Does anyone else think that the italians are really overpowered?
They're special unit is an archer that has a large bonus over cavalry. They have bbc, and bbt. It costs 10% less to advance through ages. trade units cost 50%...seems like a god civ in bf

I've seen many people saying that the Slavs **** the Italians, Other says that the Incas are overpower, and other that the Saracens are overpower, that the Indians have a unbeteable elephant... bla, bla, bla I think that each civi have his advantage

proves it now and give you my noob opinion (and traduction)

The incas have a pretty sweet unique unit too, and they create almost instantaniously

I remember in DM when Koreans were introduced into team games, everyone complained that they were overpowered. Koreans are still part of AoC, but people learnt to adapt and figured out how to beat Kors. They are still immensely annoying if played right (due to range of siege onager), but understand that is its advantage, just like eagles being strong raiders for mayans...

I guess in RM you could say turks can be overpowered in team games. I think if there are tweaks to be done it should borrow World of Warcraft's mentality when balancing.

'We don't reduce the desirability of playing something that is considered overpowered, we make better that which falls short.'

Hint: Vikings on land.

The first time u fight a teutonic knight with a mameluke, you would say that teutons are overpowered. This is the same concept

noteroi you are my new god

i like incas~!

on topic though: italian archers are still hardcountered by rams

Well they actually reduced Koreans max onager range by one in 1.0c cos they were owning everyone which kind of goes against what you are saying.. lol