zoom wrote:"Like I said it's like removing 400w because a civ using it is too strong." – Did you happen to miss the British lacking the Quartermaster (400w), then? Changing something that isn't a unique feature of the civilization seems preferable to changing something that is. Not every civilization has the Exiled Prince. I don't see a particular reason that Germans has to have it. I do see it being a balance issue, combined with the civilization's uniquely strong Fortress-Age shipments, though. What's so bad about replacing the Exiled Prince for Germans, that it would "destroy the way the civilization works"!? Why would you prioritize nerfing the civilization's unique features, over something definitively not one?? Is there a logical argument against it, or is it strictly "it feels bad to me"? So far, that's all I've seen, whereas I see several ones in favor of it.
How hard is it to understand that removing one of the most important mechanics of a civ is very risky? Who cares about brits, they don't have 400w to begin with. Removing 400w from a civ that already has it would have huge implications. Just like removing the fast age. It's such a huge change, it would totally change the way the civ plays out. I don't know what else to tell you, it's just common sense to me. People are nitpicking about 5w on manors or 5f on cdbs while you're casually planning on totally changing the way a civ plays.
Keep in mind the teepee change for sioux turned out to be pretty much a disaster, because it totally changes the way the civ feels/plays out. Let's try to have reasonable changes, please.
zoom wrote:About the minimal changes question: That's exactly the point! It would allow for reverting other changes (by definition minimizing them), and not touching unique civilization features. It seems like a great thing to try. Still, if it's even more controversial than the Uhlan hitpoints nerf, I'd rather not do it.
No. This change is huge, it's against the minimal changes policy. It's not about how many changes, it's about how the civilization feels. I'd rather play the civ with less uhlans, lower hp uhlans, weaker tps, weaker settler wagons, or whatever else, than without fast age. We don't need to revamp germany, just to make it a bit weaker.
zoom wrote:About the Uhlan meta: I'm confident, that there was a point (one lasting several years), not too long before the Uhlan was nerfed, where the competitive meta was to train mostly (75% or more) Uhlans. That is factual. It is entirely possible, though, that that started to change, before the Uhlan nerf was made. I am not talking about any particular player, although as you mention him, Mitoe would definitely know what I'm talking about. Ask him all about it!
Well ask mitoe yourself, I don't need to. I've played hundreds of games vs him, especially back in 2015-2016 where uhlans still had RE hp, and neither of us would train pure uhlan lol. This is just a distorted vision of the civ, as distorted as people on RE saying "you can just pure skirm uhlan as germany it's OP" because they simply have no clue and can't hit and run.
zoom wrote:While you may be right in that said meta is no longer optimal (even without a nerfed Uhlan), disregarding the fact that it once was considered to be, for the longest time, seems irresponsible, to me.
If we currently know that trained uhlans aren't too strong, it's enough. The rest is irrelevant. No need to nerf it. Especially since, again, it's a bigger nerf on no TP than on TP maps.