Granted more fun is subjective. If you aren't a proponent of balance you're just another one the CBA noobs that loves the luck based strategy. That said I still don't agree for giving Saracens non-elite. They should get a reduced spawn rate instead.
Disabling bloodlines would be good for balance too.
Even still these things may lead to those extremely long CBA games where people run of resources and those just aren't fun at all. If you're going to increase the balance I'd also add other stuff to avoid the possibility of really long games but then you'll probably end up changing things too much which will lead to scorn by the masses.
So yeah I'd just leave the damn map the way it is.
CBA Hero on the other hand a quick fix for balance would be to give everyone archers of the eyes after a certain amount of time. That'd help a little and games would still be pretty much the same.
Saracens are fine as they are... furthermore any adjustment should not include removing a tech or messing with ap/hp. Only adjustments should be made with how fast a civ ages. Like bayor said mayas and china are so powerful because of how fast they can imp. Saracen are also powerful but as others have said an effective range melee blocker combo can neutralize.
i dont agree. saracens got op unique unit, op bonuses and op techs. they got everything except paladins and the strongest camel+cav.archer combo. slightly increasing their required kills to imp will not make difference as with 80 mamelukes you can always kill 80 units of any other civ (except teuts) or even the double of kills when not fighting archers. and once in imp, no way to stop them
u ****ing **** if ppl want balance in cba they go same civ
no because its boring and only a matter of skill. if you are 1700 and fight a 1800 then you know already that you will lose so no point in playing vs him
exactly. but persians got a slow melee unit and pikes will be improved in the next version
let me explain it once again for the people that dint understand it. imagine that you play 1vs1 and you get sara. the chances of winning based on your civ (and if you dont know yet the civ of you enemy) is like 70% because you got a supperior civ in every way. my idea of balance is to give sara a 50% chance of winning and 50% chance of losing depending of the enmy civ. saras supposed to lose vs archers and win vs cavalry
its not about making everything equal or 0% luck-based, it about making all civs have their strenghts and weakness compensated with all other civs
ROFL STRYKER explain to me how KOREANS can beat saracens ROFL , i agree with the rest of ur post but that's LOL'age material.
ofc not 1v1 , but in tg korean could be good option against sara .
ill give one example
you have vik+byz+korea vs saracen+turk+aztec , what do you think ? if i played as korea, i would push saracen at start with 4 byz unit. he cant go anywhere before getting full pop if he wants go out then he should lose vs full pop korea+4 unit byz , at this time byz + vik can get raze easy for vik and gg
its a teamgame , btw both team have chance for sure , depends on players 11
More balance => more fun => harder to win.
Granted more fun is subjective. If you aren't a proponent of balance you're just another one the CBA noobs that loves the luck based strategy. That said I still don't agree for giving Saracens non-elite. They should get a reduced spawn rate instead.
Disabling bloodlines would be good for balance too.
Even still these things may lead to those extremely long CBA games where people run of resources and those just aren't fun at all. If you're going to increase the balance I'd also add other stuff to avoid the possibility of really long games but then you'll probably end up changing things too much which will lead to scorn by the masses.
So yeah I'd just leave the damn map the way it is.
CBA Hero on the other hand a quick fix for balance would be to give everyone archers of the eyes after a certain amount of time. That'd help a little and games would still be pretty much the same.
no because its boring and only a matter of skill. if you are 1700 and fight a 1800 then you know already that you will lose so no point in playing vs him
exactly. but persians got a slow melee unit and pikes will be improved in the next version
let me explain it once again for the people that dint understand it. imagine that you play 1vs1 and you get sara. the chances of winning based on your civ (and if you dont know yet the civ of you enemy) is like 70% because you got a supperior civ in every way. my idea of balance is to give sara a 50% chance of winning and 50% chance of losing depending of the enmy civ. saras supposed to lose vs archers and win vs cavalry
its not about making everything equal or 0% luck-based, it about making all civs have their strenghts and weakness compensated with all other civs
i would love to see the IQ of all the guys that posted here. this way i only would need to express myself with a laughing emoticon
ofc not 1v1 , but in tg korean could be good option against sara .
ill give one example
you have vik+byz+korea vs saracen+turk+aztec , what do you think ? if i played as korea, i would push saracen at start with 4 byz unit. he cant go anywhere before getting full pop if he wants go out then he should lose vs full pop korea+4 unit byz , at this time byz + vik can get raze easy for vik and gg
its a teamgame , btw both team have chance for sure , depends on players 11