Is Sweden an offensive civ?

[88_Baron_Rojo_88]

Inca don't have a super rush, but they are probably a little strong overall. The overall balance of the other civs is pretty good though.

INCA don't have a super rush?¿? 11 pikermen units in ur face in 3:40 minutes ??? OK XDDDDDDD

[88_Baron_Rojo_88]

I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol

[Aizamk]

bot town center destroyed at 5:10*
like all cheeses it's probably pretty easy to pull off at low levels, but villager defense is a thing, and you could and should focus down the chasquis after seeing that ageup time.

[helln00]

this rush is much more fragile compared to wat u can do with RE Iro and otto

[samwise12]

I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol

That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol

That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.

If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol

That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.

If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.

How does it take down low level player though ? Just focus the chasqui, and then kill the pikes with TC fire + vills in melee. Also if you see his age up time just save resources for minutem.

[samwise12]

I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol

That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.

If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.

Yeah you're right, I can see how it could be a balance issue at lower levels. Best thing to do is post on the offical forums so the developers of the game see it, and can make balance changes accordingly. There was always going to be teething issues with the new civs.

[Black_Duck]

I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol

That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.

If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.

What is a low level player in this scenario?

[88_Baron_Rojo_88]

tier 1 yeah , try against sweden whit spain or better ask hazza, u are saying all the time spain is top 1 but i see yours streams every day and don't play spain in any game because u know is the same FF the same strategy since 15 years ago , one FF one try to push whit a little army u win or GG (logistician is useless and Spanish gold is not enough and u know it ) . TC doesn't matter , in 3:40 u can destroy the rest of buildings and run, come back whit chimu and raid and force to enemy no eco , doesn't matter if he are playing against IA 3:40 minutes "all in" is broken.
The Inca economy does not stop at minute 4, the one that stops is the enemy's, it is a slow agony until the GG. It's like playing with Iroquois in the RE and there you do agree that it was unbalanced, right? .


you are the top1 so I don't say anything else, you are right

[Kawapasaka]

I lost my carelessly placed Agra to that Inca rush today, sent trickle first in colonial instead of units, and it was still one of the easiest wins of the day. I don't think it's that good.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Spain is actually a pretty good civ against Sweden in 1v1, and it's a good civ in 1v1 overall.
Besides, Spanish gold is enough to match most of the nilla civs' economy, idk why you're saying it's not enough, it's a totally viable option. The reason why Spain is not played is because the Spain players are still trying the new civs or clicking with random civs.

Sure, inca can destroy your house and your market with this rush, but that's just not enough. Most civs can just send a 8 bow shipment and hold with minutemen, and then transition to a standard game where most civs have 15 vills vs 10 vills.

RE Iroquois was totally different. The scary things were the semi ff and the colonial timings, not the all in rush because Iro had a very strong pressure in early game while still having a good eco behind, which does not apply to this Inca all in.

[samwise12]

tier 1 yeah , try against sweden whit spain or better ask hazza, u are saying all the time spain is top 1 but i see yours streams every day and don't play spain in any game because u know is the same FF the same strategy since 15 years ago , one FF one try to push whit a little army u win or GG (logistician is useless and Spanish gold is not enough and u know it ) . TC doesn't matter , in 3:40 u can destroy the rest of buildings and run, come back whit chimu and raid and force to enemy no eco , doesn't matter if he are playing against IA 3:40 minutes "all in" is broken.
The Inca economy does not stop at minute 4, the one that stops is the enemy's, it is a slow agony until the GG. It's like playing with Iroquois in the RE and there you do agree that it was unbalanced, right? .


you are the top1 so I don't say anything else, you are right

First of all, tier 1 and top 1 are not the same thing. Anyone that has met me on the ladder knows that I play alot of Spain, I also didn't say that i think Spain is tier 1, I said other top players say this. Personally i'd probably rate Spain somewhere in tier 2. Spanish gold is very good, and they have many more viable builds than just an all in ff. I'll happily play some Spain games next time i'm streaming. http://www.twitch.tv/samwise12_

[[Armag] diarouga]

I lost my carelessly placed Agra to that Inca rush today, sent trickle first in colonial instead of units, and it was still one of the easiest wins of the day. I don't think it's that good.

Ye, he has no follow up. 10 pikes and 6 chimus with no wh, so you just need to hold that push (and TC fire is honestly enough), and then you're ahead.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...

[Kawapasaka]

Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...

I really doubt you'd need vill punching to win vs someone of a similar level executing the rush. Just having enough for minutemen should probably do it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye true, if your opponent has a poor macro and doesn't execute the all in well, or if he can't switch his pikes to cover mode in time, you probably don't even need vill punching to hold. If he can macro and micro his build correctly however, it's fair to ask you to do the same honestly.

[Hazza54321]

Surely just mm alone shuts it down

[draztik]

very interesting

[kevthegooner]

Sweden offends the core values of an RTS game

They are some kind of souped-up Japan, IMO. I'm average (~1000 elo, master sergeant) and play a range of civs (Lakota, China, Japan, Russia, France) and consistently win 50% of my 1v1 ladder games.

I think I am 1-8 vs. Sweden. If I try to pressure early to limit their torp boom w/pikes, then they roll out 15 carolean/2 leather cannon and obliterate my infantry (assuming the player does basic micro to keep cav away from cannons).

If I FF to try and get better counter-Swede units on the field (skirm, culverins) their boom just rolls me over at about 22 minutes, even when my military score is pretty high. I mow them down, they just spam more.

The eye-roll I used to have for seeing an Otto player in my game is now reserved for Sweden players.

My balance advice: eliminate (or hugely nerf) Commerce Age leather cannons. Imagine if Japan had flaming arrows in age ii?

[chronique]

My balance advice: eliminate (or hugely nerf) Commerce Age leather cannons. Imagine if Japan had flaming arrows in age ii?

Imagine flamming arrows with 20 range?

[Zutazuta]

Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...

I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...

I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.

Some players may not have the time to grind up their skills, or may have a skill cap that is lower than others. Yet they still deserve a playable game, i.e. a somewhat balanced game at their skill level. Top level balance should probably have priority, but nobody is going to enjoy a game were the first 100 games are spent playing only one civ because that's the only civ viable at your current skill cap.

[vividlyplain]

Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...

I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.

Some players may not have the time to grind up their skills, or may have a skill cap that is lower than others. Yet they still deserve a playable game, i.e. a somewhat balanced game at their skill level. Top level balance should probably have priority, but nobody is going to enjoy a game were the first 100 games are spent playing only one civ because that's the only civ viable at your current skill cap.

All civs are viable at lower levels. You really just need to learn a few build orders and execute them well most of the time.
Some matchups do feel unwinnable imo but I think having a good build is most important.

[Zutazuta]

Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...

I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.

Some players may not have the time to grind up their skills, or may have a skill cap that is lower than others. Yet they still deserve a playable game, i.e. a somewhat balanced game at their skill level. Top level balance should probably have priority, but nobody is going to enjoy a game were the first 100 games are spent playing only one civ because that's the only civ viable at your current skill cap.

I think @vividlyplain hits the nail on the head. Skill cap isn't necessarily a problem at the lower levels. It's more a knowledge and macro problem than anything else. When you start hitting an actual (mechanical) skill cap - which does exist - then I agree, you should definitely consider balance for those levels. In my example above with my Jan rush, my solution to unlocking a higher level was discovering that making an artillery foundry and abus was far more critical than any mechanical skill I gained (let's face it, my mechanics still aren't great!). In the instance you provided with Inca, a realization that "hey, maybe every time I face Inca, I should gather 150c - even better if I can get it from treasures, so I'll prioritize those" is far more important than being able to micro vils in out of the TC and grouping them together to punch individual spears. I'd wager that optimizations like that are missing on both sides at lower skill levels (i.e. cover moding pikes, moving the shipment unit in and out of the TC fire range effectively, etc.).

I think driving players to that knowledge is currently one of the actual limitations of the game. Imagine a game where there were into strategy build viewable in the client for each civ or tutorials on how to deal with common issues widely available without having to come to a fan-made site. Art of War and pre-build decks definitely is a step in the right direction, but we can go further - hopefully the game does!