Treaty Balance Changes Notes

[_H2O]

Pretty sure any balance change is accomplishable if you know how.

I would say that you really need to focus in on what you want to change.

Solve the problem from the matchup back.

France is too strong -> what is the minimal set of changes we can make to put France at the right level without removing unique aspects

I for example think removing fur trade would be a huge fix for them as right now they can gather only food with only mill Eco cards then transform it all. I would like to see how their Eco looks after that. Second problem with France is the extra 20 pop space they get. They are very pop efficient because of it.

France curs scale off vet stats AND have honor guard. Maybe change that to a normal guard upgrade.

[_NiceKING_]

I agree that they need to make minimal changes; however, removing fur trade from france isn't a good idea cuz it's gonna change their boom. I think they have done enough changes to france. I was just wondering about the splash they removed from cuirs; but looks like they recently decided to leave them 1 splash which feels good.

[rcb]

Is their a list of changes that have been made so far?

[martinspjuth]

adding on to what gitch said about nerfing team cards and making them useless to the civ thats sending it, if we were to make, for instance, ports team hp art card 5% team instead of 15%, then port organ guns would get one shot by culvs which makes them useless. just one example of how team cards need to be removed not balanced.

The suggestion to make team cards worse the more players in the game, it could work. It doesn't mean it has to become useless for the civ sending it. Take port team art for example, wich was used before in the discusion. Just keep it a 15% boost for the civ that sent it, but for the team, make it like 10% in 2v2 and 5% in 3v3 (not sure if it is practicaly possible tho). Not sure about the best numbers to use, but u get the general idea.

Except we don't have the source code to the game engine, so the most we can do is tweak stats/etc through modifying the things that already exist and adding others based on the infrastructure we have. There is no built-in way to make a card degrade with the number of teammates in the game.

If you want to convince Bill Gates to give me the source code, I'd love to implement ideas like that and test them out.

Yeah, i completely understand some things might be to complicated to do. Even if it might be possible as H2O thinks, it might take more work and time than it's worth. I have very little knowledge of what is hard to change and rework in a patch, so i just try to give some ideas. If they turn out to be technically impossible to implement, well i wasted your time by making you read some crap, but maybe and hopefully sometime i can come up with something decent that can make up for that
But thanks for telling us why it is not possible to do, i belive everyone can accept and approve of that something isn't included if the reason is it is technically to hard or would take you way to much time (after all you do this on your free time, wich is highly appreciated).

[hunter]

Treaty patch makes Sup patch look more sensible

[martinspjuth]

With all the buffs you have given azzi, they have become quite decent in standard treaty gameplay i belive. But i wonder what civ could possible win vs azzi in 1v1, especially in andes as it is now. There is no civ who stand a chance vs the azzi start army as far as i know. That has been allright on Re cos after that army is dead azzi has been considerly weaker than most other civs. But with these buffs that ain't the case. If we use andes 1v1 for example, azzi can completely roll over the enemy in start and getting controll of all 4 nats, maybe even before the enemy got the faster training uppgrade from there. And then they are to fight a fair fight as equally balanced civs, only that isn't true. Because azzi has 4 nats, pushed his enemy back behind his starting walls and has complete map control. I think it is kinda obvious what i'm trying to say:

With these current buffs to azzi, there also needs to be a nerf to their OP start army.

Sure, maybe it will ruin some uniqness, but i think that this nerf is neccecary to not make azzi OP in 1v1, and maybe even 2v2.

[_PI]

Pretty sure any balance change is accomplishable if you know how.

I would say that you really need to focus in on what you want to change.

Solve the problem from the matchup back.

France is too strong -> what is the minimal set of changes we can make to put France at the right level without removing unique aspects

I for example think removing fur trade would be a huge fix for them as right now they can gather only food with only mill Eco cards then transform it all. I would like to see how their Eco looks after that. Second problem with France is the extra 20 pop space they get. They are very pop efficient because of it.

France curs scale off vet stats AND have honor guard. Maybe change that to a normal guard upgrade.

You can accomplish quite a bit through unit/card/etc changes, and given how modding in AOE3 works, you can also do quite a bit if you have the time to introduce entirely new units/etc. I'm also fairly new to the Treaty patch team, so some of the current changes were done before I was actively giving input. There's quite a few that I don't really agree with (cuirs being a good example).

However, Treaty is fundamentally different from supremacy in that strategic variety is a lot more limited. Thus, variables like economy at 40, unit types/quality/value, etc are the primary drivers we use to tweak the overall "kill them or go broke" game play style treaty has. In general, we've been hesitant to completely strip a civilization of its uniqueness boom-wise. Examples that would strip a boom of its uniqueness is removing fur trade, or removing cowing from British, etc.

We'll be continuing to play with the stats, and different ideas to help things better overall. But, we're a fairly small team and we all have very limited time. So, be patient.

[swedenpaul]

I think brits should only get one single rocket from the infinite shipment, same for chinas flying crows.

[Gichtenlord]

I think brits should only get one single rocket from the infinite shipment, same for chinas flying crows.

Rockets and flying crows are weaker than a heavy cannon or great bombard, thats why they are able to send 2 at a time.

[charlemagen]

And China only gets one because of how fast their cards ship

[_PI]

For anyone who is curious what the changes we've been iterating over are (compared to Matt's Google Doc), here's the ones I've been storing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Q_ ... sp=sharing

[martinspjuth]

It's obviously hard for someone who hasn't play tested these changes to say whether they are acceptable, decent, good or perfect.

They do however LOOK REALLY GOOD as far as I can tell.

Good job!

The only thing I can say I'm still a bit concerned about is the Aztec start army. You have reduced their start army by 16pop. But considering that you have made warrior priests cost zero population, that actually comes down to only 6 pop less in their start army.
Imo a nerf by 20-30 pop in their start army is needed (maybe even more) to not make them to OP in 1v1.

[Gichtenlord]

It's obviously hard for someone who hasn't play tested these changes to say whether they are acceptable, decent, good or perfect.

They do however LOOK REALLY GOOD as far as I can tell.

Good job!

The only thing I can say I'm still a bit concerned about is the Aztec start army. You have reduced their start army by 16pop. But considering that you have made warrior priests cost zero population, that actually comes down to only 6 pop less in their start army.
Imo a nerf by 20-30 pop in their start army is needed (maybe even more) to not make them to OP in 1v1.

Ofc we are aware of it, but you have to know that if we weaken their start army too much, they might even lose a start fight, which should never happen for aztecs. If they cant push in the beginning, they will pretty much lose to lots of civs, because they can turtle up too fast. Right now, the start is only problematic for civs which dont have a good start army(e.g. ger, sioux), but you cant balance every match up. Maybe we have to change map balance in 1vs1 a bit. I dont like the current 1vs1 tournament versions for deccan, ori and andes anyway.

[martinspjuth]

It's obviously hard for someone who hasn't play tested these changes to say whether they are acceptable, decent, good or perfect.

They do however LOOK REALLY GOOD as far as I can tell.

Good job!

The only thing I can say I'm still a bit concerned about is the Aztec start army. You have reduced their start army by 16pop. But considering that you have made warrior priests cost zero population, that actually comes down to only 6 pop less in their start army.
Imo a nerf by 20-30 pop in their start army is needed (maybe even more) to not make them to OP in 1v1.

Ofc we are aware of it, but you have to know that if we weaken their start army too much, they might even lose a start fight, which should never happen for aztecs. If they cant push in the beginning, they will pretty much lose to lots of civs, because they can turtle up too fast. Right now, the start is only problematic for civs which dont have a good start army(e.g. ger, sioux), but you cant balance every match up. Maybe we have to change map balance in 1vs1 a bit. I dont like the current 1vs1 tournament versions for deccan, ori and andes anyway.

As you have it atm Aztec have 222 military pop in start army + 12 jaguar pets if they want to. And that is an army of slightly stronger units than on RE + the ability to replace them faster once the overpop is gone. By making their overpop only slightly over 200 i think Aztec still would beat any other civ's start army (ofc needs to be tested) but maybe not completely crush all of them all the way back into their pre-40 walls. I agree Aztec should never lose the first fight, but i think they still wouldn't even if you removed 10-20 pop.

Reworking the maps seems like a good idea, but reworking them with counter azzi start army as a high priority seems a bit stupid, better change the start army a little.

Also, Aztec have the ability to send infinite 25 mayans AND infite 25 zapotecs before 40 to boost their start army even more. Sure these cards may not be the best in games u expect to be fighting a long time (like 3v3's), but for 1v1 and 2v2 +50 extra pop in start army (or even only +25 if they only send 1) would (together with their already OP standard start army) most certainly crush anything the other team could put up in 1v1 and in most cases in 2v2 as well.

So in addition to slightly nerf their normal start army, i would like to see something done about those cards for Aztec (only thing i can think of is remove them or nerf them to oblivion but there might be better ways to do it). I don't like the idea of having one civ who can win the game by getting a so good positions already at 41-42 min and witout having made a single unit after 40. Quite a few people hate to play vs sioux (altho i personaly don't mind) because of their ability to box in start, and this is way more OP. If nothing is done i see games hosted in 1v1 and 2v2 like "HM NO Aztec".

[Gichtenlord]

Aztec are still sucky vs walls and sending mayans and zapotecs is like an all in. If u hold it, aztec is gonna be in trouble. I think u overrate their start army a bit. As long as ur base is not very close to hm, you have plenty of space to defend vs the initial aztec push.
About sioux: we already decided to reduce dog soldiers siege damage.

[martinspjuth]

Aztec are still sucky vs walls and sending mayans and zapotecs is like an all in. If u hold it, aztec is gonna be in trouble. I think u overrate their start army a bit. As long as ur base is not very close to hm, you have plenty of space to defend vs the initial aztec push.
About sioux: we already decided to reduce dog soldiers siege damage.

Ye, Aztec suck vs walls. So i guess you are right in 1v1 on most maps. But on andes it is another story, i don't belive many civs can hold azzi even inside their pre-40 walls when azzi has 4 nats and they might not even have the faster training uppgrade. Sure, there might be civs that have a chance to hold Aztec with 4 nats within their walls (dutch and ger for example) but i still think the odds would be in the aztec's favour in most matches. And in team games they can get mort suport, even if it do get harder for aztec to succesfully deny the enemy the nats.

"As long as ur base is not very close to hm..." in 1v1 your base is almost always very close to hm, at least on the RE maps

And it might be right in that i have slightly overrated their standard start army. Only hope you test it enough (wich i am confident you will do).

As for sending zapotecs and mayans before 40, it cost u 4k gold, takes up 2 card u can send before 40 and takes up 2 slots in your deck. With all the xp aztec can get before 40, getting enough shipments for those cards should not be that hard. Sure there might be better cards for after 50 play than those 2, and sure it cost 4k gold. But considering you denied your enemy natives and possibly even their fast training uppgrade it is worth the cost imo. Keeping those cards encourage all in play imo, wich should be avoided for the same reason as you avoided focus on massing and instead focused on microing skill.

This is about all i can come up with for Aztec, if you still completely dissagree with me, well, i'm gonna asume you are right untill proven otherwise. You have more overall knowledge of the game and the possiblity to test the changes in the patch after all.

About sioux: i only used them and their box to compare as why some people might hate to play vs aztec. I have nothing against their box on RE, but not against nerfing it either.

[_PI]

Regarding Sioux specifically (because it's a civilization very near and dear to my heart), we are considering nerfing the Dog Box start because it allows us room to compensate elsewhere by giving them a viable non-melee Siege unit (the current Cetan Bow in the patch), and tweak it to be strong enough to deny walling and even allow for a push. That will remove some of the "bullshit factor" of losing factories to Dog Box, but make good Sioux players much stronger/competitive overall because they'll have more to work with so they don't get shut down hard.

As for Aztec, we will continue to tweak things if we feel their start army is still too strong. One of the things I'm trying to help out with is faster iterations on changes so that we can play a few test games and make iterative tweaks. We've already shifted our approach because of me being able to dedicate more time than Matt could and iterate faster, so expect to see things evolving quite rapidly.

[Papist]

Regarding Sioux specifically (because it's a civilization very near and dear to my heart), we are considering nerfing the Dog Box start because it allows us room to compensate elsewhere by giving them a viable non-melee Siege unit (the current Cetan Bow in the patch), and tweak it to be strong enough to deny walling and even allow for a push. That will remove some of the "bullshit factor" of losing factories to Dog Box, but make good Sioux players much stronger/competitive overall because they'll have more to work with so they don't get shut down hard.

As for Aztec, we will continue to tweak things if we feel their start army is still too strong. One of the things I'm trying to help out with is faster iterations on changes so that we can play a few test games and make iterative tweaks. We've already shifted our approach because of me being able to dedicate more time than Matt could and iterate faster, so expect to see things evolving quite rapidly.

You should post more commentaries on YT. I enjoyed those back in the day.

[swedenpaul]

For anyone who is curious what the changes we've been iterating over are (compared to Matt's Google Doc), here's the ones I've been storing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Q_ ... sp=sharing

But this is not a full change log right?

Could you please give a document where all current changes are summed up?

[swedenpaul]

Some questions on the latest notes:

"Abus Multiplier to 2x vs HI (from 1.5x), 2x vs ERK (from 1.5x), 2.5x vs Light Cavalry. Added .5x multiplier vs Coyote Runners."

Isn't that only increasing every single strength from Abus guns? I mean they were strong enough in normal TAD already...


"(DONE) Tufanci Corps (from Church Tech) now grants -10% train speed for all infantry, except Abus Gun"

Please check if throughout that change grenadiers are spammable.


"China: (DONE) Restored 10 additional Population"

So China has 210 pop now?

"Rockets now do x0.8 against cav"

Didn't they do that in TAD already?

"Gendarme Changes"

And are they still spam able?



Please note:
Im not sure whether the changes from the document are added to the basic patch notes or if they (like gendarme changes) replace old ones. So please be patient when some of my questions sound outdated.

[Gichtenlord]

Some questions on the latest notes:

"Abus Multiplier to 2x vs HI (from 1.5x), 2x vs ERK (from 1.5x), 2.5x vs Light Cavalry. Added .5x multiplier vs Coyote Runners."

Isn't that only increasing every single strength from Abus guns? I mean they were strong enough in normal TAD already...


"(DONE) Tufanci Corps (from Church Tech) now grants -10% train speed for all infantry, except Abus Gun"

Please check if throughout that change grenadiers are spammable.


"China: (DONE) Restored 10 additional Population"

So China has 210 pop now?

"Rockets now do x0.8 against cav"

Didn't they do that in TAD already?

"Gendarme Changes"

And are they still spam able?



Please note:
Im not sure whether the changes from the document are added to the basic patch notes or if they (like gendarme changes) replace old ones. So please be patient when some of my questions sound outdated.

Abus:
Actually, abus only big advantage over a skirm is their ability to snipe cannons. Even with all of these changes they will still perform worse than a skirm in most situations.

Tufani Corps:
I dont think they will be instant, but they are a bad unit anyway. Gonna test that today.

China: Yes, they have 210 pop. We first tried 200 pop( Thx milky u bastard) and it was awful.

Rockets: I think they did full damage vs cav before, which is kinda broken in some situations.

Gendarmes: Yes, they are instant without the inca tech

[_NiceKING_]

They have nurfed AbusGun's attack afaik

[swedenpaul]

Gendarmes: Yes, they are instant without the inca tech

Unacceptable imo. That's the main problem about Gendarmes. There is no reason to make the strongest cav spamable.

[Gichtenlord]

Gendarmes: Yes, they are instant without the inca tech

Unacceptable imo. That's the main problem about Gendarmes. There is no reason to make the strongest cav spamable.

Pretty sure they are not the strongest cav anymore and that they are instant is not really a big deal lol

[swedenpaul]

Pretty sure they are not the strongest cav anymore and that they are instant is not really a big deal lol

Do you have the the stats -Hp/ Speed/ Damage- on Imperial?

"Not a big deal lol"

Are you sirious?! Not a big deal? Really?! I mean you sound like you never ever played anything but Andes. And as far as I know this is supposed to be a treaty patch and not an Andes PR25+ patch