Bulgarians - good or bad?

[Silver]

So after having played Bulgarians for some time now, I feel like they have several economic weaknesses chief of which is the lack of treadmill crane, which was probably done to prevent krepost spam but it gimps them in building a wonder and also makes them vulnerable in raising castles.

Then there's the lack of fortified wall, the lack of sanctity, the lack of faith (but heresy helps), no elite cannon galeons, no hand cannoneers, no bombard towers, hell, even the lack of fast fire ships, heavy demolition ships, shipwright and drydocks is surprising for a country that borders the sea (lemme guess, teutons and goths and mongols have better docks...)

On the pro side are the bulgarian civ techs, both of them insanely good. One makes cavalry attack 33% faster, the other turns two handed swordsmen almost into faster teutonic knights due to the massive armor boost.

Then there's obviously the krepost, a half HP castle for half the price that cant research anything but can train konniks, making the need to raise a castle in castle age not as much a priority as for other civs. also, two kreposts near your TC can provide a lot more firepower than those resources spent on just 1 castle.

Konniks are kinda like cavalry in terms of stats, but can tie up an enemy mob very well due to coming back as dismounted infantry, allowing your siege engineered siege rams full of two handed swordsmen to roll past.

I know xbow mobs are bread and butter in MP, so only being stuck with archers can be seen as another bad thing, but i never bothered with them and just use them to man towers, but with kreposts you dont even need to do that, still its nice that bulgarians have access to bracer keeps with masonry and architecture. And you still get heavy cav archers with parthian tactics.

One thing worth noting is a bulgarian player saves on a ton of food over the course of the game cause of 50% off blacksmith upgrades and siege workshop too, so getting those siege rams can be done much faster than other civs, and upgrading to heavy scorps too. Upgrading to onagers and siege onagers only remains a question of gold now.

I think a bulgarian player's power curve is steeper than others in castle, and strongest in early imperial, after that it flattens again.

[James3157]

Bulgarians I think, but just my opinion is better when playing as them against the AI instead of pvp similar to Bengalis and various other civilizations. Romans in contrast have one of the highest win rates (53%) for 1v1 multiplayer. While it is possible to do well and possibly even win while playing as the Bulgarians (especially for pro players) for multiplayer, they apparently suck at water maps similar to Cumans and Aztecs. Just my opinion, but I think that Bulgarians biggest strength are the kreposts in addition to castles. For example, building a krepost (especially since it is cheaper and easier to build than a castle, but you will need to protect your villagers if you are going to do this) close to an AI town center for sniping it. Contrary to AoE III: DE you are allowed to snipe town centers with castles and kreposts.

[Quintem]

You put too much value in treadmill crane, nobody gives a damn about wonders, unless you're playing casually.

Just because a country has access to the sea does not automatically give them a historically strong navy. My Bulgarian history is not amazing but I don't think their fighting at sea is what they had to deal with, it was mostly land invasions.

You mention bombard towers? But not bombard cannons? One is much more useful than the other. I know what I would rather have 99% of the time.

Kreposts are nice for getting out more unique units but fall short as powerful defensive tool. They have one less range than castles and towers (and donjons) which means the're less effective both offensively and defensively. Their main draw being they're cheap and you can drop one down much quicker than a castle. The flip side of this is if your opponent gets their own castle up next a krepost, that krepost is gone.

Bulgarian archery range is a mixed bag. Lacking crossbows does not hurt too much. Replace them with siege instead.

No mention of militia-line being free upgrade? (used to save more when the techs cost more but it's still free and instant). You can rush very early with militia and soon as Feudal Age is complete you opponent suddenly has a much scarier unit attacking them than a mere militia.

It's one of my favourite civs to play, only weakness being the lack of bombard cannons. My god, if they access to that. Bulgarian late game would be a fun, but overpowered time.

EDIT: They also have one of the best hussars in the game. You did not touch on that. Another great late game tool in their box.

[KingKickAss]

They're pretty solid as I recall. I think they had one of the highest winrates at one point, and its still pretty good, but I don't remember them getting any nerfs to knock them down, ew civs just came into the picture/got buffed.

[James3157]

Originally posted by Quintem:

Kreposts are nice for getting out more unique units but fall short as powerful defensive tool. They have one less range than castles and towers (and donjons) which means the're less effective both offensively and defensively. Their main draw being they're cheap and you can drop one down much quicker than a castle. The flip side of this is if your opponent gets their own castle up next a krepost, that krepost is gone.

Fortunately, the AI may not be as smart as a human player regardless of AI type (CD, HD, and DE) and difficulty settings. While sniping a town center with a krepost or castle is easier for a human player against the AI it might also be more challenging to do this against a human player from multiplayer.

[theworld]

Originally posted by Quintem:

Bulgarian archery range is a mixed bag. Lacking crossbows does not hurt too much. Replace them with siege instead.

LOL, how is it a mixed bag? It's just a bag of bad.

You do not have last Archer Armor, therefore you cannot even rely on ESkirm in the long run to counter (Cav) Archer civs in IMP.

No HC either, and there are plenty of civs that can whack your Bagains* 2HS with their own Infantry.

*A bad tech - should either be cheaper or better.

[James3157]

Originally posted by theworld:

LOL, how is it a mixed bag? It's just a bag of bad.

You do not have last Archer Armor, therefore you cannot even rely on ESkirm in the long run to counter (Cav) Archer civs in IMP.

No HC either, and there are plenty of civs that can whack your Bagains* 2HS with their own Infantry.

*A bad tech - should either be cheaper or better.

Bulgarians I think are average at best; although, they do surprisingly have a higher win rate than Mayans for 1v1 (50.73% win rate vs. 49.05% win rate for 1v1 other maps besides Arabia). You might be able to do win against the AI as the Bulgarians, but they do not have one of the highest win rates either from 1v1 multiplayer (50.73% win rate for other maps besides Arabia is not bad overall, but could be better) contrary to the Franks, Romans (53% win rate possibly making them ranked number 1; although, it did drop below 53% recently and ranked below Franks for 1v1 Arabia maps), and ect...

[Quintem]

Originally posted by theworld:

LOL, how is it a mixed bag? It's just a bag of bad.

You do not have last Archer Armor, therefore you cannot even rely on ESkirm in the long run to counter (Cav) Archer civs in IMP.

No HC either, and there are plenty of civs that can whack your Bagains* 2HS with their own Infantry.

*A bad tech - should either be cheaper or better.

No, it's not bad. their skirmishers are fine, they'll still deal with most archer units even lacking the armour. They also have heavy cavalry archers and thumb ring, they have Parthian Tactics so missing the last armour upgrade is not much different to Mongols but without the civ bonus. So late game if they really need to deal with something weak to archers they can go the cavalry archer route. If they did have the final archer armour upgrade I'd honestly say their archery range is good...fully upgraded skirmishers and cavalry archers. Missing hand cannons is whatever at that point.

Also how many games end up decided in castle age? Their skirmishers do the job in arguably the most critical age after the early feudal nonsense has settled down and nobody is dead. Average game is around 45 minutes (across all ELOs it's shorter at the higher levels). Imperial Age happens around 38+ minute mark. This means most games are decided in castle age and the winning player probably gets imperial age to finish the match with trebs or a extra few upgrades. Missing the last armour upgrade is not the end of the world for their skirmishers or cavalry archers. Long protracted games with skirmisher vs skirmisher or vs high damage unique archers? Then yes it's a problem.

Bagains is a good upgrade, but maybe a tiny bit on the expensive side. Apart from the powerhouse infantry unique units or unique techs. They effectively beat a lot of units, even Japanese champions if pathing is not ideal can lose to them or Teutons. Generic champions, straight up lose. Camels deal no damage to them. Eagles have a bad enough time vs militia-line imagine dealing no damage to them, constantly forced to run away. You bring in infantry counters or heavy cavalry sure it's going to be less favourable. I'd underestimate them at your peril. I've only had good experiences using Bulgarian infantry. So my perception might not be the best there.

[theworld]

Originally posted by Quintem:

Bagains is a good upgrade, but maybe a tiny bit on the expensive side. Apart from the powerhouse infantry unique units or unique techs. They effectively beat a lot of units, even Japanese champions if pathing is not ideal can lose to them or Teutons. Generic champions, straight up lose. Camels deal no damage to them.

You have missed a bigger conundrum: Why would any civ WITHOUT Inf bonuses use Champions vs Bulgarians?

Eagles have a bad enough time vs militia-line imagine dealing no damage to them, constantly forced to run away.

It's funny you mention eagles, because all 3 Eagle civs have EXCELLENT counters to your 2 HS:
1)Jaguars (or just their own Champions with Garland Wars)
2)Very cheap FU Arbalests (or Plumes)
3)Slingers

You bring in infantry counters or heavy cavalry sure it's going to be less favourable. I'd underestimate them at your peril.

Yeah, it's also nice that you've only evaluated contrived favorable matchups for the Bagains 2 HS.

Why don't you try your Bagains vs Wootz Steel?

Wootz Steel Champions vs Garland Wars Champions? Equal.

Wootz Steel vs Bagains? The latter is COMPLETELY useless and is thus a bad upgrade.

[Quintem]

Originally posted by theworld:

Originally posted by Quintem:

Bagains is a good upgrade, but maybe a tiny bit on the expensive side. Apart from the powerhouse infantry unique units or unique techs. They effectively beat a lot of units, even Japanese champions if pathing is not ideal can lose to them or Teutons. Generic champions, straight up lose. Camels deal no damage to them.

You have missed a bigger conundrum: Why would any civ WITHOUT Inf bonuses use Champions vs Bulgarians?

Eagles have a bad enough time vs militia-line imagine dealing no damage to them, constantly forced to run away.

It's funny you mention eagles, because all 3 Eagle civs have EXCELLENT counters to your 2 HS:
1)Jaguars (or just their own Champions with Garland Wars)
2)Very cheap FU Arbalests (or Plumes)
3)Slingers

You bring in infantry counters or heavy cavalry sure it's going to be less favourable. I'd underestimate them at your peril.

Yeah, it's also nice that you've only evaluated contrived favorable matchups for the Bagains 2 HS.

Why don't you try your Bagains vs Wootz Steel?

Wootz Steel Champions vs Garland Wars Champions? Equal.

Wootz Steel vs Bagains? The latter is COMPLETELY useless and is thus a bad upgrade.

Trying to explain myself is just going result in talking in circles. You list exceptions or other civs going into their own unique tech options to counter your own. Mayans have cheap archers and plumes that's nice, Bulgarians have siege engineers and siege onager.

Bulgarians kit works well at the average level, they fall apart at high ELO like I've said before because like lack any economic bonus. And any high level player is going try to stop the Bulgarian from get their dream army. Mayan for example won't let the Bulgarian get to siege engineered onagers.

As for Bagains what if it also gave pierce armour? Not much just +1. Might be too OP vs straight archer civs like Britons. Maybe making it a bit cheaper is the safe option. I'm not here to do balance changes for a mostly balanced civ now that only struggles are high ELO.