Germans Discussion Thread

[Garja]

german lobby vs shady swedish (or was that swiss)

[princeofkabul]

shady swedes

[dansil92]

But it isn't removing a civ bonus to take away the uhlans from the settler wagons! The bonus is EITHER

-an average to mediocre shipment + 2,3,4 uhlans
Eg. 700 wood + 2 uhlans, 3 + 2 uhlans

OR (get this)

-a better than average shipment with no uhlans
Eg. 13 jaegers

But 3 SW is BOTH stronger and uhlan boosted

By removing the uhlans from this shipment you preserve the civ bonus. You force better decision making - do i need to raid/scout/contest atp? Or do i want 6 vills? Wagon bois or raidy bois?
You still can have both by sending 2sw and 2 uhlans. You could send wood, coin, food or whatever.
It also gives the option that maybe there is a chance GERMANY COULD ACTUALLY BE SCOUTED EARLY.

I'm not a fan of the xp curve adjustment. It means Germany would have virtually zero chance at even getting their factoies should the game go industrial, it makes them even less viable on non-tp maps.

[Sargsyan]

nerfing tps does the job, best suggestion I've seen so far

[Riotcoke]

nerfing tps does the job, best suggestion I've seen so far

That nerfs other civs though.

[Kawapasaka]

4 SW, no uhlans

[Kaiserklein]

All these nerfs are good. Now it's time to balance un-nerfed or barely nerfed civs like Germans.

-10 hp on main unit isn't "barely nerfed".

I'd nerf the Age3 9 & 8 uhlan shipments and keep RE uhlan stats.
Also, if xp is a problem then reduce the xp penalty => Tadaa, Germans are better on non-tp maps now.

Nerfing only 9 and 8 uhlans is a much smaller nerf than -10 hp.

People really cry when it comes to Germans (top RE & EP civ), while I'd like to remind that French - the most average civ back in the day - has goons, starting crates and scout nerfed.

The starting crates are the same, it's +5f on cdbs. And france is basically as good as germany on re.

So basically everything you stated here is wrong.


Anyway, I could see 55f/60f 100g uhlans, as well as 12 jaegers, being good nerfs. But probably not enough if we revert uhlans hp to 190, especially because in some match ups these nerfs wouldn't matter much. So I guess we either have to keep the 180 hp uhlans, which is ugly but convenient, or still remove some uhlans from shipments.
I'd really like to see tps nerfed too but that's not gonna happen.

[Sargsyan]

nerfing tps does the job, best suggestion I've seen so far

That nerfs other civs though.

true that, then i believe there should be another way to nerf them by increasing the cost of shipments(increasing xp points needed to send a shipment) for them

[Djigit]

[spoiler=quote]

All these nerfs are good. Now it's time to balance un-nerfed or barely nerfed civs like Germans.

-10 hp on main unit isn't "barely nerfed".

I'd nerf the Age3 9 & 8 uhlan shipments and keep RE uhlan stats.
Also, if xp is a problem then reduce the xp penalty => Tadaa, Germans are better on non-tp maps now.

Nerfing only 9 and 8 uhlans is a much smaller nerf than -10 hp.

People really cry when it comes to Germans (top RE & EP civ), while I'd like to remind that French - the most average civ back in the day - has goons, starting crates and scout nerfed.

The starting crates are the same, it's +5f on cdbs. And france is basically as good as germany on re.

So basically everything you stated here is wrong.


Anyway, I could see 55f/60f 100g uhlans, as well as 12 jaegers, being good nerfs. But probably not enough if we revert uhlans hp to 190, especially because in some match ups these nerfs wouldn't matter much. So I guess we either have to keep the 180 hp uhlans, which is ugly but convenient, or still remove some uhlans from shipments.
I'd really like to see tps nerfed too but that's not gonna happen.

[/spoiler]
-10hp was not a smart nerf to begin with. It's nobody's intent to kill Ger like the early EP iro version, so discussing whether it's more hardcore than nerfing 9 & 8 uhlans shipments is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. But now if you think it's a smaller nerf, then let's go for it.

Btw, I edited my previous post long time ago regarding the starting crates...

[duckzilla]

Germany too weak, buff 5 Uhlan shipment to 6 (it's worth only 450 res...)

[Djigit]

Germany too weak, buff 5 Uhlan shipment to 6 (it's worth only 450 res...)

It's worth 750 res. 700w shipment is worth 1000 res for Germans.
Half empty or half full...

[HUMMAN]

What pros think of the implementation that shipment arrival time increased like 5 seconds?

[gamevideo113]

You could also simply increase the xp needed for 4th, 5th and 6th shipment of germany so that early game and lategame aren't affected and the only moment where germany would suffer this nerf is when they usually ship the big unit shipments of age 3. No need to make it 12% more xp across the board, i was just throwing ideas in.

[pingiu]

Germany too weak, buff 5 Uhlan shipment to 6 (it's worth only 450 res...)

It's worth 750 res. 700w shipment is worth 1000 res for Germans.
Half empty or half full...

nerv brit houses they should cost 100w plus 100f

[gamevideo113]

German xp requirements for the first 5 shipments are the following:
1: 330
2: 380
3: 436
4: 502
5: 577
We could simply just increase by 15, 20 and 25 xp 4th 5th and 6th shipments while leaving the rest untouched.

[deleted_user0]

Btw, I have now 4x vs good player winstreak on Germans on NON-TP maps

Vs mitoe dutch on pampas
Vs turk fre on thar desert
Vs tabben china bengal
Vs tabben brit thar desert

All on elo except last thar servers went down. And my germans are totally fucking shit.
I feel Germans are easily even above average civ on non-tp.
People only think they are weak because it's relative. They are fucking op on tp maps, esp w/ 200w star

[Mitoe]

Eh, if I aged with 15v instead of 16v would've been fine vs your nat nonsense.

[deleted_user0]

Btw, I have now 4x vs good player winstreak on Germans on NON-TP maps

Vs mitoe dutch on pampas
Vs turk fre on thar desert
Vs tabben china bengal
Vs tabben brit thar desert

All on elo except last thar servers went down. And my germans are totally fucking shit.
I feel Germans are easily even above average civ on non-tp.
People only think they are weak because it's relative. They are fucking op on tp maps, esp w/ 200w star

Dont forget that one game i observed where you beat hazza china on no tp map with pure uhlans!!!

[Goodspeed]

Classic. This is why you don't do test games

[deleted_user0]

yes, should just not play the game at all, but instead talk about it all the time. I do this with sex, too. Theory > practice!

[Goodspeed]

Playing the game is great, it helps you gain a general sense of where balance is at. But test games place too much importance on a particular set of games you played, which may or may not have been decided by balance issues. The above is a perfect example

[deleted_user0]

Playing the game is great, it helps you gain a general sense of where balance is at. But test games place too much importance on a particular set of games you played, which may or may not have been decided by balance issues.

that's why you play test games, with emphasis on plural. and there should be multiple people testing the games. it's unlikely that all the games will be decided by things unrelated to balance, and all in favor of the one civ which balance is questioned. if so, then it's still useful, as it probably will have brought a different problem to light. Do you really think all 5 games were decided by non-balance issues? that seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Call me if you and xeelee want me to join your balance team!

[Goodspeed]

Playing the game is great, it helps you gain a general sense of where balance is at. But test games place too much importance on a particular set of games you played, which may or may not have been decided by balance issues.

that's why you play test games, with emphasis on plural. and there should be multiple people testing the games. it's unlikely that all the games will be decided by things unrelated to balance, and all in favor of the one civ which balance is questioned. if so, then it's still useful, as it probably will have brought a different problem to light.

In theory, that's what you do. In practice, this happens:
- Barely anyone takes the time to play test games, and if/when they do take the time:
- They are unable to stay objective
- They tend to draw conclusions based on a single game and move on to a different match up

And of course, all theoretical discussion arguing against conclusions drawn from these games is not taken seriously because "we tested it".

The only way you can have your utopian balance team is by paying them.

[deleted_user0]

Playing the game is great, it helps you gain a general sense of where balance is at. But test games place too much importance on a particular set of games you played, which may or may not have been decided by balance issues.

that's why you play test games, with emphasis on plural. and there should be multiple people testing the games. it's unlikely that all the games will be decided by things unrelated to balance, and all in favor of the one civ which balance is questioned. if so, then it's still useful, as it probably will have brought a different problem to light.

In theory, that's what you do. In practice, this happens:
- Barely anyone takes the time to play test games, and if/when they do take the time:
- They are unable to stay objective
- Players are just worse at some civs than others
- They tend to draw conclusions based on a single game and move on to a different match up
- All theoretical discussion arguing against conclusions drawn from these games is not taken seriously because "we tested it"

The only way you have your utopian balance team is by paying them

You're partially right, though you exaggerate how people overreact when drawing conclusions based on one game. And while people perhaps don't take the time to practice a specific mu, many people do play the game so much that any given mu is played or observed multiple times, allowing them to draw an informed conclusion, which, while not objective (I don't get why you bring this up anyway, since you and I both agree there's no such thing as objectivity), can definitely be a strong indicator that something needs to be looked at, if the conclusion is shared by multiple other players with similar levels of experience.

If this doesn't meet the standard of proof for balance, then I'm not sure what does, you always like to draw conclusions from tournament games and from the people who watched tournament games, but the above reservations apply to that just as much as to "practice" games.

Can I pay in risotto?

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Playing the game is great, it helps you gain a general sense of where balance is at. But test games place too much importance on a particular set of games you played, which may or may not have been decided by balance issues.

that's why you play test games, with emphasis on plural. and there should be multiple people testing the games. it's unlikely that all the games will be decided by things unrelated to balance, and all in favor of the one civ which balance is questioned. if so, then it's still useful, as it probably will have brought a different problem to light.

In theory, that's what you do. In practice, this happens:
- Barely anyone takes the time to play test games, and if/when they do take the time:
- They are unable to stay objective
- Players are just worse at some civs than others
- They tend to draw conclusions based on a single game and move on to a different match up
- All theoretical discussion arguing against conclusions drawn from these games is not taken seriously because "we tested it"

The only way you have your utopian balance team is by paying them

You're partially right, though you exaggerate how people overreact when drawing conclusions based on one game. And while people perhaps don't take the time to practice a specific mu, many people do play the game so much that any given mu is played or observed multiple times, allowing them to draw an informed conclusion, which, while not objective (I don't get why you bring this up anyway, since you and I both agree there's no such thing as objectivity), can definitely be a strong indicator that something needs to be looked at, if the conclusion is shared by multiple other players with similar levels of experience.

If this doesn't meet the standard of proof for balance, then I'm not sure what does, you always like to draw conclusions from tournament games and from the people who watched tournament games, but the above reservations apply to that just as much as to "practice" games.

Can I pay in risotto?

We might be talking about different things. When I say test games I'm talking about games you would be playing specifically to test a particular balance issue or match up. Games that are meant for balance testing. By simply playing the game (practice games, which seems to be what you're talking about) you get a general sense of where balance is at, you develop an intuition, which is good. You are much less likely, then, to draw wrong conclusions based on a single game. In test games you are likely to do so, because drawing conclusions about balance was the goal. And people tend to make up their mind too quickly, which is exacerbated by subjectivity and confirmation bias. They are then likely to dismiss any theoretical argument in favor of their "tried and tested" opinions.

I'm mostly talking from experience in the ASFP balance team, where my fellow testers and I were guilty of all of this. It's why I always argued not to place too much importance on test games for EP, which worked out pretty well in my biased opinion.

I would accept risotto