Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

[ocemilky]

Hey guys!

Since hearing about the esoc patch, in my spare time I have been having thoughts for more balance to treaty 40. Would be super keen on what tr players on this forum think. I have implemented about half of the changes I have been discussing with several other players and we have been having a play around. Take a look at the notes if you are interested:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Hg ... sp=sharing

That being said, this isn't actually going to be a patch. This is just me with a couple of close tr buddies just having a thought fart on tr balance and trying out something different. Haven't quite had the time for a comment on the context of some big changes but most of them are self explanatory.

[Cometk]

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:
- no way to break down opposing infantry mass
- arrow knights are too slow to focus down walls or artillery at the same time

british:
-

chinese:
- too weak to cav flanks
- ability to cut vills and have ridiculous overpop

dutch:
- weak eco

france:
- gendarmes are too strong and the ability to make 1 stable at the corner of the map and split instantly is an unhealthy game mechanic

german:
-

indian:
- siege eles are too slow to focus down walls and artillery at the same time
- difficult to break down opposing infantry mass

iroquois:
- one-trick pony' only good in team games, with natives, in cliffs

japanese:
- the ability to run into the enemy base with daimyo/shogun is an unhealthy game mechanic

ottoman:
- weak to opposing cavalry

portuguese:
-

russia:
- running with oprichnik/forts simply bypasses map control in an unhealthy way

sioux:
- no way to break down enemy walls
- weak eco

spain:
-

[pinkgichtenlord]

general:
- villagers moving around mills/plants causes lag
+1 should be one of the most important changes



chinese:
- too weak to cav flanks


I dont think that chinas anti cav is that bad as people always say. The only cav which is really good vs china are gendarmes and they are totally broken anyways.

[Magnam]

I think a really important aspect also is that the gameplay of the civs should not change dramatically. For example the port explorer change. Just removing the 2 explorers would take away one of ports unique things. Probably nerfing them so the port explorer gets less hp for the capitol upgrades would take away their strength but keep the gameplay aspect.

But I really like the fp idea

[briowl]

Sioux:
1) Make the 12 bison card infinite
2) Give sioux hand cav extra siege

[momuuu]

I know you probably wouldn't want it, but it would be really interesting if the changes to treaty could be smartly chosen in such manner that it fixes both treaty, sup lategame, and that the sup changes can remain intact. I guess that'd mean both sides need to occasionally do some concessions, but you could try to tweak it via imperial options mostly.

[deleted_user0]

I think French is already too weak. What should be done is:
-Gendarme base hitpoints increased to 650 from 500. Also splash is increased.
-You can now train 100 cdbs.
-New shipment: Gendarmepower. Increases cdb gathering boost from 20% to 30%.

[jaype22]

I feel like your changing too many things, also why would you nerf lbows, remove ranching for ottos for example and change Spain so much? I feel they're a fine civ.

And the 5% faster culvs for France would be game breaking, if both players had the same skill in culv micro the french would lose almost nothing compared to his opponent.

[Cometk]

And the 5% faster culvs for France would be game breaking, if both players had the same skill in culv micro the french would lose almost nothing compared to his opponent.

it''s literally a .07 speed difference, it does nothing at all

[dicktator]

I feel like your changing too many things, also why would you nerf lbows, remove ranching for ottos for example and change Spain so much? I feel they''re a fine civ.

And the 5% faster culvs for France would be game breaking, if both players had the same skill in culv micro the french would lose almost nothing compared to his opponent.

Nerf longbows: so that they can''t be as easily used to snipe organs or culvs
Remove ranching for ottos: idk tbh
change Spain: Spain needed a lancer nerf because it''s bullshit that lancers, hand cav, have a bonus VS all infantry. The lancer nerf however would make Spain too weak so we had to do something to compensate, thus 0 pop missionaries.

[noissance]

Remove fast train unit cards, this puts more emphasis on micro. Remove trade cards. Make consulate units train in singles for china/india. Remove advanced arsenal. Add in a building like plantation for source of wood. Buff native civs.

[dicktator]

Remove fast train unit cards, this puts more emphasis on micro. Remove trade cards. Make consulate units train in singles for china/india. Remove advanced arsenal. Add in a building like plantation for source of wood. Buff native civs.

It doesn''t, it just makes the game slower. Without fast train unit cards treaty games would never end. The nat tech on Andes that boosts training for all units by 25% is why Andes games don''t last as long as Orinoco or Deccan games.

[sacredfire]

I know you probably wouldn''t want it, but it would be really interesting if the changes to treaty could be smartly chosen in such manner that it fixes both treaty, sup lategame, and that the sup changes can remain intact. I guess that''d mean both sides need to occasionally do some concessions, but you could try to tweak it via imperial options mostly.

I agree. This could only work if the changes in treaty balance are incorporated in the supremacy patch. So, all changes should be focused on things that don?t change supremacy until very lategame.

[howlingwolfpaw]

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 give grens
.5 bonus vs heavy inf or Increase range to 13?, are cav archers really that bad? or just because most games are skrim/ light cav combos where they die to that which forces aggressive counter armies.

aztec:
- no way to break down opposing infantry mass
give cyotes a plus 1 area attack? or bonus vs light inf
- arrow knights are too slow to focus down walls or artillery at the same time
Reduce arrow knights to 1 pop

british:
-

chinese:
- too weak to cav flanks
They need that weakness thier anti inf is too good, but overly emphasized by gends and gerhocristas
- ability to cut vills and have ridiculous overpop
I dont know their eco really is op with such cheap units

dutch:
- weak eco
like patch, start with 6 banks and have bank upgrade cards

france:
- gendarmes are too strong and the ability to make 1 stable at the corner of the map and split instantly is an unhealthy game mechanic
card that reduces cost and train time should either just reduce cost or reduce train time and increase cost

german:
-

indian:
- siege eles are too slow to focus down walls and artillery at the same time
increase range to 32, or remove cav tag.
- difficult to break down opposing infantry mass
remove mahout negative muliplier vs heavy inf (might be op but they are slow, expensive and train slow, have bad pathing, they are pretty useless sometimes) or make gurkas train faster with their plus one multiplier card
Also reduce food cost to tigers since they were drastically nerfed from original

iroquois:
- one-trick pony' only good in team games, with natives, in cliffs
beef up their range cav/ make hand cav cost coin. and reduce range to 30 on cannon.

japanese:
- the ability to run into the enemy base with daimyo/shogun is an unhealthy game mechanic
i like the idea of slower dymo train time but faster barrack train time

ottoman:
- weak to opposing cavalry
mess with jannie hand attack stats? 2.5x or3 vs cav?

keep abus range at 18

portuguese:
- remove plus 10 range on mortars

russia:
- running with oprichnik/forts simply bypasses map control in an unhealthy way
increase build time, make opri slower

sioux:
- no way to break down enemy walls
- weak eco
they really do lack a ranged siege unit, infinite coin card like aztec

spain:
- needs a slight eco boost but give monks a cav tag so something has a bonus vs them.

good analysis, here are my suggestions.

[princeofcarthage]

lol, lancer cavalry specifically used to carry long lances which would make them attack infantry before bayonets could kill their horses. They were specifically designed to engage infantry rather than cavalry. it makes sense having them bonus against infantry. Anyways I feel like lot of milky's changes are focused on making civs linear than actually balancing them.

[princeofcarthage]

I think sioux should have 25inf bison card in age 4. To balance siege issues for sioux and aztecs we can have 2 cards tbh 1) Hire European assistance. it would give 3 mortars at a high cost of 2k gold. why high cost? cuz europeans wanted to make lot of profits from looting native gold j/k apart cuz it would help maintain the current civ uniqueness while giving them competitve footing in treaty. Also since aztec and sioux have poor gold gather rate these shipments wont be overspammed.

[briowl]

add all buffs and nerfs to imperial upgrades so none of this affects rush games meaning we can just ask for the changes to be added to FP and keep the community together.

[briowl]

I think sioux should have 25inf bison card in age 4. To balance siege issues for sioux and aztecs we can have 2 cards tbh 1) Hire European assistance. it would give 3 mortars at a high cost of 2k gold. why high cost? cuz europeans wanted to make lot of profits from looting native gold j/k apart cuz it would help maintain the current civ uniqueness while giving them competitve footing in treaty. Also since aztec and sioux have poor gold gather rate these shipments wont be overspammed.

I like the 25inf bison idea, but make the 12 bison card inf too and how about instead of giving sioux mortars grant warclubs the ability to petard themselves in age5? Just change the animation so that as his club strikes he blows up!

[princeofcarthage]

I think sioux should have 25inf bison card in age 4. To balance siege issues for sioux and aztecs we can have 2 cards tbh 1) Hire European assistance. it would give 3 mortars at a high cost of 2k gold. why high cost? cuz europeans wanted to make lot of profits from looting native gold j/k apart cuz it would help maintain the current civ uniqueness while giving them competitve footing in treaty. Also since aztec and sioux have poor gold gather rate these shipments wont be overspammed.

I like the 25inf bison idea, but make the 12 bison card inf too and how about instead of giving sioux mortars grant warclubs the ability to petard themselves in age5? Just change the animation so that as his club strikes he blows up!

Petards and clubs like you said etc. would need to get close to buildings to destroy them,something which good players will never let it happen. why would u send 12 inf bison if you got 25?

[briowl]

I like the 25inf bison idea, but make the 12 bison card inf too and how about instead of giving sioux mortars grant warclubs the ability to petard themselves in age5? Just change the animation so that as his club strikes he blows up!

Petards and clubs like you said etc. would need to get close to buildings to destroy them,something which good players will never let it happen. why would u send 12 inf bison if you got 25?

because it gives sioux the option to boom very hard early and if you do that build you can drop the 10 bison card and replace it with your 25 bison card which youll use after the treaty has expired

[adderbrain5]

Hey guys!

Since hearing about the esoc patch, in my spare time I have been having thoughts for more balance to treaty 40. Would be super keen on what tr players on this forum think. I have implemented about half of the changes I have been discussing with several other players and we have been having a play around. Take a look at the notes if you are interested:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17Hg ... sp=sharing

That being said, this isn''t actually going to be a patch. This is just me with a couple of close tr buddies just having a thought fart on tr balance and trying out something different. Haven''t quite had the time for a comment on the context of some big changes but most of them are self explanatory.?

explain to me whay kanya are100 f 100g ... more res for cav that sucks compared to huss?

[briowl]

I like the 25inf bison idea, but make the 12 bison card inf too and how about instead of giving sioux mortars grant warclubs the ability to petard themselves in age5? Just change the animation so that as his club strikes he blows up!

Petards and clubs like you said etc. would need to get close to buildings to destroy them,something which good players will never let it happen. why would u send 12 inf bison if you got 25?

well a good player will always snipe ur mortar with a culv! you can end up chasing ur tail with these types of argument but at the end of the day its just an idea for an alternative to making sioux more like the currently successful treaty civs and that change would not affect the rush game as sioux never reaches age5 in rush games whereas your 3 mortar card would be available in age4 which would alter the rush game.

[princeofcarthage]

Petards and clubs like you said etc. would need to get close to buildings to destroy them,something which good players will never let it happen. why would u send 12 inf bison if you got 25?

well a good player will always snipe ur mortar with a culv! you can end up chasing ur tail with these types of argument but at the end of the day its just an idea for an alternative to making sioux more like the currently successful treaty civs and that change would not affect the rush game as sioux never reaches age5 in rush games whereas your 3 mortar card would be available in age4 which would alter the rush game.

and changing a unit wont? well 1v1 games rarely go to age 4, you wont have 2k gold to spend mortars anyways. true culv can snipe your mortar but protecting it is skill isnt it?

[briowl]

not if, like I said, it becomes an age5 shadow tech. the incentive to try a sioux FI becomes greater as players much better than myself have noted, in rush the player playing against sioux expects aggression so there is an opportunity to just sit back and FI. Like I said those types of argument go round in circles. E.g protecting ur warclubs is skill isn't it?

[briowl]

anyway the sioux economy is still too weak even with extra bison to be competitive enough so you can sit back and slowly take down the opponents walls with mortars. the opponent just out ecos you. all you end up do is removing a potential playstyle