Buff China, Aztecs and Sweeden a bit.

[harcha]

honestly i don't think china warrants any buff other than maybe making them a bit faster in early game, maybe give the 300f 300w and remove the 190w village nonsense, or do 200f 300w with 2 goats, idk

[bsound7]

I have played a lot of aztec recently and i think they are almost fine. I really like the scout and the 0 pop WP. In my opinion they need a very small buff to one of their weaknesses:

- lack of meatshield (coyotes + WC (+ jpk))
(- skirm behind walls)

one of these suggestions should be enough imo, these 4 make the most sense to me:

- increase coyote hp or the hp bonus of coyote combat a tiny bit
- buff age up politicians, especially the wh and wc ones. we have seen that increasing it to 2 wh is not a good idea. maybe make it 1 wh and 1 wp to age 2. this would improve age 2 timing + fast age to 3 play and would promote different playstyles than just fast age every single game
- make jpk and/or skull knights a bit faster
- arrow knights are bad, increase their damage/siege or range a bit

and some more controversial suggestions:
- buff WC, I totally understand that the WC had to be nerved. However, it killed the FI. At this point, you can invest in the ageup politician and send smoking mirror and it does not seem worth it. He has to run across the whole map every time he dies and he has lower hp since you stay age 3 instead of going age 4.
- increase range of mace in age 3, maybe through vet up

the biggest problem with aztec is that top players dont play them. therefore, it takes a lot of time to actually see how the changes affect the civs strength.

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

Changes i would suggest to be looked at (not all just some ideas):
- extra food crate age 1 (300f 300w)
- leave villages at 190w is actually a nice change, brings in line to value in line of manors and torps (extra wood in manors/torps give greater return return than its cost)
- steppe rider siege unit tag removed
- standard army (chukonu and step) cost reduced or train times of this reduced
- standard army hp card to 20% from 15%
- with the recent EP9 overhaul of natives and rattan nerfs in latest DE patch, look at whether the age 2 and age 4 rattans are balanced or underpowered.
- somebody suggested ger consulate improvement techs moved 1 age earlier, nice idea.

[harcha]

Changes i would suggest to be looked at (not all just some ideas):
- extra food crate age 1 (300f 300w)
- leave villages at 190w is actually a nice change, brings in line to value in line of manors and torps (extra wood in manors/torps give greater return return than its cost)
- steppe rider siege unit tag removed
- standard army (chukonu and step) cost reduced or train times of this reduced
- standard army hp card to 20% from 15%
- with the recent EP9 overhaul of natives and rattan nerfs in latest DE patch, look at whether the age 2 and age 4 rattans are balanced or underpowered.
- somebody suggested ger consulate improvement techs moved 1 age earlier, nice idea.

I still think 190w is completely silly.
Standard army is fine, and CKN don't deserve buffs, steppes maybe.
If you're going to adjust the consulate, should bring DE russia costs in line with EP, as now the blockhouse is considerably more expensive than it was on EP.

[princeofcarthage]

I kind of hate this I feel like this kind of balance approach. Each stat should be evaluated on various metrics and then balanced or intentionally unbalanced to create variations. There is no contextual balancing. Where are the graphs?

[yurashic]

If they don't make a difference what are you worried about?

If a balance patch makes many useless small changes then the game isn't the game we grew up with anymore. It doesn't make it more balanced nor more enjoyable.

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

I kind of hate this I feel like this kind of balance approach. Each stat should be evaluated on various metrics and then balanced or intentionally unbalanced to create variations. There is no contextual balancing. Where are the graphs?

I think youve made a valid point but how do you critically analyses how a unit performs in 16 MU's and in multiple build order variations in each MU. with shipments, snaring, multiple unit compositions its harder to mathematically analyse unit stats in a way which is very possible in aoe2. Not saying it cant be done but would involve lots of staged simulations/trials to avoid typical pathing RNG to get objective results where as most of AoE3 is really a subjective matter, hence the language of I think

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

If they don't make a difference what are you worried about?

If a balance patch makes many useless small changes then the game isn't the game we grew up with anymore. It doesn't make it more balanced nor more enjoyable.

hmm i would disagree with this, we grew up with civilisations and units, not numbers and stats. If there is something which is unbalanced in a game which is supported then I would suggest that tweaks should be made.

[harcha]

you can play the game you grew up with

[yurashic]

you can play the game you grew up with

Which is what I do.

[princeofcarthage]

I kind of hate this I feel like this kind of balance approach. Each stat should be evaluated on various metrics and then balanced or intentionally unbalanced to create variations. There is no contextual balancing. Where are the graphs?

I think youve made a valid point but how do you critically analyses how a unit performs in 16 MU's and in multiple build order variations in each MU. with shipments, snaring, multiple unit compositions its harder to mathematically analyse unit stats in a way which is very possible in aoe2. Not saying it cant be done but would involve lots of staged simulations/trials to avoid typical pathing RNG to get objective results where as most of AoE3 is really a subjective matter, hence the language of I think

Multiple build order is irrelevant, it depends on player on how he makes maximum use of the available cards, units, stats. Shipments is a number game like you ship 6 musk but only 5 sepoy or ashi. Unit compositions are also player and each match relevant. according to balance and stats they will change. For ex. with age 4 yumi you need less anti cav than age 4 skirms. Compositions will change according to stats not vice versa. Coming back to how you critically analyse, you create a common metric (formula) Each of the stat has certain weightage which translates in real world performance. For ex each point of speed might be equal to 4 points of attack (just an example) so a certain slower unit will have +4 attack (again just an example). At the end each unit has same stats which circle back to same measurable metrics. So what you have is a graph which indicates the strength of a certain unit. For hard counter system, units like skirmishers will skew in certain direction while units like hussar or musketeers will end up closer to middle. From there adjustments will also be easy and you can know how strong each unit is relative to its costs. Practical world results might differ slightly than theoretical simulations but then that is much easier to balance.

[deleted_user]

Just playtest lmao

[princeofcarthage]

Playtesting is time consuming. For EP Team it is not of course useful but once the basic data is ready with company like MS, it can be translated to use in other RTS games as well.

[chronique]

@princeofcarthage there will be more variables in your model than they are on weather forecast

[princeofcarthage]

So?

[arivus]

I want to add that one big misconception about china is that people think that Changdao are Halberdier equal/replacement, they're not as their stat are more similar to a pikeman than halbs. Fully upgraded, Qiang and Changdao with british consulate will have both unit HP at 296 but changdao have edge here with 20% melee resist than qiang 10%. In damage vs cavalry Qiang deal 96 damage while Changdao deal 82, in siege Qiang far surpass Changdao. But Changdao is more easy to mass late game due to using coin. Both unit require 3 card to be fully upgraded. It's almost the same case with Chu Ko Nu and Arque but Cho Ko Nu win in most aspect except for ranged resist and they cost wood.

Now for Aztec, no sane person would use melee cavalry against them, so their playstyle are easily guessed and countered by mass skirmisher + cannon. CIR Skirmisher is a hard counter to half the aztec army, they kill Puma, Jaguar, Eagle, and Skull Knight.

Slinger without 1000 coin card lose in range against skirmisher, arrow knight only deal miserable 10 ranged damage for a 2 pop unit. The only counter for skirmisher Aztec have is Coyote runner which is quickly countered if the opponent mix in musketeer or halberdier. As Aztec you don't want to lose much of your Coyote, as wood is important in researching unit upgrades as well making huts/estate/farm and even harder to get if the game drags on.

Against cannon is even worse, as it need 16 Arrow Knight to one shot unupgraded falconet despite arrow knight 5x multiplier against artillery, it's because most artillery have 75% ranged resist, so Arrow Knight basic 10 damage with 5 multiplier vs artillery actually only deal 12.5 damage each.

Unlike other civilization, all Aztec age 3 unit didn't have 25% Elite shadow upgrade, making all 3 Knight card crucial in Aztec deck.

[n0el]

If they don't make a difference what are you worried about?

If a balance patch makes many useless small changes then the game isn't the game we grew up with anymore. It doesn't make it more balanced nor more enjoyable.

The game I grew up with had abus that beat everything.

[SquidTheSid]

1). China - I hate how they have so many redundant units. Two different pikemen, three different heavy melee cav, and two upgradeable skirmisher units (3/4 if you include Iron Troops and Flamethrowers). As it is, since all of their mainline units shadowtech, it makes their colonial extremely weak, and their fortress insane. So what if we removed a lot of these units? Chu Ko Nu, Qiang Pikemen, and Steppe Riders don't need to exist, given that OHR has been heavily nerfed and that they largely overlap with Arquebusiers, Changdao, and Iron Flails. We can remove those units and enable colonial age Arquebusiers, Changdao, and Iron Flails and remove their shadowtechs while adding appropriate colonial age unit shipments. That way, they'd have a much stronger colonial, while having a slower deathball in Fortress. I'd also like to see White Pagoda reworked since it's such an underwhelming wonder. The idea I had was that it'd be a "fast age" equivalent for china, in that it has 60 less build points than all other wonders (75s base/85s in fortress). The bonus could be reworked to XP trickles that increase depending on what age it was built in (like porcelain tower, something like 1.0/1.5/2.0/2.5 xp/s).

1. They have redundant units, but I think the design kinda indicates two eras, and I wouldn't want to take that away. Plus 20 range skirm and 5 speed changs would be OP in colonial, and chinas colonial mass is already insane at early game. Plus there is a card that turns ckn/pike into arque/chang. Their cav is also quite specialized, and I wouldn't want to mess that up. Don't remove any units please.
2. What do you mean by the "all their mainline units shadowtech"? Do they have colonial stats available in the game?
3. Nothing you say makes me think that deathball in Fortress would be any slower.
4. White Pagoda may be niche but it's still useful in some situations. For example if you age to III with academy, but find yourself going to IV, then Pagoda may be much more useful than the tower assuming you want to play aggressively or your opponent is about to put a lot of pressure on. I think fast age china would be too strong.

1. China was the civilization that invented gunpowder. They had the first prototype for firearms (fire lances) and had some of the earliest hand cannon. If any civ should have access to age 2 skirms, it should be China. With regards to Arqs, they can have a 2 range penalty until fortress age (18 --> 20) if that helps, though I'd say it isn't that much different than EP Rajput + Gurkha (although the former are cheaper). Does anyone actually use New Army? Plus, it can be reworked to be another shipment, like an industrial age upgrade that techs all Honored upgrades on your units or something. And again, does anyone make Steppe Riders? Colonial Iron Flails would largely fulfill the same role as them.
2. All of China's infantry/cavalry units have colonial stats. Changdao, Arquebusiers, Iron Flails, and Meteor Hammers all receive a 20% shadowtech upon fortress age.
3. Since Changdao, Arqs, and Iron Flails would be colonial units, they wouldn't have shadowtechs, so you'd need to spend the extra 20-30 seconds to research the unit upgrades, which would slow down the deathball.
4. I would like to see fast age options for Japan/China, since they don't really have many solid rush options, and they're considerably slower than other Euro civs otherwise.

[Kawapasaka]

how about we don't make a completely new civ instead

[deleted_user]

tbh there's a kind of relief that balance discussion on ESOC is literally meaningless now

[n0el]

Let’s just give them 100 c and be done with it

[Kawapasaka]

Let’s just give them 100 c and be done with it

Why would you want a crate start that buffs the FF specifically and nothing else though? (early market is bad for most colonial play)

[n0el]

Because all the haters will come out if I say 100f, and almost every meaningful buff would help the Ff more anyways

[Youssef]

is there any way to aztec train jpk and construct noble hut in age 2? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/896580077?t=0h54m38s

[aaryngend]

is there any way to aztec train jpk and construct noble hut in age 2? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/896580077?t=0h54m38s

Yes, there is a card for that.