They dont suck so much, especially in team games 3v3 or 4v4. It still depends on the luck factor such as your villager placement, how far your boars/hunt is, a hun player may have all their villagers within 2 screens while a "regular" civ player can have super far vills with lower food, of course this can be other way around and in that case huns are even more delayed, but thats just the way the game is, and its what makes it fun and its what makes the people adjust to situations... You can get up faster with lower pop(if u have full hunt close by) and still do some serious damage with huns, especially if others are booming which is pretty "normal" in the majority of LN games. Huns only "suck so much" if u're trying to boom vs other civs and both players have same "walks" and same food. Then of course huns will get outboomed. I dont think its a good idea, its like you would remove 1 china villager or take extra food/wood from persian.. The game is fun cus of these advantages/disadvantages.. its what makes it more versatile.
Worth remembering that huns get a 1000+ wood advantage - no houses - and that benefit, together with cheap Cav Archers, offsets the initial disadvantage of only 100 wood. However, Huns are handicapped in LN because many of their special attributes are wasted. Half price spies is rarely of any help in a game that usually is all over long before one's gold has accrued to the point you can consider using this bonus. Wonder victories are never an issue in LN - conquest is the standard victory setting, so you can build wonders till you're blue in the face, and it won't help you. I do think the biggest drawback to Huns is the narrow range of units - no cannons, onagers, champs, Keeps or BB towers, not even fortified walls, so for a Hun player to succeed he has to be aggressive and fast. I think the extra 50 wood is fair, all things considered.
I am against this modification. We should respect the unique type of this map with all civilizations' advantages and disadvantages. If you want to equal chances at the start of the game (looks like this patch "tries" to make it), do something with china/maya/pers. In most my games this 50 wood really doesn't matter and I'm not pro, my advance to castle age is practically at the same time like civs without bonuses. Yes, feudal age is a little bit late, but in my style of playing it means nothing. This is beautiful at this map to have this kind of lottery: will it be china vs hun, or hun can boom in peace as pocket or another scenario. I won't use this patch, hope others too.
I am against this modification. We should respect the unique type of this map with all civilizations' advantages and disadvantages. If you want to equal chances at the start of the game (looks like this patch "tries" to make it), do something with china/maya/pers. In most my games this 50 wood really doesn't matter and I'm not pro, my advance to castle age is practically at the same time like civs without bonuses. Yes, feudal age is a little bit late, but in my style of playing it means nothing. This is beautiful at this map to have this kind of lottery: will it be china vs hun, or hun can boom in peace as pocket or another scenario. I won't use this patch, hope others too.
Then don't use it... I doubt more than a handful LN players will use it though.
I don't know what kind of LN you're playing if you can't notice a difference between huns and the rest of the civs...?
Huns have always been disadvantaged in LN. I think this is a good idea.
I dont know what kind of english u speak.. but where did i say i cant notice the difference? Or did i say the disadvantages and advantages make this map more interesting.. Whats the difference between huns and other civs, and china and other civs? Chinas has as big of advantage as huns have disadvantage.. So if u wanna modify huns to not being weakest(even if i dont consider them weakest in a team game at all), then you should modify china to not be strongest..... I think its noob thinking, this idea..
try -50 wood to china too, maybe -20 for maya and pers.
I agree with alot ppl said, huns can be a good civ on LN if they have an awesome start, but they are also no where near as good as a normal civ with the same start.
If u cry huns are at a disadvantage... then you don't know how to play them.
Stop lowering the bar for the noobs that are lazy to learn the game.
Huns have a lot of advantages, just most of u noobs out there don't want to learn them. In TGs huns are not a disadvantage, they are just a constraint on the possible things your team can do just like korea or byz or any other slow civ.
Huns have always been disadvantaged in LN. I think this is a good idea.
Then don't use it... I doubt more than a handful LN players will use it though.
Huns have always been disadvantaged in LN. I think this is a good idea.
I dont know what kind of english u speak.. but where did i say i cant notice the difference? Or did i say the disadvantages and advantages make this map more interesting.. Whats the difference between huns and other civs, and china and other civs? Chinas has as big of advantage as huns have disadvantage.. So if u wanna modify huns to not being weakest(even if i dont consider them weakest in a team game at all), then you should modify china to not be strongest..... I think its noob thinking, this idea..
I agree with alot ppl said, huns can be a good civ on LN if they have an awesome start, but they are also no where near as good as a normal civ with the same start.
I might try this out.
If you don't like it, don't play it...
If u cry huns are at a disadvantage... then you don't know how to play them.
Stop lowering the bar for the noobs that are lazy to learn the game.
Huns have a lot of advantages, just most of u noobs out there don't want to learn them. In TGs huns are not a disadvantage, they are just a constraint on the possible things your team can do just like korea or byz or any other slow civ.
Here is me 1vs2 vs 1650+ on fixed... if I can do it anyone can.
http://www.voobly.com/match/view/5518094