ESOCommunity

HUMMAN wrote:5 mams was not OP for port, it was a trump card like boyars. Sad it's nerfed cause of Otto.

Kaiserklein wrote:The maths are off, as ports at 10 min you have 40v, even if you stayed age 2 and have 2 tcs. If you aged to fortress you probably have more. So the buff at that point is at least roughly 15*33 = 495f. So basically, you saved at least 400f (after removing the starting crate) by that time, which is definitely not nothing. It means ports can age a bit faster or get a bit more units out early on. On the other hand, the nerfs you listed don't really matter at the 10 min mark, they matter later. I think it's safe to say ports are definitely buffed early on.

Kaiserklein wrote:And then with 3 tcs, you potentially save 45f every 25s if you don't cut vil production, which is roughly equivalent to 2v worth of food gathering. A 2v boost isn't bad. Btw, mams are still a really good card you should send almost every game. It used to be a stupid card, and was rightfully nerfed.

Also let's keep in mind that for one thing, goons have been nerfed for other euro civs too, and for another, that generally speaking some civs that counter ports have been nerfed, for example fr, ger and brits. So I really don't think it's fair to say ports are better on RE. They used to be absolute garbage on land maps, while now they're playable. Also now ports have hunts in base…

Kaiserklein wrote:However, I agree the vil change, along with removing a starting crate, is quite ugly. I don't think it's the right way to buff ports. Like you said it kills the 10/10, and it also makes it even harder to get any kind of tp or market at start. It's also an incentive for ports to race to age 3, and keep camping in base and spam vils, since training vils is just really efficient and doesn't use as much of your hunts now. Meanwhile the civ still dies to some early fortress timings despite being a bit faster, and cassadores are still crap.

Kaiserklein wrote:I'd personally like to see the vil buff reverted and the starting food crate back. Keep 4 mams and goon nerfs obviously. And instead buff cassadores (+1/2 attack? +10% rr? Or just get nilla cassadores back?), cause they need to beat regular skirms obviously, since they're weaker vs cav and artillery. Also give ports a 3 organ guns shipment, obviously that shipment would be OP but it would still probably lose to well microed 2 falcs, and ports don't have many unit shipments anyway so I think it's fair (at least if not 3 organ guns, buff the 2 organs shipment in some other way). And consider moving some infantry ups to fortress, if not the combat, at least the attack/hp.

Kaiserklein wrote:

HUMMAN wrote:5 mams was not OP for port, it was a trump card like boyars. Sad it's nerfed cause of Otto.

Ports used to be garbage on RE and they'd just rely purely on getting a good mam pop to hold and win. It's not healthy, it makes the civ one dimensional and predictable. It's like saying sepoys with 190 hp were fine because india wasn't OP with it, it's just wrong, we don't want civs to rely purely on one option.

deleted_user wrote:I just watched few recs that I played today to make sure, and I don't think it's possible to have 40v until 10 min if you stay colo, at max you would get 33-35 probably which requires good macro/hunting etc, the biggest issue is lacking good units. Also on RE you would potentially deal vs china/spain with goons but right now there is little chance you can deal against these civs, there is really not much you can do when goons are insufficient to tank low hp cassadores,

Biggest issue about RE patch was having maps with less amount of food which would become more of an issue, other than that, before ep came out, I had chance to play at some maps like High plains, Arkansas, kamchatka, maps were bigger factor that decide to matchups on RE for ports.
About EP, Porto does ok against fr, brits, but porto didn't become insane against these civs though, also these match ups dont require massing strong goon compositions at all, but against the civs where your only choice is massing heavily goons, you have less chance to win right now such as vs china/spain and india

I would personally suggest reverting -100food and increase vill cost to 90 or 95 food it could be tested later

Giving 3 organs would be insanely op against the civs which dont have falconet.
I think best fix would be +%5 rr and fix cassadores. Nilla cassadores sound reasonable but giving them +2 attack would also be ok.

HUMMAN wrote:

Kaiserklein wrote:

HUMMAN wrote:5 mams was not OP for port, it was a trump card like boyars. Sad it's nerfed cause of Otto.

Ports used to be garbage on RE and they'd just rely purely on getting a good mam pop to hold and win. It's not healthy, it makes the civ one dimensional and predictable. It's like saying sepoys with 190 hp were fine because india wasn't OP with it, it's just wrong, we don't want civs to rely purely on one option.

Is russia one dimensional cause you always wants to send boyars and 5 cossack? Or as germans 3 SW. I think it makes civs interesting, and 5 mams make Port fortress avaible. Mams are not like sepoy where you can spam them. If anything Port has many options like atp, water, fi, forward TC and 5 mams let to exiciting fortress gameplays for me.

Garja wrote:Wait is this thread to suggest to buff Ports even more?

Garja wrote:lol about peoplse who say 15f per vill is not much. It's 15% cheaper eco.

Garja wrote: Ports are definetely better on EP

Garja wrote:what's exactly better on RE? water FI on borneo for 20 range goons?

if u could choose to either play EP ports or RE ports on EP maps, u honestly gonna go for cheaper vills over goons that basically outrange everything + 5 mams?