How to balance the civs

[_venox_]

I wouldn't say perfect play but rather around the pr 35 level, since those still can't do everything Ryan or bsop can. Having to micro really PERFECTLY for 1 strategy to THEN be slightly better than the build of your enemy, where it was always worse before perfect micro seems unreasonable to be based balance on. The balanced game should be practical enough.

[iNcog]

There's actually one thing that I would very much like.

That is the notion that every civilization can play a different style. It would be to give every civilization a "way of" doing anything. Rushing, booming, FF/FI.

Let's take booming as an example. Disregard water maps and schooners.

Otto can't boom. If you want to boom then pick another civ. Wouldn't it be interesting if all civs could somehow do any style at least somewhat efficiently?

For example, if I play British, the "best" thing to do is to boom. Doing anything else is regarded as suboptimal, simply because British are a civ designed to boom. Yet, in some cases, booming is not the best answer. I think it would be interesting to insert design features where doing "suboptimal" play doesn't immediately result in a loss. Every civ should be able to do anything, it's just that HOW they do it is different.

British and Japan both boom, but they don't do it the same way. Playing against British isn't the same thing as playing against Japan, even if they're both booming. That, to me, is interesting.

It would be interesting if China were, for example, given a way to boom like British can.

The problem is that some civilizations can objectively boom more than other civilizations. If France and Brits both go "full boom" then Brits just boom more and win after a certain minute. It would be more interesting if all civs could "over boom" and booming too hard is simply an over-extension. That way, all civs can effectively play boom styles.

[bart331]

There''s actually one thing that I would very much like.

That is the notion that every civilization can play a different style. It would be to give every civilization a "way of" doing anything. Rushing, booming, FF/FI.

Let''s take booming as an example. Disregard water maps and schooners.

Otto can''t boom. If you want to boom then pick another civ. Wouldn''t it be interesting if all civs could somehow do any style at least somewhat efficiently?

For example, if I play British, the "best" thing to do is to boom. Doing anything else is regarded as suboptimal, simply because British are a civ designed to boom. Yet, in some cases, booming is not the best answer. I think it would be interesting to insert design features where doing "suboptimal" play doesn''t immediately result in a loss. Every civ should be able to do anything, it''s just that HOW they do it is different.

British and Japan both boom, but they don''t do it the same way. Playing against British isn''t the same thing as playing against Japan, even if they''re both booming. That, to me, is interesting.

It would be interesting if China were, for example, given a way to boom like British can.

The problem is that some civilizations can objectively boom more than other civilizations. If France and Brits both go "full boom" then Brits just boom more and win after a certain minute. It would be more interesting if all civs could "over boom" and booming too hard is simply an over-extension. That way, all civs can effectively play boom styles.

Ha the classical pleed to make every civ same. Goodbeye uniquness of 14 civs

[zoom]

I think you've completely misinterpreted that post...

[_venox_]

He said that there should be more than 1 way of playing each civ, which there is. And playing differently from what is considered best doesn't automatically result in a loss, iNcog.

[iNcog]

Ha the classical pleed to make every civ same. Goodbeye uniquness of 14 civs

Not quite. I'm not looking to make every civ the same (like say France and Ports in FP 1.2).

Rather I'm looking to make every civilization be able to tech, rush, boom. Well, it's an offhand idea more than anything. Take it with a grain of salt.

Venox understood what I meant. There should be more than one (at least 2 or 3 tbh) ways to viably play a civ. which there is, venox is right. but playing it proper is just way stronger. you can maybe play colonial as china for example, but just going straight to fortress is pretty much guaranteed to be stronger.

imagine a viable british FF for example. that stuff is imaginary. but maybe it could be cool if it could happen. doesn't need to be stronger than other FF civs, it only needs to be strong enough to be viable

well~ i say all of this but to be fair, the game is probably so far from being figured out in the first place that the weird shit i'm describing is actually viable. who knows?


imagine something like a steppe rider boost for china. or a musketeer nerf for all civs, which suddenly makes non-musk civilizations able to compete much more in colonial.

[bart331]

ye i get ur point, but i think civs which can do every strat are the "OP" ones (otto for example can do anything). I think we should accept current civs as tthey are and focus more on % winrates and adjust on that fact. Balance is too easily fked over. Look what happened with brits in FP 1.2 , houses 15 pop and a bit more expensive was supposed to be a nerf. Ports in FP 1.2 suddenly had very strong colonial.

Thats why - few small changes max, 1-2 per civ.

[iNcog]

yeah i agree with you. first patch (and all following) should have small changes

me, i'm talking about a pipe dream

[momuuu]

I think some variety in possible strats would be good, but most of the variety should come from the fact that there are 14 civs.

But there are some civs that could use small gameplay changes.

China needs to be able to do colonial aswell, right now they always ff. Easily done by buffing colonial units (steppe riders probably)

Spain needs to be able to do more than all in FF. I like the idea of giving them good age 3 vill shipments, but you could give them colonial potential aswell. That would have to be done via rods though, otherwise you are creating france 2.0

Dutch could use some more aggressive options. I like the idea of giving them a 2 falc shipment. That way they can pull off some aggressive FF strats aswell.

There are probably other civs aswell, these are just three examples. Oviously we shouldnt make it so that every civ can do fortress, colonial, boom or rush, but some variety in strats is nice. Preferably 2 different strats.

[_venox_]

If you give Dutch a 2 falconets shipment then Germany China India and the warchief civilisations are the only ones left without one. If you would for example just boost the experience income of banks by a lot then the ruyter falconets composition becomes viable again, just because your shipments come in faster which speeds up the whole process of at one point sending 1000 wood for 2+ falconets.
Only in cases where it's really necessary should whole new shipments be added.

[thebritish]

If you give Dutch a 2 falconets shipment then Germany China India and the warchief civilisations are the only ones left without one. If you would for example just boost the experience income of banks by a lot then the ruyter falconets composition becomes viable again, just because your shipments come in faster which speeds up the whole process of at one point sending 1000 wood for 2+ falconets.
Only in cases where it''s really necessary should whole new shipments be added.

wait...players can create cards for deck?
i thought only microsoft can create them ::)

[gibson]

If you give Dutch a 2 falconets shipment then Germany China India and the warchief civilisations are the only ones left without one. If you would for example just boost the experience income of banks by a lot then the ruyter falconets composition becomes viable again, just because your shipments come in faster which speeds up the whole process of at one point sending 1000 wood for 2+ falconets.
Only in cases where its really necessary should whole new shipments be added.

wait...players can create cards for deck?
i thought only microsoft can create them? ::)

Nope

[Good ol Ivan]

If you give Dutch a 2 falconets shipment then Germany China India and the warchief civilisations are the only ones left without one. If you would for example just boost the experience income of banks by a lot then the ruyter falconets composition becomes viable again, just because your shipments come in faster which speeds up the whole process of at one point sending 1000 wood for 2+ falconets.
Only in cases where its really necessary should whole new shipments be added.

wait...players can create cards for deck?
i thought only microsoft can create them ::)

Anyhow you can replace shitty cards with other cards. Like replace 1 falc with 2 falcs, no one cares.

[momuuu]

If you give Dutch a 2 falconets shipment then Germany China India and the warchief civilisations are the only ones left without one. If you would for example just boost the experience income of banks by a lot then the ruyter falconets composition becomes viable again, just because your shipments come in faster which speeds up the whole process of at one point sending 1000 wood for 2+ falconets.
Only in cases where it''s really necessary should whole new shipments be added.

Im not talking about ruyter falc. Id like to see dutch strats comparable to spain FF. Its the only way to give the civ variety, without musketeers theyll never be able to do colonial strats without being plain OP. The only way to give them some form of aggression would be through aggressive FFs and what else would allow them to do that than a 2 falc shipment?

[Kaiserklein]

If you guys want more variety, begin with buffing xbows, to make a bow/pike mass viable for euro civs. They're already low on nilla, considering they cost as much as a musk if their wood doesn't come from crates, but on tad they're terrible.

Making dutch like they are on nilla seems fair, maybe a bit too strong, but at least better than current tad dutch.Same for spain, or make their colonial more viable indeed. After all i don't think they need much changes for this, they do have vils shipments and the 6 rod and 8 pikes cards. maybe add a 8 bow or 6 musks shipment idk

For ports a trickle seems fair, like for russia, tho i think port's age 2 is underrated because people always want to ff as ports and end up with 3 tcs that their low early game eco can't support. They're not that bad, they start with 7 vils, have organ guns which are better than falcs vs infantry imo, mams and an op late game with their 20 range jinete. And a 6 musks and 8 bows shipments too

We could put a x0.75 multiplier for uhlans against vils like on nilla, and i think germans would be ok

Russia could maybe have 1 more vil at start ?

For otto ofc nerf abus. No bombard type damage, x0.5 vs goons like on nilla (not x0.75), and a bit less attack. Maybe some other nerfs about speed and all

I think brits and french are ok, and i don't know twc/tad civs that well but i think some deserve to get nerfed hard lol...

[[Armag] diarouga]

Nerfing xbows isn't something we should do. On nilla, with a proper micro, xbow/pike should beat musk/huss, that's dumb.
Xbows are meant to rush which means that they should be bad in middle game.
Also in nilla, bow pike is lame, you just have to hit and run with attack moove without making pikes. On tad you have to focus muskets with the bows while pike are trying to kill the cav.

[medinos]

If we would get a new moderator and a good team to take over what ryz0n fucked up..
Maybe we could see some new official bug fix and at least some nerfs and buffs so everyone would need to download it fan patch are nothing if not everyone is using them...

[momuuu]

Nerfing xbows isn''t something we should do. On nilla, with a proper micro, xbow/pike should beat musk/huss, that''s dumb.
Xbows are meant to rush which means that they should be bad in middle game.
Also in nilla, bow pike is lame, you just have to hit and run with attack moove without making pikes. On tad you have to focus muskets with the bows while pike are trying to kill the cav.

so you think its good that pure musk is generally the optimal age 2 composition?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Nerfing xbows isnt something we should do. On nilla, with a proper micro, xbow/pike should beat musk/huss, thats dumb.
Xbows are meant to rush which means that they should be bad in middle game.
Also in nilla, bow pike is lame, you just have to hit and run with attack moove without making pikes. On tad you have to focus muskets with the bows while pike are trying to kill the cav.

so you think its good that pure musk is generally the optimal age 2 composition?

Yeah, because musk are aimed for the middle game while bow are easy to mass.

[momuuu]

so you think its good that pure musk is generally the optimal age 2 composition?

Yeah, because musk are aimed for the middle game while bow are easy to mass.

I played a china mirror a little while ago and that was so entertaining. 2 three unit compositions actively engaging in battles. Wouldnt it be beautiful if late mid to lategame of colonial wars would be xbow musk huss rather than musk vs musk?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yeah, because musk are aimed for the middle game while bow are easy to mass.

I played a china mirror a little while ago and that was so entertaining. 2 three unit compositions actively engaging in battles. Wouldnt it be beautiful if late mid to lategame of colonial wars would be xbow musk huss rather than musk vs musk?

Then people would just go bow rush and then add musk in middle game and bow rush would be too op, it would change the meta.
And btw, china mirror is actually 4-6 unit compo^^

[momuuu]

I played a china mirror a little while ago and that was so entertaining. 2 three unit compositions actively engaging in battles. Wouldnt it be beautiful if late mid to lategame of colonial wars would be xbow musk huss rather than musk vs musk?

Then people would just go bow rush and then add musk in middle game and bow rush would be too op, it would change the meta.
And btw, china mirror is actually 4-6 unit compo^^

Do you think so? Buffing xbows doesnt mean making them OP, it means slightly increasing their multiplier vs heavy infantry or sth like that. Atm I think bow pike loses to musk huss because the musk huss player can easily switch to bow huss and win with that.

The problem of making bows is that you are giving them an excuse to make cav, which allows them to raid and allows them to pick fights (due to slow down animation). Maybe the problem with bows isnt that they are too weak but that cav is too strong in colonial, as they give you the mobility advantage.

But maybe thats a problem because musks actually do too well vs bows. So you wont have to buff bows, you should nerf musks.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Then people would just go bow rush and then add musk in middle game and bow rush would be too op, it would change the meta.
And btw, china mirror is actually 4-6 unit compo^^

Do you think so? Buffing xbows doesnt mean making them OP, it means slightly increasing their multiplier vs heavy infantry or sth like that. Atm I think bow pike loses to musk huss because the musk huss player can easily switch to bow huss and win with that.

The problem of making bows is that you are giving them an excuse to make cav, which allows them to raid and allows them to pick fights (due to slow down animation). Maybe the problem with bows isnt that they are too weak but that cav is too strong in colonial, as they give you the mobility advantage.

But maybe thats a problem because musks actually do too well vs bows. So you wont have to buff bows, you should nerf musks.

Making cav also allows your opponent to pike and destroy buildings lol.
The main problem about xbows is that you can have 10xbows/10 pikes while your opponent has 5musk/5huss.

[Kaiserklein]

Bow/pike isnt a mobile composition, unlike musk/cav. The fact that your cav goes faster is an advantage that needs a compensation on the other hand, for fair. But right now on tad, making musk/cav vs bow/pike doesnt only allow you to be more mobile than your opponent, but also to have a more powerful army. Is this normal ? Sure, bow/pikes can be massed easily as long as you have wood crates, making them cheap. But once you sent 700/600w crates, what happens ? Lets say in a mirror, the one making bow/pike has gang saw and steel traps, the one making musk/cav has placer mines and steel traps. Then a pike is more expansive than a musk, considering VS values. Is this logical ?

Do you think so? Buffing xbows doesnt mean making them OP, it means slightly increasing their multiplier vs heavy infantry or sth like that. Atm I think bow pike loses to musk huss because the musk huss player can easily switch to bow huss and win with that.

The problem of making bows is that you are giving them an excuse to make cav, which allows them to raid and allows them to pick fights (due to slow down animation). Maybe the problem with bows isnt that they are too weak but that cav is too strong in colonial, as they give you the mobility advantage.

But maybe thats a problem because musks actually do too well vs bows. So you wont have to buff bows, you should nerf musks.

Making cav also allows your opponent to pike and destroy buildings lol.
The main problem about xbows is that you can have 10xbows/10 pikes while your opponent has 5musk/5huss.

Isnt it normal, since you dont aim for the same timing ? The musk/cav aims for around 8-10 min timing i guess, while the double bow/pike rush aims for a 6-7 min timing or so. Dont forget that the wood crates you used for xbow/pikes massing wont be available when you need to build houses, a stable, or anything. The musk/cav player usually has a comfortable 2 rax + 1 stable + 70 population space with only 700 wood, and will still be able to ship 600 wood for housing later. If the xbow/pike player doesnt win early, he will have to chop for every house, meaning much less mass later. Its basically a gamble, trying to win early or to get a sufficient advantage from your rush to ensure you win later.

Also bows might kill reasonable amounts of cav on nilla, but you will always need pikes to cover them. And pikes simply suck during fights, unlike musks that are able both to kill cav and any other units... Also dont forget that you cant hit and run much the musks with bows, because they shoot slowly and dont have such a good range.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Bow/pike isnt a mobile composition, unlike musk/cav. The fact that your cav goes faster is an advantage that needs a compensation on the other hand, for fair. But right now on tad, making musk/cav vs bow/pike doesnt only allow you to be more mobile than your opponent, but also to have a more powerful army. Is this normal ? Sure, bow/pikes can be massed easily as long as you have wood crates, making them cheap. But once you sent 700/600w crates, what happens ? Lets say in a mirror, the one making bow/pike has gang saw and steel traps, the one making musk/cav has placer mines and steel traps. Then a pike is more expansive than a musk, considering VS values. Is this logical ?

Making cav also allows your opponent to pike and destroy buildings lol.
The main problem about xbows is that you can have 10xbows/10 pikes while your opponent has 5musk/5huss.

Isnt it normal, since you dont aim for the same timing ? The musk/cav aims for around 8-10 min timing i guess, while the double bow/pike rush aims for a 6-7 min timing or so. Dont forget that the wood crates you used for xbow/pikes massing wont be available when you need to build houses, a stable, or anything. The musk/cav player usually has a comfortable 2 rax + 1 stable + 70 population space with only 700 wood, and will still be able to ship 600 wood for housing later. If the xbow/pike player doesnt win early, he will have to chop for every house, meaning much less mass later. Its basically a gamble, trying to win early or to get a sufficient advantage from your rush to ensure you win later.

Also bows might kill reasonable amounts of cav on nilla, but you will always need pikes to cover them. And pikes simply suck during fights, unlike musks that are able both to kill cav and any other units... Also dont forget that you cant hit and run much the musks with bows, because they shoot slowly and dont have such a good range.

As Gs wrote in his guide, your timing is when your food runs out. Bow/pike is a 7-8min timing while musk/huss is probably a 8-10 min timing.
If you finish your food at 7min then bow/pike will win, otherwise musk/huss will win. In nilla, you can just rush, do your 7-8 timing and even if it fails, win in the long run because bow/pike is as good as musk/huss which isnt normal, thats like iro, they can rush and then have a very string late age 2, thats op.