Franks should be nerfed from 40% faster to 20% in making knights

[Peace]

Nowadays, everybody who likes using cavalry wanna pick Franks only. Making knights 40% faster is a kind of 'cheat key'. Invincible. No fun. It should be nerfed to 20% or lower. And Japanese champions attack speed too. It also should be nerfed from 33% faster to 25% or lower.
This is what I suggest. :)

[Jackbrick]

No. Franks are one of the weakest civs in the game due to their lack of unit diversity. Average infantry, awful archers, and awful siege despite having siege engineers. (No siege ram or siege onager.) Awful cavalry, apart from their Knights.

Knights are costly units and Spearmen tend to outnumber them and kill them pretty easily. Also camels are the bane to the Franks. Franks would run out of gold pretty fast if they don't have trade and have a large amount of farms to feed their knight spam.

Japanese are a jack of all traits civ for the most part. They have great infantry and navy, but don't really excel outside of that.

[Pev]

Spearmen and archers line will definetly crush the French knights tho.

[Syntax]

Originally posted by Lrrr:

No. Franks are one of the weakest civs in the game due to their lack of unit diversity. Average infantry, awful archers, and awful siege despite having siege engineers. (No siege ram or siege onager.) Awful cavalry, apart from their Knights.

Knights are costly units and Spearmen tend to outnumber them and kill them pretty easily. Also camels are the bane to the Franks. Franks would run out of gold pretty fast if they don't have trade and have a large amount of farms to feed their knight spam.

Japanese are a jack of all traits civ for the most part. They have great infantry and navy, but don't really excel outside of that.

Ah, that's why they have the highest win rate on Voobly at 61%, because they're one of the weakest civs in the game. You're talking garbage. They have good siege also, Siege Onager is overrated, an Onager with Siege Engineers will always be better than a Siege Onager without. Not to mention they get BBC.

[Peace]

Franks have halberdiers and champions with full upgrade for armor and attack from blacksmith. And they have 2 economic advantages and their knights 20% stronger than others. Weakest civ my as*. Frank must be nerfed, making knights 20% or 10% faster is good enough. otherwise their lots of knights always prevail all the games in castle age. No fun. Generally speaking, in AOE2 DE, European civs are much stronger than the others. You need make all civs more balanced.

[JoshSA]

Originally posted by People:

Franks have halberdiers and champions with full upgrade for armor and attack from blacksmith. And they have 2 economic advantages and their knights 20% stronger than others. Weakest civ my as*. Frank must be nerfed, making knights 20% faster is good enough. otherwise their lots of knights always prevail all the games in castle age. No fun. Generally speaking, in AOE2 DE, European civs are much stronger than the others. You need make all civs more balanced.

Aztecs are considered the best 1v1 civ by pros. Mayans are top 3. Huns are a favorite as well. Khmer was recently buffed to be possibly a top 3 civ.

[Peace]

I'm not a pro, so I don't know what they are doing. :) I'm an ordinary player I guess. I think Aztecs, Mayans and Huns are specialized for dark or feudal rush in 1 vs 1 situation. Anyway they don't have 40% better thing than the others at all. Franks and Japanese must be nerfed.

[WastedTrojan]

Originally posted by People:

I'm not a pro, so I don't know what they are doing. :) I'm an ordinary player I guess. I think Aztecs, Mayans and Huns are specialized for dark or feudal rush in 1 vs 1 situation. Anyway they don't have 40% better thing than the others at all. Franks and Japanese must be nerfed.

Aztec villagers carry +5. They have some of the best villagers in the game. Aztec monks can have nearly 3x the hp of standard monks. Even if you give the other civ the monk talent for extra health, the fully upgraded Aztec monk still has 2x as much health. They have hands down the best monks in the game. They can also make fully upgraded archers And fully upgraded infantry that gets four more attack than all other civilization's infantry. On HD Aztecs had a 55% win rate with the highest percentage of wins happening between 20-30 minutes, generally castle age. They win >50% in all ages.

Japanese on the other hand have no economic advantage outside of cheap gather point buildings and fishing ships. They have faster attacking infantry but that doesn't save them from a ~49% win rate on HD. Japanese only have a positive win rate if the game is over before 30 minutes. Who is more suited to feudal rushing again?

I won't really touch on Mayans and Huns too much despite both of them performing exceptionally well on HD. Huns had the 3rd highest overall win rate. I don't see why you would think that a civilization that gets a bonus specifically to its Cavalry archers and another for it's Trebuchets would be strongest in the feudal age.

[jonoliveira12]

Franks are literally the One-Trick Pony civ. They need no nerfs.

[Higgledy]

No need to any nerfs on Franks.

[Peace]

Originally posted by Wasted Trojan:

Originally posted by People:

I'm not a pro, so I don't know what they are doing. :) I'm an ordinary player I guess. I think Aztecs, Mayans and Huns are specialized for dark or feudal rush in 1 vs 1 situation. Anyway they don't have 40% better thing than the others at all. Franks and Japanese must be nerfed.

Aztec villagers carry +5. They have some of the best villagers in the game. Aztec monks can have nearly 3x the hp of standard monks. Even if you give the other civ the monk talent for extra health, the fully upgraded Aztec monk still has 2x as much health. They have hands down the best monks in the game. They can also make fully upgraded archers And fully upgraded infantry that gets four more attack than all other civilization's infantry. On HD Aztecs had a 55% win rate with the highest percentage of wins happening between 20-30 minutes, generally castle age. They win >50% in all ages.

Japanese on the other hand have no economic advantage outside of cheap gather point buildings and fishing ships. They have faster attacking infantry but that doesn't save them from a ~49% win rate on HD. Japanese only have a positive win rate if the game is over before 30 minutes. Who is more suited to feudal rushing again?

I won't really touch on Mayans and Huns too much despite both of them performing exceptionally well on HD. Huns had the 3rd highest overall win rate. I don't see why you would think that a civilization that gets a bonus specifically to its Cavalry archers and another for it's Trebuchets would be strongest in the feudal age.

Then Aztec monks must be nerfed too. I said all civs need be more balanced. No stupid 'cheat key' like Franks' 20% stronger HP and 40% faster making knights. It's ridiculous. :P

[Jackbrick]

Originally posted by People:

Originally posted by Wasted Trojan:

Aztec villagers carry +5. They have some of the best villagers in the game. Aztec monks can have nearly 3x the hp of standard monks. Even if you give the other civ the monk talent for extra health, the fully upgraded Aztec monk still has 2x as much health. They have hands down the best monks in the game. They can also make fully upgraded archers And fully upgraded infantry that gets four more attack than all other civilization's infantry. On HD Aztecs had a 55% win rate with the highest percentage of wins happening between 20-30 minutes, generally castle age. They win >50% in all ages.

Japanese on the other hand have no economic advantage outside of cheap gather point buildings and fishing ships. They have faster attacking infantry but that doesn't save them from a ~49% win rate on HD. Japanese only have a positive win rate if the game is over before 30 minutes. Who is more suited to feudal rushing again?

I won't really touch on Mayans and Huns too much despite both of them performing exceptionally well on HD. Huns had the 3rd highest overall win rate. I don't see why you would think that a civilization that gets a bonus specifically to its Cavalry archers and another for it's Trebuchets would be strongest in the feudal age.

Then Aztec monks must be nerfed too. I said all civs need be more balanced. No stupid 'cheat key' like Franks' 20% stronger HP and 40% faster making knights. It's ridiculous. :P

No they don't.

Aztecs in terms of technology are garbage. They are a great rush civ, but have lacklustre technology. No Halberdiers, missing bracer, no stable, no gunpowder, not even keeps. That said, they do have good siege, just missing bombard cannon.

The bulk of the Aztec army is going to be infantry most of the time. Monks cost 100 gold a pop, so if they lose them it going to them hard on their economy.

[WastedTrojan]

You will have to make a mod that completely removes all civ bonuses and gives everybody the same tech tree. That is what you are asking for. If you nerf the military bonuses, people will only play civs with economic bonuses. Then the argument becomes Mayans get 15% more gold per pile, that needs a nerf. Vikings get free hand cart, nerf. Aztecs carry +5 and Berber villagers walk 10% faster, nerfs needed.
Then the economic bonuses are removed.
Then the argument turns into only a handful of civs have access to siege onagers, they need a nerf. Hey I play Vikings and the Turks get gunpowder, NERF TURKS!

You can't just compare bonuses in a vacuum. You have to take the entire civilization into account. Military bonuses, economic bonuses, available technologies... Being particularly strong at one thing does not make the civ overpowered.

[Peace]

Originally posted by Wasted Trojan:

You will have to make a mod that completely removes all civ bonuses and gives everybody the same tech tree. That is what you are asking for. If you nerf the military bonuses, people will only play civs with economic bonuses. Then the argument becomes Mayans get 15% more gold per pile, that needs a nerf. Vikings get free hand cart, nerf. Aztecs carry +5 and Berber villagers walk 10% faster, nerfs needed.
Then the economic bonuses are removed.
Then the argument turns into only a handful of civs have access to siege onagers, they need a nerf. Hey I play Vikings and the Turks get gunpowder, NERF TURKS!

You can't just compare bonuses in a vacuum. You have to take the entire civilization into account. Military bonuses, economic bonuses, available technologies... Being particularly strong at one thing does not make the civ overpowered.

Did you read my articles? I didn't argue to 'remove' those bonuses. I said they need adjust them for more balanced status. We call it 'nerf' and 'buff'. :) And in the original AOE2 Conquerors Franks didn't have 40% faster knight making bonus.
Franks knights and Japanese champions need be nerfed to 20% or lower. That's what I suggest. Simple.

[WastedTrojan]

Out of curiosity, what would you give the Japanese to compensate? With a 49% win rate it's clear they aren't overpowered. Nerfing them just puts them in trash tier.

[Peace]

Originally posted by Wasted Trojan:

Out of curiosity, what would you give the Japanese to compensate? With a 49% win rate it's clear they aren't overpowered. Nerfing them just puts them in trash tier.

Developers will decide it. not me. :P And there are lots of civs which are under 50% win rate. Win rate is no more than a reference. :)