Portuguese Discussion Thread

[Garja]

Abus don't win that hard for the simple fact that skirms will always be more.
And because other civs have more eco + abus are more expensive and train slower, you are happy trading units vs abus whenever you know you can mass them again.
But this is nothing new really. The real difference on EP - aside from more boomy meta - is in who pokes and who chases. With no range difference and faster ROF it makes no sense for skirms to kite back. So as long as you have enough skrm mass you want to be aggro vs abus.

And ye, in case you dind't notice musks do beat abus if they get in range. Again because abus are expensive so you will have about 2 musks for each abus. Same thing with other units, not just musks. Even xbows can challenge abus since they're way cheaper. Traditionally the reason why abus are op on RE is because there isn't moe than 1-2 relevant battles. So you can't trade vs abus, you either win or lose. But with more boomy meta, even without any abus nerf it's already easier to deal with abus just because of trading per cost without losing the game.

[Kaiserklein]

In age3 skirms now are happy chasing abus because of the nerfed ROF (which btw I think it is 4 or 4.5, not 3.5). On EP it is also more usual to have big masses which I'd argue favors skirms because after 20 or so abus it's very hard to not overkill (gl doing like 4 splits each volley). And abus have 20% rr so skirms actually do damage to them (compared to skirms vs skirms). Abus are super expensive and train slow. Also you only have one unit card of abus while skirms is 8+7. And Otto eco is worse. All these combined make the skirm player just happy to trade vs abus being aggro.
In colo is different because of range and because numbers are smaller so ye skirms try to kite. Then again the ROF nerf makes abus more of target for units like musks which if in range beat abus per cost (again because of overkill). And btw because most of times the combo is jan abus if you have to kite it means you have to sync jans with abus (to stay together or cav have easy time reaching abus) so it nerfs jan ROF too in the end.

Basically my point is that the ROF nerf changes the dynamic of how abus is used and in worse. A raw damage nerf would preserve traditional dynamic and would target abus were it's deserved e.g vs cav, while being less impactful vs infantry (because of overkill again).

It is 3.5 rof.
Obviously as otto you don't wanna let your opponent mass. You need to keep poking with your abus and do some damage when the guy ages, so that he won't get a big mass out easily.
I'm overall not really talking about fortress abus. That's a different kind of gameplay, it means you need to have a stagecoach to have the eco to go fort and get vet abus jan out, while going age 3, which is quite greedy as otto (though it can work, depending on the mu). Overall, I'd see abus in colo, good old abus jan style.
With jans, you anyway have to switch to melee when cav comes close, otherwise opponent just snares with cav while kiting forward with his ranged units, since jans really don't punish cav at range with their horrible attack. So when you go melee, you anyway won't sync jan with abus.

I agree that abus rof was kind of an awkward change, and ofc it's still a nerf. I'm just saying that abus aren't bad at all on ep, actually still a very strong unit, even if the rof change makes them a bit more awkward to micro.


I'll stop typing about abus in this thread, maybe a mod can move these posts about abus into a new topic.

[Hazza54321]

i think regardless of balance abus are just less fun to use. Its actually quite ufn jan abus micro with 20vill eco but getting insane trades. IIts how otto is designed they shoulnt be a boom civ

[lordraphael]

Abus don't win that hard for the simple fact that skirms will always be more.
And because other civs have more eco + abus are more expensive and train slower, you are happy trading units vs abus whenever you know you can mass them again.
But this is nothing new really. The real difference on EP - aside from more boomy meta - is in who pokes and who chases. With no range difference and faster ROF it makes no sense for skirms to kite back. So as long as you have enough skrm mass you want to be aggro vs abus.

And ye, in case you dind't notice musks do beat abus if they get in range. Again because abus are expensive so you will have about 2 musks for each abus. Same thing with other units, not just musks. Even xbows can challenge abus since they're way cheaper. Traditionally the reason why abus are op on RE is because there isn't moe than 1-2 relevant battles. So you can't trade vs abus, you either win or lose. But with more boomy meta, even without any abus nerf it's already easier to deal with abus just because of trading per cost without losing the game.

very accurate, the whole dynamic just changed, whereas you used to want abus to chase down and kill the opponents light inf the roles have been reversed, maybe abus still trade efficently vs skirms, but most of the times the skirm mass will be so overwhelming that nerfed abus wont cut it anymore.
Im neither saying abus are bad nor am i saying RE abus were balanced, but theres certainly been a shift in the unit interaction.

[macacoalbino]

Well you already can't fit all of them atm. You'd probably just keep inf combat and inf attack then, but it's good enough.
No one ever goes industrial to ship skirm combat as ports. It's not even a card you want to have in your deck usually. If you go industrial, you already have at least 4 good cards to ship before that one.
Yeah, dunno if balance would be better then. I just think it would be a better design. But we can just tweak around the cassa stats/cost and find a good balance probably.

Gotta love to read these comments after today's game

[Kaiserklein]

Port mirror on water is another story obviously... I'm talking about normal games

[zoom]

Yeah I'd rather have another change (for example the cassadore cost/stats tweak we mentioned) than 85f vils, both for balance and design purposes. On high hunt maps (and there's quite a few of them on ep), the port turtle/cm/walls/whatever lame feels too strong tbh, and imo having cheaper vils helps a lot for that kind of playstyle, while having better cassadores would help mostly for regular early fortress port stuff.

What I like about the vill cost change is that it's a general buff, not one aimed at a specific build order. Replacing it with buffs to Port's fortress play will encourage strategies that are already prevalent with them and hurt diversity.

I do prefer nilla cassadores, that unit was way more fun and interesting than the current "just another skirm" cassadores. But as a replacement of the vill cost change, that change alone won't balance Port. I think you can go for it regardless though.

Funny how no other change I can think of encourages already prevalent port strategies quite like the Settler cost buff. Partly because it directly encourages aging and Settler production, and partly becauses it does nothing to balance unit viability within the civilization. I suppose maybe a Dragoon buff would do an even better job of it.

Am I blind?

[Hazza54321]

ports fortress units being shit encourages fi play so i guess thats something innovative

[gamevideo113]

What if ports got settlers on top of the tc wagon when they age up (2 in colonial, 3 in fortress and 4 in industrial)? As an alternative to the 85f settlers which basically 80% of the EP players don't like. I'm thinking about the iroquois travois bonus
This would make the 10/10 better, just sayin

[deleted_user0]

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

[Riotcoke]

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

That's being changed, inf attack is going to age 2, inf combat age 3

[deleted_user]

I think dragoons are not quite effective to tank low hp cassadors atm. First step could be to buff goon rr not to %30 but %25 maybe? If that's not possible then we need +1 +2 attack for cassadors and possibly do something about 100f start crate back. Also any chance to reduce the animation of organs to make it competitive against falcs atleast rather then changing the card? And maybe 90f or vills and bring 100f crates back? 100f is quite necessary for 10/10 strategy.

[Riotcoke]

I think dragoons are not quite effective to tank low hp cassadors atm. First step could be to buff goon rr not to %30 but %25 maybe? If that's not possible then we need +1 +2 attack for cassadors and possibly do something about 100f start crate back. Also any chance to reduce the animation of organs to make it competitive against falcs atleast rather then changing the card? And maybe 90f or vills and bring 100f crates back? 100f is quite necessary for 10/10 strategy.

Make organs shoot all their shots at once? That'd be op.

[deleted_user]

I think dragoons are not quite effective to tank low hp cassadors atm. First step could be to buff goon rr not to %30 but %25 maybe? If that's not possible then we need +1 +2 attack for cassadors and possibly do something about 100f start crate back. Also any chance to reduce the animation of organs to make it competitive against falcs atleast rather then changing the card? And maybe 90f or vills and bring 100f crates back? 100f is quite necessary for 10/10 strategy.

Make organs shoot all their shots at once? That'd be op.

Not that much buff. but lowering animation a little bit would be better I think. Because Falconets can dodge organ fire right now

[Riotcoke]

I think dragoons are not quite effective to tank low hp cassadors atm. First step could be to buff goon rr not to %30 but %25 maybe? If that's not possible then we need +1 +2 attack for cassadors and possibly do something about 100f start crate back. Also any chance to reduce the animation of organs to make it competitive against falcs atleast rather then changing the card? And maybe 90f or vills and bring 100f crates back? 100f is quite necessary for 10/10 strategy.

Make organs shoot all their shots at once? That'd be op.

Not that much buff. but lowering animation a little bit would be better I think. Because Falconets can dodge organ fire right now

Problem I see with this though is organs were always made to be worse, hence the lower cost, and be specifically anti-inf rather than falcs which are still anti-inf but more well rounded Vs buildings and art. Maybe just buff the shipment to three for 200 gold as somppu said.

[deleted_user]

Show hidden quotes

I think dragoons are not quite effective to tank low hp cassadors atm. First step could be to buff goon rr not to %30 but %25 maybe? If that's not possible then we need +1 +2 attack for cassadors and possibly do something about 100f start crate back. Also any chance to reduce the animation of organs to make it competitive against falcs atleast rather then changing the card? And maybe 90f or vills and bring 100f crates back? 100f is quite necessary for 10/10 strategy.

Make organs shoot all their shots at once? That'd be op.

Not that much buff. but lowering animation a little bit would be better I think. Because Falconets can dodge organ fire right now

Problem I see with this though is organs were always made to be worse, hence the lower cost, and be specifically anti-inf rather than falcs which are still anti-inf but more well rounded Vs buildings and art. Maybe just buff the shipment to three for 200 gold as somppu said.

3 organ shipment would be quite strong against civs which dont have 2 falconet shipment. Porto doesnt have problem with economic wise it's just the civ doesnt have useful units because of worse goons and less mam shipment.

@zoom could we actually nerf 4mam cost to 800gold for fairness? because cost wasnt nerfed accordingly

[n0el]

Then might as well make it 5 mams for 1250coin

[gamevideo113]

Would it be possible to modify the organ reload time according to how many bullets were shot? I mean, the organ usually shoots just enough bullets to kill the target and then reloads, losing a lot of dps most of the times. Since the reload time is 4 seconds, i was thinking sth like this:
5-6 bullets shot --> reload time = 4 seconds
3-4 bullets shot --> reload time = 3 seconds
1-2 bullets shot --> reload time = 2 seconds
Compared to a falconet, that can always deal a lot of splash damage, sometimes organ guns will just shoot 1 bullet, kill their target (dealing basically no splash damage) and wait 4 seconds for the next volley, which is really bad.
Alternatively, the damage multiplier vs artillery of organ guns could be modified so that it's not a 100% loss every time they face flaconets. Or they could have a bit more range.

Anyway, i am still on the "70f 40g cassa" train. Ports are too food hungry in general imo, even after the vill cost change. Or buff their stats.

[deleted_user]

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

That's being changed, inf attack is going to age 2, inf combat age 3

thats not a good change. Will take more slot in age2/3 also... I think porto needs a buff early but a buff which doesn't scale.

[Riotcoke]

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

That's being changed, inf attack is going to age 2, inf combat age 3

thats not a good change. Will take more slot in age2/3 also... I think porto needs a buff early but a buff which doesn't scale.

Don't tell me that, tell zoom that, seeing as he said he's changing it next ep iirc.

[gamevideo113]

Show hidden quotes

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

That's being changed, inf attack is going to age 2, inf combat age 3

thats not a good change. Will take more slot in age2/3 also... I think porto needs a buff early but a buff which doesn't scale.

Don't tell me that, tell zoom that, seeing as he said he's changing it next ep iirc.

It was changed in ASFP, but it wasn't considered a good change in hindsight. Doubt that it's happening in EP7.

[gamevideo113]

This is something i think we could be working on, moving the shipment to age2 or age1.
-Trade route upgrades are free and researched instantly (age1)? As an alternative to ATP. I don't think this is what posts need tho. Just throwing ideas in. I think what actually needs to be touched is cassa and organs.

[zoom]

Show hidden quotes

I think dragoons are not quite effective to tank low hp cassadors atm. First step could be to buff goon rr not to %30 but %25 maybe? If that's not possible then we need +1 +2 attack for cassadors and possibly do something about 100f start crate back. Also any chance to reduce the animation of organs to make it competitive against falcs atleast rather then changing the card? And maybe 90f or vills and bring 100f crates back? 100f is quite necessary for 10/10 strategy.

Make organs shoot all their shots at once? That'd be op.

Not that much buff. but lowering animation a little bit would be better I think. Because Falconets can dodge organ fire right now

Problem I see with this though is organs were always made to be worse, hence the lower cost, and be specifically anti-inf rather than falcs which are still anti-inf but more well rounded Vs buildings and art. Maybe just buff the shipment to three for 200 gold as somppu said.

3 organ shipment would be quite strong against civs which dont have 2 falconet shipment. Porto doesnt have problem with economic wise it's just the civ doesnt have useful units because of worse goons and less mam shipment.

@zoom could we actually nerf 4mam cost to 800gold for fairness? because cost wasnt nerfed accordingly

Is "4 Mamelukes" at all unviable? Otherwise, I'd rather buff the civilization in another way, if it were to be buffed.

[zoom]

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

That's being changed, inf attack is going to age 2, inf combat age 3

Not quite. I intend to include it in the first iteration of the beta. Whether it ends up in EP7 is down to player reception.

[Riotcoke]

Needs a buff that buffs land but not water. Cassador/Musk upgrade to fortress would be legit imo.
Maybe 3 rabaulds for 200g?

That's being changed, inf attack is going to age 2, inf combat age 3

Not quite. I intend to include it in the first iteration of the beta. Whether it ends up in EP7 is down to player reception.

My mistake mr zoi.