Are Slavs in need of an overhaul - underwhelming FE civ?

[cjwasright]

NOTE: This is a copy of a post I've made on the Forgotten Empires website under a nickname "Tom Tan". This is just to say that I was the one who authored that post and not ripping anyone off.



Honestly, I don't get this civ at all. I'm not saying it's necessarily weak. My experience with them resulted in extremely mixed feelings. Although I love the UU and the Druzhina tech, I found the overall, long term Slav gameplay unevenly balanced and simply not very fun. It's nowhere near the level of the excitement and uniqueness of the Conquerors civs. Bland bonuses that are a mixed bag and serious faults in competitive play. Whenever I get this civ in random, I don't anticipate its forthcoming play, there's just nothing in it to hold me. A huge disappointment. The biggest reason for this is that most of this civ's bonuses are either very very generic, or very situational, that is only coming to play in certain instances during a game. In my opinion, the Slavs' features, as they are, fail to uniquely define the civ's strategy throughout the entire game and in greatest range of circumstances that a game is set in (such as DM, naval, late game battles, or custom scenarios).

Let's break down what I like and don't like about this civ's feature by feature.

-15% farm production.

No doubt a useful, if banal bonus. A simple boost to your mid game food production. Considering that other civs get similar benefits, this hardly sets the Slavs apart from many other civs that receive an implicit food bonus. Teutons have cheaper farms, meaning it can transition to farming faster, Franks have free farm upgrades, receiving bonus to food production as soon as they age up, Vikings have free Wheelbarrow, and Persians/Indians have faster training or cheaper villagers, meaning they conserve their food resource. A simple boost to farm gathering rate feels like a very uninspired bonus that doesn't make it feel that you need to align your strategy with its benefit throughout the entire game.

-Free tracking

I can see how this can be marginally useful, if you're flushing with an infantry mass and you want to have a bit of a heads up on any incoming pitfall. But by castle and up, most players include cavalry/monk/archers in their army, rendering this benefit largely moot. Honestly, how many of you even research Tracking, one of the cheapest techs available, let alone consider it a cornerstone of your strategy? I count this as almost a non-bonus. Considering that Slavs only get 3 core bonuses altogether while most other civs have 4 significant ones or more, it's a disgrace.

-15% cheaper siege

Again, another good in circumstances, but boring bonus. This means you will conserve quite a bit of resources if you're planning a fast castle ram/mango strike. I've come to respect siege heavy strategies a lot more since I first started playing this game, having been painfully licked by AoE workshop units lately, so I certainly don't deny this bonus can come to the fore in your typical game. But I see nothing else in the Russian roster that clearly synergizes with this bonus. It's a nice bonus to have, but it doesn't really spell out any kind of fun or uniqueness factor to selecting the Slavs. Again the -15% cost comes into factor in standard RM where a min-maxing economy of scarce resources is paramount, but it becomes a lot less prominent in resource plentiful late game, and almost marginal in DM or hugely popular custom scenario maps such as CBA because there's no functional unit benefit associated with Russian siege units that could have gone along with it.

-Boyar UU

A very good unique unit, I'll grant you that. However it's not as overpowered as some people claim. Mass archers and cannoneers in block formations set to stand ground tear through them. Screened siege units and towers tear through them. Massed pikemen tear through them (more efficiently than paladins at least). In the end it's more susceptible to anti-cavalry units than the paladin, and IIRC has a slower attack and movement, making it worse at the primary function of the paladin - which is to in the late game, weasel through the enemy's defensive frontal fortifications and devastate his trade lines, economy buildings and villagers in the rear. In this case, speed, HP, anti-building damage and pierce armor count more than melee armor and attack. It's a good unit killer, but it's nowhere as devastatingly overpowered with few weaknesses as say, the conquistador, or the pre-AoK:TC cataphract. It's definitely NOT a unit that you can mass entirely on its own and call it an army. My point is that although I like the boyar just the way it is, it alone certainly does not compensate for the rest of this civ's sheer underwhelming design features.

- Unique tech: Orthodoxy

This tech renders a benefit quite similar to the Aztecs monk HP buff, except a lot worse in terms of improving survivability, and you need to pay for it. Monks in general, need a serious gold investment in order to be any useful on the battlefield. But how can you pursue a monk heavy strategy, if you're already head over heels in gold costly siege workshop production, which you would be insane not to, considering it's the only thing that sets the Slavs apart from other civs? Does orthodoxy make a monk strategy worth while? I say no. The tech makes no sense in terms of strategy and it makes absolutely no sense when related to the definition of the word "orthodoxy".

- Unique tech: Druzhina.

Ah now we've come to the big one. THIS is exactly what I mean by the kind of a bonus which sets the Slavs apart from other civs. This is what most players presume makes the Slavs such a melee powerhouse in the late game. Most people agree this bonus makes end game Slavic infantry the deadlier melee wise (although not by a very significant margin) than the previous holders of the title; Japanese and Aztecs. While I think that alone, as with the boyar, Druzhina is fine the way it is, sadly, I do not think that it's so powerful to the point where it makes up for the Slavs' other glaring
weaknesses in combat throughout most of the game, which I'll outline
later. If the bonus (AOE infantry) applied from the start, or at least from castle onward, then certainly we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the fact that it's available extremely late game and for an extremely prohibitive cost, on par with that of the paladin, begs the question: would you even survive long enough, let alone have the upper hand in resources at that point to research this civ, when you have nothing to show for it, synergistically, in the barracks beforehand? Can it totally turn the tide of the battle at that point? I don't think so.

-Team Bonus: Military buildings +5 population.

Now this is another bonus that I really like, because there isn't quite an analogue for it in any other civ. It's simple, but important enough to play a role throughout the game and it does fit in with the theme and feel of the Slavic peoples. I almost wish there was something to go along with it, like cheaper siege workshops or something.

Now I shall move on to what I feel is my biggest frustration with the Slavs. Earlier I mentioned how I felt that they had a weakness in battle. Well what I meant by that was they have almost no good ranged units to rely on in the late game! No thumb ring, no Parthian Tactics, no arbalest or HC. I find it very strange how even the Indians have better horse archers, despite a dubious historical record of them being widely employed in the Indian subcontinent, while most Slavic peoples, especially the Kievan Rus adopted steppe nomad mounted archer tactics, often to a very advanced level! As it stands, a Slav player has to rely on an unbuffed HHA (overpriced for its benefit) or the humble crossbowman or, which is the most viable option - massed siege. But this raises a host of problems on its own, because if it was so easy to solely rely on slow, cumbersome, expensive and vulnerable siege for ranged capability, everyone would be doing that instead of amassing other ranged units. What counters the vaunted slavic infantry? Well enemy archer and siege of course! The fact that you don't really have a low cost ranged support puts you in a real rut against a skilled hit and runner, especially if he's firing from places you can't reach, such as cliffs and walls. That's why almost all other civs have arbalest and thumb ring, the bread and butter of late game ranged contigents. The only other civ really left out in the black in that regard are the Celts. The point is that if you're relying on champions/halbs and melee cav late game, your opponent can very easily focus on ways to counter to these units and you can't really balance out your force in response without severely handicapping your battlefield potential. That's why I think Slavs need SOME kind of other bonus in addition to only cheaper siege engines and very late game AOE buff.

Now, let's get to a couple of suggestions regarding what I'd like to see in FE changed that could result in the improvement of the Slavs. I'd like to stress these are by no means perfectly viable suggestions - they are simply ideas thrown into the mix that I feel would make me feel inspired and excited to play the Slavs through all the Ages. It's only strenous gameplay testing that in the end would determine whether my ideas are good or rubbish, or whether they will make Slavs either competitively strong enough or ridiculously overpowered. Without further ado, here are the new and improved version of the Slavs which I came up with.

Civilization: Slavs

-Siege units -15% cost
-Military structures (barracks, range, stable, siege shop) -10% wood cost
-Military casualties return a portion of unit cost: 5% Feudal, 10% Castle, 15% Imperial
-Infantry castle age and up deal splash (AoE) damage
*Hand cannoneers, parthian shot available

Unique Tech: Serfdom

-Completed farms produce a tiny trickle of food (~same as 1 relic) when unstaffed (anyone who's read Gogol's classic "Dead Souls" would get a chuckle).

Unique Tech: Orthodox Faith

-Monks heal in an AoE area

Team Bonus: +5 military building pop

One can of course argue wtih me that I'm simply not a skilled enough player (I've been playing AoK regularly since I first bought it in 2002, I do not claim to be an expert or a seriously competitive player, but I do know enough about the game to offer an informed opinion) that I'm playing them wrong, and that I somehow fail to appreciate the hidden balance beauty of the current Slavs. Indeed I agree that many of my gripes and suggestions come from my personal play preferences and degree of familiarity with competitive RM gameplay (or lack thereof). But I'd like to remind the devs that not a lot of people are playing FE right now on steam, and this goes to show that this x-pack failed to entice many players of core AoK:HD to make the complete transition to FE. Perhaps some added bonuses, tweaks to existing stats, some unseen before gameplay elements that lead to a rise of new strategies and play styles would convince many players to change their mind and purchase this expansion. Think about it.

[DEV.Woulf]

Nice article. I would like some strategies for the current Slavs because, on paper, they seem like a rather weak civilization.

[DarK | Adélie]

FE civs are weak and uninspired:

- Incas are similiar to Aztecs in worse
- Indians are similar to Saracens
- Italians are similar to Chinese in worse
- Magyars are similar to Huns
- Slavs are just like Celts, but much worse, 15% faster farmers in practise is more like 7% real effect, nothing compared to Celt 15% woodcutters

[TerminallyGrill]

While I have a few ideas myself on how to balance the slavs (and the other FE civs) I'm only rated 1500 ELO so I'm not exactly speaking as a pro. I do agree that the Slavs lack identity as a civ, they do everything mediocre and nothing exceptional.

I'd remove their free tracking, since its such a meaningless bonus, and instead give them another bonus to their infantry. Maybe +1/1 armour starting from feudal age? You'd have Long Swordsmen with 3 regular armour and 4 pierce armour in Castle age, or Pikemen with +3/3 armour, and in late Imperial you'd have Champions with 5 melee armour and 6 pierce armour, or Halberdiers with +4/5 armour.

I'd make their farming bonus increase at a staggered rate - 15% dark age, 20% feudal, 25% castle, 30% imperial

I'd slightly increase the discount on siege weapons to -20% instead of -15%, and make that bonus apply to researching the better siege weapons too, allowing the Slavs to access the critical siege ram and onager faster.

I'd also swap out Orthodoxy for a new tech - although I feel that having a unique tech just to boast eco is a bad move.

[cjwasright]

I think inf splash is a great idea. There's no need to give Slavic barrack units any stat bonuses besides it. Slav infantry become very effective with it, second only to cost to kill ratio to perhaps goths only, but since the upgrade comes so late game, at such a prohibitive cost means it doesn't factor in gameplay unless the Slavic player survived so long, and has so many resources to spare at that point, which is hardly a given considering their mediocrity in almost every other respect.

Another thing. There's a historical reputation of the Slavic peoples rebounding, and even winning wars after suffering serious defeats. In order to incorporate this aspect of Slavic history, I would really like to see a "recycling bonus" for lost units. This means that even if your army is totally annihilated, you still have a good chance to rebound quicker after such a defeat. This would render the Slavs a unique edge IMO and fit their civilizational theme.

[John Fish]

+1, the slavs need some love.
I do think however that your proposal for serfdom is too overpowered. I think it would be better perhaps if it takes 5 unmanned farms or something like that to produce as much food as one relic provides gold. In an open map, you could just build a hundred farms in a corner and that really adds up over time.

[Chrono Iyasu]

+1 loom

[TerminallyGrill]

Actually, that's not a terrible idea, give them the free loom that was taken off the Aztecs.

[Aluroon]

All the FE civs are a little on the weak side, but Slavs are probably the best of the bunch right now. They compare more favorable to Goths than Celts. While they aren't capable of the same kind of flood as a Goth player, they also have the entire infantry tech line (unlike Goths), Siege Onagers to break up annoying archer formations late, and cleaving infantry.

They are also quite viable with almost any unit compoisition in Castle.

I think you are also underselling Boyars quite a bit. Twice base the armor of a knight in Castle, three times that of a paladin in Imperial. They wreck other infantry focused civilizations (especially Goths and Celts), especially when combined with champions to clean out the trash.

In addition, the only thing they're missing on the trash line is bracer.

Slavs are very viable right now. The only major change I want is from Tracking to a more viable tech.

[cjwasright]

The problem is both Druzhina and ona-ups (not to mention elite boyar) are very very end game oriented techs (akin EWE). You're paying an obscene cost for just about the only unit advantage your civ has, at a point where every single bit may be needed to be pumped into military production. Also as I said, relying on siege for ranged has serious flaws. Built up those 6-7 mangs for support, only to watch a small group of LC or knights worm through and pull out the bolts. No matter how hard you micro, you just can't escape this kind of situation. For that cost, a 30 man mob of arbs is a lot more versatile (and can handle most things thrown at it pronto). Siege units have pathing issues (large hitbox), they have speed issues, and vulnerability to melee issues. No matter how you twist that, just 15% cheaper siege units aren't going to make up for their glaring ranged weaknesses. Korean and Mongol players, whose siege is vastly better, always have their FU arbs/hc/HHAs to make sure nothing gets even close to the machinery. A Slav player will have to end up compensating his ranged capability with very mediocre x-bows and HHAs (no bracer, arb, HC, parthian shot, thumb ring).

Also not to mention - siege onagers kill your own men too.

The boyar is a very strong unit i'll give you that, but it's not an OP uu you can build your entire army around. Don't forget it only has 150 hp and 2 pierce. Arbs, HHA, HC - any ranged mob screened with halbs is going to put some serious hurt into them - even though they're better stat wise to bloodline cavaliers. If Slavs had paladins, even unblooded ones, I'd train them instead - don't forget that for every 2-3 castles you can build, you could be churning out of a dozen stables instead.

The Slavs aren't weak, but they depend on siege for ranged capability way too much, they're not versatile and their playstyle is just very bland. At this stage they're kind of like the Dan Hibiki of AoE - just a worse version of Ryu (Goths/Celts).

[Aluroon]

CJ,

Through Castle Age they pack a wide variety of units, including archers, skirms, knights, and infantry all with virtually every upgrade. When they get to imperial age they gain access to the end game techs, but scale back otherwise. You can't argue they are weak in castle because they rely on Imperial techs when they have access to an almost full Castle tree.

As for Light Cav or Knights raiding your siege - Might I suggest not letting your infantry get caught out of position? That you fail to use the counter available to ranged units for the Slavs does not indicate a lack of said counter.

I suppose what it comes down to for me is this: If you want to make heavy use of ranged units, play an archery civ. Slavs aren't that, but it doesn't make them bad.

[FE_HockeySam18]

If anything, the Slavs are OP except for in Feudal, especially on closed maps. They're quite scary in post-Imp situations, as Boyars + SOs + Halbs is basically impossible to defeat. They're also quite strong in Castle.

Aluroon's basically said all else that I would say. Tracking bonus is definitely something that could be re-examined.

@Philippe: Some of the AoF civs could use a buff (especially Italians), but they are by no means unoriginal. Just because certain strategies are viable for more than one civ does not make those civs the same.

On a side note for humor's sake, one of my comrades on the AoF team recently won an online ranked match as Incas by booming to post-Imp and then going full villager flood :p

[Ratio decidendi]

+1 to OP for the analysis

But I think it is largely down to the playstyle. I think Slav is quite balanced in mid to late game. They are probably the best out of the Forgotten civs if I had to pick one.

[cjwasright]

Out of all the FE civs, I like Magyars. The 1 hit kill wolf is a stupid and banal bonus, and they are a little underwhelming in the economy category. Maybe it would have been better if they could "convert" wolves instead to use as scouts. But the 4+4 range FU horse archers are some of the best ranged horse archers in the game, and on top of that the Magyar UU is a highly spammable food knight. So they are very good IMO late game at the cost of being underpowered earlier on. I mean I get the unique strategy of the Magyars, a food boom focused on the best spam trash unit in the game backed by horse archers and later on, paladins.

I find the Slavs' playstyle on the other hand way too similar to other civs in the game, such as Celts and Aztecs namely, in that they lack a strongly distinguishable strategy.

[Aluroon]

Автор сообщения: cjwasright

I find the Slavs' playstyle on the other hand way too similar to other civs in the game, such as Celts and Aztecs namely, in that they lack a strongly distinguishable strategy.

See, I don't agree with you at all here. While there are similarities to the Celts and Aztecs, there are also huge differences. The Aztecs generally speaking rely heavily on raiding with Elite Eagle Warriors or Arbs rather than straight up battles with waves of infantry. Celts rely on pushes with lines of pikes backed up by seige. The Slavs in contrast play a very different game. They are a slow pushing force with sweeping attacks on the flank with their UU. They hare happy to meet you head on, grind you into paste, or sweep in on the flanks.

Of all the FE civs, I suspect they are the best. Mags being a close second (and Incas being terrible against anyone with a decent archer line).

[TheBattler]

I agree with most of what you said in OP that the Slavs are kind of a mishmash without much synergy, and they're slightly boring. They are far too similar to the Celts.

However later....

Автор сообщения: cjwasright

Out of all the FE civs, I like Magyars. The 1 hit kill wolf is a stupid and banal bonus, and they are a little underwhelming in the economy category. Maybe it would have been better if they could "convert" wolves instead to use as scouts. But the 4+4 range FU horse archers are some of the best ranged horse archers in the game, and on top of that the Magyar UU is a highly spammable food knight. So they are very good IMO late game at the cost of being underpowered earlier on. I mean I get the unique strategy of the Magyars, a food boom focused on the best spam trash unit in the game backed by horse archers and later on, paladins.

I find the Slavs' playstyle on the other hand way too similar to other civs in the game, such as Celts and Aztecs namely, in that they lack a strongly distinguishable strategy.

You're wrong on nearly every point you make here.

- The wolf-killing bonus is very useful. It means you don't need to research Loom, and you can send Villagers out to your enemies without fearing Wolves, build a forward Barracks, and start sending Militia with the gold you save from not Looming. Boars might be a little tough to handle but it's easy to learn how to kill Boars without Loom.

-Your converting wolves idea is not a good idea at all: if the Magyar player is lucky thanks to the map, he gets a free Drush. If he's unlucky, it's a completely useless bonus.

- Magyars are not that good late game, and they're very good early game. They are probably the most aggressive Dark-Feudal Age civ, which is great because that's pretty much 30% of the game. Now as far as late game goes, the Magyars are probably the best civ when everyone has run out of gold but until then they are stupid easy to counter. Siege Rams stuffed with Halbs counter all of their best units, including the Cav Archers, and the rest of their tech tree besides their mounted units is weak. The best late game civs tend to have Bombard Towers, strong Siege, Paladins, and/or a ridiculous UU. The Magyars only have Paladins.

- The Aztecs are nowhere close to the Celts or the Slavs. The Celts/Slavs like nearly polar opposites compared to the Aztecs. Almost every point in the game where the Aztecs are strong, the Celts/Slavs are weak and vice versa.