Mr.Monkey

Hi there, i have been playing this game for a while now, since alpha 16 or 17, and since the new update I feel like some civilizations are too weak, so i have a few small and simple suggestions of some changes which would balance things out a bit. First, Persians. Persians have many advantages such as a +25% trade income boost for the team, furthermore they have a really nice champion, the Persian immortal. However it has a HUGE disadvantage, which just makes this civ not viable for competitive players as you can only build ONE apanda, which is where you can spawn the immortals. This is really bad because you can not do "single man batch training" like you can do with every other civ. If you change that value so you can build as many as the Spartan Military mess hall, then you will see a decent amount of people using them. Ptolemies Ptolemies have some really unique attributes, for example they are the only civ which has free houses, furthermore they are the only ones which have a lighthouse. However their attacking forces are terrible. Their archers, which are basically the same as the mauryan archers cost more because they cost metal, they have slingers which are decent, however many civs have these, and they are just normal infantry, and to make it even worse, they only have ONE champion. This would be OK if the champion was unique and decent, however the champion is just a normal melee cavalry champion. I suggest that you buff this champion a bit, maybe if you gave it some crush damage, or you increased its armour, or if you could add an upgrade which increases the health and the attack. Then it might be viable, however at the moment no one is using Ptolemies. Other civs need a bit of balancing, such as Seleucids and Cartathenians, however their changes would be a bit more complicated.

I agree with this, corals have almost no usage. A few suggestions: Corals are self sustaining sources of food, similar to the fieldsCorals spawn farmers/breeders instead of sheep, the more farmers you have the faster food production you have.In the first stages you have a limitation on how many farmers you can have on one coral (at first for example 5, like the fields). Every phase you have a new upgrade that increases the size of the coral allowing more farmers to be garrisoned (therefore they can farm more sheep).Various upgrades allow the food production to increase (better tools, better farmers etc)This way corals are more of a late game strategy which, if you fully upgrade and if you have a coral fully garrisoned, it should provide as much food as the typical 8-9 field set up does. However because of the expensive upgrades and farmers, this would not be a good early game strategy. the benefit is that it takes up less of your max population, the catch is that it is expensive to max it out. This would make the corals much more useful, and they would be much less of a nuisance to use. Extra point: An interesting upgrade would be that instead of breeding sheep you breed cattle which increases food production by X% and armour upgrades cost Y% less food/metal(?) (leather). This would only be available in the 3rd phase to maybe some civs, mainly middle eastern ones such as Ptolmies, Persians and maybe Mauryans?

What I mean't to say is if you are a civ with no crush damaging champs, for example, Spartan hoptiles, and your enemy has surrounded themselves with walls, then it is much more effective to build 5 rams, and spare 25 champs. However if the price of rams increased, then it would be much harder, and much more risky to build them. I mean a good economy with markets should have at least 6000+ metal, building a batch of 5 rams should be able to make a big enough dent to your economy so that their usage is a bit riskier, and they are less overpowered. However I do not think that rams are as overpowered as in the last version, I was just pointing out that the best way to buff walls (if you wanted to) is to nerf rams.

I disagree Walls have been seriously buffed in this last update, due to the fact that they are the only building that cannot be captured, meaning that if your enemies civ does not have soldiers with crush damage, or they don't have rams, they will have a bad time getting into your base (yes catapults also have crush damage but they are nowhere near as efficient as rams). Making walls cheaper would really nerf a lot of civs indirectly as more people would build them. If you are afraid of getting rushed 5 or so minutes into the game then that's what wooden walls are for, however very few people use rush tactics in the game at the moment (at least as far as I have seen). Furthermore if you have played the game enough and you know how to set up a decent economy you can definitely build an entire wall around your base before phase 3 (I personally don't do it because I find that a few towers can protect my base well enough, also that stone allows me to build my army up faster so I'm the first to attack, but even still if you like to play defensive and build a wall then you can do so in phase 2 easily). Buffing walls defences is also a bad idea, it would take ages to destroy with normal champs (which would mean they take more damage), and would make every game take so much longer as walls can be rebuilt super fast. In my opinion walls are perfectly balanced at the moment, maybe rams should be nerfed a bit, increasing the price would be the best way to do it, because rams are more of a late game feature and for a good late game economy 1250 wood and metal (a batch of five) is a measly price for the amount of damage they do. Also it would make the price decrease upgrades more useful and worth it.