversity. But look at China, realistically speaking a FF is their main strategy, yet its interesting in the details of making the FF work, and in those details there is a plethora of build order variations were just the idea is constant. Similairily, Dutch basically always does a boomy semi FF, and I find that their strategies are very diverse in trying to make that work within all the different things civs can do.
Honestly, the same applies to india. I do not understand how one can reasonably put all the different types of rushes in just one category. A slow sepoy rush is close to an eco build order really, it's hardly a rush, it's just making a few sepoy to harass the opponent and keep him from being greedy, to then go into woodtrickle/600w/300e yourself. For example, against british a sepoy rush into a boom is quite commonly considered to be the best option for india, where india ends up actually defending against a big push from the british player. In the german match up, I think it's the norm to sepoy rush, then mass up a bit and then try to hit a timing when germany goes for the age up with some sowars, while against france we see all out consulate rushes mostly. Against dutch I think going for a slow sepoy rush followed up by 4 sowar, or honestly even going for a 10/10 might be the best way about it, and I do feel anything less aggressive or a consulate rush is much less efficient. Against Russia you usually don't even start with a rush, you generally should go 600w 300e and boom, starting out with sepoys but then transitioning into gurka zamb. What about the match up vs Aztec, where you will struggle to allow the agra to survive and where you are usually supposed to start with gurka? Do you think you can get away with making only sepoys against Japan? In general, India does often start out with sepoys (note that there is a huge difference between slow sepoy rush and consulate rush) but from there on out you often start mixing multiple unit types, gurkas in particular, sometimes even replace sepoys with zambs, and go completely different strategical paths. I find that india are a civ where you are doing different builds a lot. And even if they were a one trick pony, I do not think it's necessarily right to remove that trick entirely; after all the sepoy rush has a unique place in the meta. If india cant rush anymore you're making them much more boring.
Point being that it's not black and white. Inter-civ diversity is not all that matters, and when we see a severe lack of build diversity for any one civ, we will deal with it. For Sioux, Germans, Otto and India we saw/see this problem to enough of an extent to do something about it. Put simply, we have noticed that the aforementioned "balance" is off in those cases and we want to fix it.
But why, time and time again, do you elect to nerf what makes the civ special, remove their identity? India players probably enjoy sepoy rushing by now, I bet lots of RE Sioux players loved going bow riders, I think German players enjoy trying to play around with this uhlan weakness, I think otto players enjoy their limited unit pool, trying to win the game off of key shipments. I could get behind at least opening up options; For germany, maybe going back to 9 xbow + 2 uhlan brings back germany's aggressive colonial, which used to be quite strong. For india, I could possibly get behind a tiny nerf to sepoys, maybe -1 attack or +5 food or something, but even that seems unwarrented since India is often considered weak or below average, but only if they'd get a legitemate buff to their eco. I'd propose buffing the karni mata or howdahs. Either of those might allow them to also semi FF from time to time. But be aware that if you nerf sepoys that much and only buff their eco style, that you then might aswell remove the civ.
More specifically about India. They're a very interesting and well-designed civ, but I am not seeing that when I watch high level India games. I see them rush when most of their strengths and unique aspects make them an excellent civ later in the game. A strong unit composition, a civ bonus that slow-booms, a slow age up time, wonders that favour defense and/or contain strategies rather than all out rushes, etcetera. They are a rush civ for only one reason: Sepoy are too strong. It doesn't actually fit their civ design at all. They will still be able to rush, they will even be slightly faster with the house change, but they won't want to commit under a TC as much. They will want to contain, which in my opinion is more in line with their civ design.
India rushes because any other style causes them to lose. Gurka zamb is a much better composition than Sepoys, and in the match ups where they actually get to play colonial (basically, only against russia and aztec) do they make gurka zamb. The other match up, against british, is dominated by sepoys because british is weak against sepoys. And pure sepoy in the midgame literally does not happen. In a few match ups India might elect to consulate rush which is rather all in, but I do not think its necessarily bad that a civ has the best chances with an all in strategy in a handful of match ups. I do not know how much you're reducing the house cost, but what I do know is that india cannot actually sustain a rush; they just get outecod, or civs just go to age 3 and destroy india. Containing on EP is worthless, the hunts will be safe under the TC and then safe nearby the TC up to 11 minutes, if not later. At that point, india is often dead. You can have fun containing but india can, in many match ups, only survive by going for the throat. If you'd play some india or properly analyze the civ, I think this seems quite obvious. You need to punish that age 3, or resign.
Goodspeed wrote:I recall a time when India would contain with forward agra and economic investments in early colonial. With cheaper houses, their entire build is slightly sped up so this will be a stronger option. Alternatively they can go for early gurkha pressure, or their own semi-FF. Sepoy rush shouldn't be their only option. If it is, there is clearly a problem. And without nerfing it we couldn't have buffed India in the way that we did, because it would've been even better and would've done little to encourage different play.
I recall a time where germany would most frequently go xbow pike. I recall a time where Japan would make mostly ashigarus. I recall a time where Aztec would age with 2 skull knights. And no, you cant go for gurka pressure because you cant even begin to deal with cavalry with that build order. The reason sepoy rush is the only option is because all other possibilities aren't viable. If you just specifically the eco build, like reducing karni build time, or making gurkas get auto veteran, or making howdah strong, then you don't actually limit india again. With this change you're killing sepoy rush, you're literally limiting india but then in the sense that you have arbitrarily decided is good, and maybe more notably, in the same way that the majority of popular civs are limited: To a boring, non interactive no rush 10 civ.
