Beta Russians Discussion

[zoom]

Please discuss anything relating specifically to the Russians, in this thread. The following are the current changes to the civilization:



The following change is currently being considered:

– Westernization improvement cost reduced from 900w to 700w

[[Armag] diarouga]

Russia has been dominating no TP maps in the previous tournaments. The amount of ruskets you can get in early game is just absurd. Even on TP maps Russia is super strong. I'll list the Russian MUs to try to prove my point :

India : This one used to be thought to be India favoured but I think we can safely say that it is a fair MU now, considering the previous tourmanents.

Japan : This is Russia favoured. I think we proved that on Garja's stream.

China : From my experience it's Russia favoured.

Aztec : From my experience it is Russia favoured, the Aztec buffs might change it though.

Sioux : Well, not the greatest MU for Russia I have to admit.

Iro : Bad MU for Russia but Iro is the 2nd best civ.

Otto : Historically a bad MU for Russia, but the rusket buff doesn't really help.

Dutch : Great MU for Russia

Spain : I guess it's the only MU where the rusket buff is deserved.

Germany : Ger favoured of course but that's because Germany is the best civ.

France : I think this is Russia favoured now, because of the rusket buff. It would be more balanced without that buff.

Brit : Russia favoured, because of the rusket buff again.

Port : Russia favoured

So in the end, I think that the rusket nerf would be good for the balance.

[deleted_user]

I think Russia doesn't deserve the musketer buff, we should revert it, for the record they are being picked alot on no tp maps and playing Russia doesnt require being good player at all, russia is one of the easiest civ to macro/micro, your %95 bo's rely on sending 5 coss first,
reverting the cost of Rusketers will be good.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Also this. Russia is the second easiest civ to play, and easy civs should be average as playing hard civs should be rewarded.

[Kaiserklein]

The musket buff isn't nearly as impactful as people make it, though it helps a bit. The thing is that russia has always been extremely underrated because some people repeated over and over again that it's the worst civ, even though most of its counters have been nerfed. And now as usual, people overreact in the other direction and say russia is op.

The civ is in a fine spot now, don't change it. Or revert the rusket buff, it doesn't really matter.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Reverting the rusket buff would be enough.

[Garja]

The rusket buff mostly helps in the exact 2 things where Russia was already good and that perhaps actually needed a nerf: the rush and the midgame massing.
I'd rather have it reverted and buff the vill cost again. Vill cost also helps the scaling which is something often perceived as unfair for other civs (Russia shits on them mid-late game) but given the current meta is also something fair that Russia needs for the early game.

[Goodspeed]

When people repeatedly call a civ easy and are then apparently of the opinion that it doesn't deserve to be strong, it triggers me into wanting to change how easy they are.
I think to make Russia a more challenging and more rewarding civ to play, we should look into making it less one-dimensional. So far we've just been making small changes to balance the civ, but since we are apparently making a lot of changes anyway this iteration, it seems like this would be a good time to address that issue.

The first thing that needs to change is the 17 vill age up needs to be a viable option. Russia shouldn't have to rely on their low-eco pressure build every single game.
That might be enough on its own, but to make Russian eco and/or TP play more viable we might want to, for example, also add an effect to their fortress age unit shipments that makes the unit in question upgrade. Like 20 strelets would become 14 strelets + the veteran strelet upgrade or something along those lines.
The musk change should then be reverted since we're buffing the civ in other ways.

I have no illusions about this actually happening, but have seen too many people call Russia "easy" and "one dimensional" to not at least bring up the possibility.

[[Armag] diarouga]

People would still go for the 14v age up, as it is very strong, even without the rusket buff.
The only way to fix the civ would be to deny the 14v age up (by removing the extra food crates for example), and buff the 17v age up but yea, not going to happen.

[zoom]

Although I've always thought the civilization was underrated, I'm thoroughly unconvinced that -4% Rusketeer batch cost has anything to do with any perceived issues. I'm also worried that Russians is now being overrated, and hesitant to make changes based largely on trends in opinion. Overall, I think this civilization is in a relatively good spot.

Still, I'm aware of some players' concerns.

[[Armag] diarouga]

If you don't believe that -4% rusketeer batch affects the balance then revert it. It will make the change list smaller and the patch closer to the RE with a slightly better balance.

Russia overall is strong but not op but considering the tournament map pool (at least 1 no TP map), it is really abusable, and frustrating to play against because it's skilless.

[Goodspeed]

Although I've always thought the civilization was underrated, I'm thoroughly unconvinced that -4% Rusketeer batch cost has anything to do with any perceived issues.

But as you know we don't need a reason to revert things. The question should be "Was the change needed?"

I don't think it was, in hindsight.

[zoom]

Although I've always thought the civilization was underrated, I'm thoroughly unconvinced that -4% Rusketeer batch cost has anything to do with any perceived issues.

But as you know we don't need a reason to revert things. The question should be "Was the change needed?"

I don't think it was, in hindsight.

I've never thought it was desirable, for balance purposes. I think it was desirable, for eliminating a decimal cost, and populist purposes. In fact, that it doesn't have a significant impact on the civilization's strength, is the reason I suggested it, in the first place (given our experience with Settler batch cost buff, which is much more significant, and was determined to be undesirable).

I'm happy to nerf Musketeer batch cost from 270f, 90c to 285f, 95c (a 1.33% cost nerf, rather than a 4% cost buff, from RE). Let's poll it!

[zoom]

When people repeatedly call a civ easy and are then apparently of the opinion that it doesn't deserve to be strong, it triggers me into wanting to change how easy they are.
I think to make Russia a more challenging and more rewarding civ to play, we should look into making it less one-dimensional. So far we've just been making small changes to balance the civ, but since we are apparently making a lot of changes anyway this iteration, it seems like this would be a good time to address that issue.

The first thing that needs to change is the 17 vill age up needs to be a viable option. Russia shouldn't have to rely on their low-eco pressure build every single game.
That might be enough on its own, but to make Russian eco and/or TP play more viable we might want to, for example, also add an effect to their fortress age unit shipments that makes the unit in question upgrade. Like 20 strelets would become 14 strelets + the veteran strelet upgrade or something along those lines.
The musk change should then be reverted since we're buffing the civ in other ways.

I have no illusions about this actually happening, but have seen too many people call Russia "easy" and "one dimensional" to not at least bring up the possibility.

I agree with making civilizations less one-dimensional (and that Russians is one of the prime candidates, to this end). The question is how that may be achieved. What change would you suggest to make 17 age-ups more viable?

I question whether the Strelet needs a buff in the late game, though. What gives?

[Goodspeed]

When people repeatedly call a civ easy and are then apparently of the opinion that it doesn't deserve to be strong, it triggers me into wanting to change how easy they are.
I think to make Russia a more challenging and more rewarding civ to play, we should look into making it less one-dimensional. So far we've just been making small changes to balance the civ, but since we are apparently making a lot of changes anyway this iteration, it seems like this would be a good time to address that issue.

The first thing that needs to change is the 17 vill age up needs to be a viable option. Russia shouldn't have to rely on their low-eco pressure build every single game.
That might be enough on its own, but to make Russian eco and/or TP play more viable we might want to, for example, also add an effect to their fortress age unit shipments that makes the unit in question upgrade. Like 20 strelets would become 14 strelets + the veteran strelet upgrade or something along those lines.
The musk change should then be reverted since we're buffing the civ in other ways.

I have no illusions about this actually happening, but have seen too many people call Russia "easy" and "one dimensional" to not at least bring up the possibility.

I agree with making civilizations less one-dimensional (and that Russians is one of the prime candidates, to this end). The question is how that may be achieved. What change would you suggest to make 17 age-ups more viable?

Decreasing vill train time

I question whether the Strelet needs a buff in the late game, though. What gives?

I don't consider adding the upgrade to the card a late game buff. Late game in my view is IV+ with (near) max economies. Besides, it's not really a buff to the unit but rather a buff to Russian fortress play in general. I would add this change for other units as well.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Wtf buffing strels?
It's the best unit in the game.

[zoom]

When people repeatedly call a civ easy and are then apparently of the opinion that it doesn't deserve to be strong, it triggers me into wanting to change how easy they are.
I think to make Russia a more challenging and more rewarding civ to play, we should look into making it less one-dimensional. So far we've just been making small changes to balance the civ, but since we are apparently making a lot of changes anyway this iteration, it seems like this would be a good time to address that issue.

The first thing that needs to change is the 17 vill age up needs to be a viable option. Russia shouldn't have to rely on their low-eco pressure build every single game.
That might be enough on its own, but to make Russian eco and/or TP play more viable we might want to, for example, also add an effect to their fortress age unit shipments that makes the unit in question upgrade. Like 20 strelets would become 14 strelets + the veteran strelet upgrade or something along those lines.
The musk change should then be reverted since we're buffing the civ in other ways.

I have no illusions about this actually happening, but have seen too many people call Russia "easy" and "one dimensional" to not at least bring up the possibility.

I agree with making civilizations less one-dimensional (and that Russians is one of the prime candidates, to this end). The question is how that may be achieved. What change would you suggest to make 17 age-ups more viable?

Decreasing vill train time

I question whether the Strelet needs a buff in the late game, though. What gives?

I don't consider adding the upgrade to the card a late game buff. Late game in my view is IV+ with (near) max economies. Besides, it's not really a buff to the unit but rather a buff to Russian fortress play in general. I would add this change for other units as well.

Wouldn't that force 17 age-ups? Also, wouldn't it require nerfing the civilization, lest it become overpowered?

Whatever you consider late-game, I doubt players would agree with buffing Strelets in any age; least of all Fortress.

Ultimately, I doubt that fixing Russians is possible without nerfing the "5 Cossacks" shipment. What do you figure?