State of the Civs 2024 - Part 3 | AoE2: DE

A new tier born out of sheer frustration?!
In this video, we continue our analysis of the current design and balance of all 45 AoE2: DE civs. This video covers the Gurjaras, Hindustanis, Huns, Incas, Italians, Japanese, Khmer, Koreans, and Lithuanians.
If you enjoyed the video, follow me on Twitch at / ornlu_aoe to get notified when I'm live! Come hang out!
If you want to support my KZbin content, then be sure to check out my Patreon for early video uploads and possible shout outs in videos! www.patreon.com/user?u=81082578
Also join my Discord server! It's the best way to contact me and to pleb around with the rest of my community. Just click on the following link to join: / discord
00:00 Intro
01:40 Gurjaras
03:57 Hindustanis
06:56 Huns
09:22 Incas
11:58 Italians
14:25 Japanese
17:07 Khmer
19:20 Koreans
21:41 Lithuanians
24:08 Outro

[@618Delta]

Next time: Ornlu adds a "Power Creeper" tier for the civs that feel fine but are just a bit too strong in the current meta.

[@Blooticus]

I appreciate you adding a power crept tier to help with issues from the previous list! It helps a lot separating strict opinion from what are civs that, like you said, don't necessarily need huge changes right now.

[@tyranitararmaldo]

I actually like the Japanese Cavalry Archer bonus. The Japanese military has actually relied on mounted archers a lot more than people realise. Yes, the warring states is often the big visual draw for Japan and gets a lot of attention in the media, but before that period, Samurai pretty much fought as mounted archers, with the trend starting to die off after the attempted Mongol invasions. So it was nice to see that important part of Japanese history be given some sort of spotlight.

[@inductivegrunt94]

I honestly like Hindustani a lot, and I like how they are in complete tier. Reactionary, defensive, and gunpowder civs tend to be better in my hands, so I gravitate towards them and enjoy playing them above most others.

[@robchang4533]

A "Good architype" tier is needed. Hindustani would land there, however i wouldnt say their journey is over. Would rather make this architype not Indian but it feels more like persians, where camels and ghulam and caravanserais were more important. Then would replace the eles again with siege rams and give them PT again. Also these very odd numbers are not nice to look at :D Caravanserais also need 1 v 1 use and also ideally lose the non aoe2 aura effect.

[@robchang4533]

Like 10 civs will end up powercrept, cause there is just a overall limit to how many well-designed distinct and well-balanced civs there are. And adding more civs wont change but excerbate that

[@tominis4444]

While Lithuanians present some similiar issues to pre-nerf Sicilians, where their cavalry line can get too overbearing and uncounterable, I feel like their relic bonus in combination with the food donations makes them stand out in an increasingly homogenized and powercrept world of AOE. I'd rather them be this bombastic civ that has you race against them for relics to prevent them from powering up and having access to unique timings with the food buffs than have those aspects nerfed and thus reduce the civ to unusable trash until it has some insane band-aid eco bonus bolted on to it to make them relevant. Koreans going from the civ with no identity outside teehee tower rushes to a civ with a really well outlined slow push monster is a welcome change and their placement is good. I'd say the same about Hindustanis, of all the recent struggles we had with civ releases, thats the one that feels conceptually interesting and strong without being one-note (Georgians could have a blank unique bonus page and still be bs with with their cavalry UU spam) or entirely out of step with what AOE 2 is about the way someone like Gurjaras are with their Halo shields. My favourite upload of the week, thanks for the insight Ornlu, even if I largely skip ahead the AoK/AoC civ segments because there's only so much gushing I can take :)

[@unimportantcommenter4356]

I think Japanese the +2 vs archers is a decent addition to the game. It helps a lot vs Mongols, cause now they have a definitive answer to Mangus.

[@swisstravellearth6232]

Hindustani also fit perfectly in AOE2 because the knight meta has always a big risk in facing Hindustanis. However, I feel like they are very weak to meso civs...

[@florealkopecek1745]

Excelent video, looking forward to the next one! 😊

[@sam_sanister]

Ah, Gurjaras. I'd give them Squires and reduce Chakram speed accordingly. Their militia line costs 30f 20g after the UT, and Squires would give a little nudge towards using that. :P I think their garrisoned herdables should be readjusted to be slightly better; getting that double nerf to eco bonus and combat bonus, while justifiable, was a bit harsh. The Shrivamsha poses an interesting problem: how to make a fast unit dominate ranged units without it also being good at raiding? Gurjaras don't get knight line, and the Shrivamsha is their counter to archers. I propose unnerfing the shield, and reducing its base damage but giving it bonus damage against archer armor. This is consistent with Camels; being a mobile counter unit that costs gold, but less efficient at raiding.

[@teddyhaines6613]

I've had a soft spot for Italians ever since this one Nomad 3v3 where I overpowered a fully boomed Goths player using a double gold army of cavalier and arbs. Their allies eventually intervened with Boyars and Conqs, but they didn't coordinate well and I beat both of those armies one at a time. Having a flexible tech tree goes a long way if you scout diligently and are good at anticipating what you'll need.

[@erkocab]

appreciate your comments that take into account buffs and nerfs over the past year. thanks!

[@The_Stray_King]

They should give Lithuanians blast furnace back and make it every 2 relics gives +1 for a maximum of +2. It just feels like some games if you don't get the relics your knights can't compete long term against good knight civs. If blast furnace is available, then obtaining the relics for extra attack is more of a bonus instead of something you have to rely on. I think that would make them more fun to play.

[@CptManboobs]

Personally I like the Japanese Cav Archer bonus, but I'm also a filthy weeaboo.

[@CalebBrown228]

Thanks!

[@Mattroid99]

Perhaps I'm biased because I am Genoese myself but I love how Italians are in this game, they represented them almost perfectly and their power level is really good. Balanced, yet unique, bonuses, can do very much anything, unique units that define their matchups and the strategies your team can do in TGs.. Personally though I would change both their UTs, Pavise is just kinda boring (I would give the +1/1 into the Genoese and Condottieros's stats personally, I mean why do you need to research Pavise when the Genoese already comes with it lol) and yeah Silk Road being worthless in 1v1 is such a shame. Especially since they could use them to spice the civ up a little bit (And to represent Venice in particular since it got nothing despite its historical importance) What are your thoughts about it? I know a lot of people want Italians to be splitted but I'm very much against it

[@robchang4533]

I think an Italian civ can be super fun, but I feel the current design only explores like 50% of that.Their strongest identity point is water discounts. But on land none of their bonuses and units, and techs gives a big punch. Like a unique building resembling the rise of renaissance in imp would be super fun. Like make it a bank building that gives them additional late game strength. Like imagine every other player can get a loan there but need to pay interest back that directly lands in your pocket. Also would like a research bonus on top, and maybe something that replaces cheaper uni techs.

[@KroM234]

Not necessarily split, more like rebranded and expanded. You can pretty much keep the Italian civ intact as it is, just rename it Ligurians, and pop out 1-2 other Italian civs like the Venetians and the Lombards.

[@Mattroid99]

@@KroM234 I'd be down for it just to hear the different dialects in game hahah But besides that I don't think it would be that fair considering that their power was mostly a commercial one (For Ragusa, Genua and Venice at least) and in terms of territories/military power they were mostly regional powers Is one of the few cases where the "umbrella" design phylosophy of the older civs is justifiable

[@robchang4533]

I dont like splitting Italians ? Into what 3 different versions of an archer gunpowder civ with water and trading focus? @@KroM234

[@osiris3676]

i loved the huns description

[@Tintenfix]

I haven't played in years but watching these tier lists is oddly comforting somehow...

[@Rob-ct4xp]

Nice video, pretty much agree with everything this week, but I do think Turtle Ships still need a big buff, they really do suck still considering their cost. Maybe either a bit more blast radius or a decent reduction in reload time.

[@apan990]

ye they get smashes by mass demos, literally cant do anything against them.

[@OrnLu_AoE]

I was thinking about mentioning it, but Turtles have gotten several small buffs over the past year, and I just haven't seen enough of them to draw a conclusion on them right now.

[@inconemay1441]

They're supposed to be Cannon Galleons but have almost no range or the damage

[@TheSrijitMajumder]

The original Indians had Halberdier(though they missed their platemail) and +1 range HCs. The Hindustanis, newly, had faster attacking camels, but what caught my eye was their bumped up +2 range. So there existed a time where I used to play Hindustanis, and went camels in castle age, with a switch to Halb+Handcannons+BCs in imperial. While all those common knight civs used to have a lot of archers/infantry due to camel play in Castle age. That period was a glorious time I had fun using the strongest possible pike and shot combo available in the game. Im still salty at them losing the Halb upgrade :( . Hindustanis felt like a Byzantines of the East.

[@deoskipsbasics]

If huns could build "houses", lets say a chunk of wood that dosen't do anything and takes a 2x2 space, that could help them? And I'd love to see negative bonuses, like a civ that has stronger archers but cost more gold or something like that (im not talking about UU)

[@TheSrijitMajumder]

Is this an AoE4 OOTD reference?

[@philippeporto5893]

I find it so respectful that you correctly call Incas "american" and not "meso". Thanks and cheers from Southamerica o/

[@swisstravellearth6232]

Loved to see Japanese in the complete Tier, what a classic civ! However, I think they are far too weak and have nothing that feels like a 2024 AOE2 Civ. Btw, I do not share your critic with the CA buff. Samurai were well known for they Bow skills on horse what makes the new CA bonus quite historically accurate. 😲See my change suggestions below: Ideas to change Japanese to make them valuable (winrate over all on 1900+

[@Spicy_wiener]

As for maps withn extra relics and Lithuanians I feel like you weren't clear that the attack bonus maxes out at +4

[@epicseadragon1692]

Did not comment the first two videos, but I'm happy to see those videos! SOTC >>>> SOTU! :) Also, yay, Koreans are complete :) It's one of my 5 favorite civs (mostly because of turtle ships!)

[@youcanthandlethetruth5433]

Yep you prounced Gujara correctly this time. Well done!

[@killyekfael4909]

maybe the Lithuanian bonus could be capped by age, max+2 in castle age, max +4 in imperial age?

[@jcbo8906]

Then is simply the castle age Burgundian Cavaliers without the advantage that Burgundians have to research it (50% cheaper upgrades).

[@hansoskar1911]

Gurjaras are so polarized bc they dominate so many cav civs with little effort. otoh since the shivamsha nerf they have no answer to Eagles until they have ~10 chakrams. but then all Eagles die. Maybe its ok that Shivamshas trade positive vs Eagles and Eagle civs need pike+Eagle to dominate. I thought if they really need Gunpowder, and if the unloved Bracer/Xbow arent enough as a composition with any of their cavalry and its good enough vs only Halberdier but it isnt good enough vs a variety of Infatry UU + Halb compositions. but they really dont need BBCs. They could very well trade Redemption and Atonement for Block printing or something like that. My hottake about the Ghulam is that they can be buffed a bit but should get the Eagle Armor class and the hardcounter by Swordsmen that come with it in return. Huns arent generally powercrept but specifically powercrept in Feudal Age. If they have the initiative they play as nice as 2 deacdes ago. since we now have civs that go regularly over the top of CA+Hussar its propably ok to buff them a bit and I suggest +50 wood. allows them the dock on Nomad and gives them this tiny edge, now that no Houses isnt >90% upside anymore. Italians: we have the technology to give Condos a resistance against all Gunpowder attack instead of just the HC bonus damage and imho we should do it. I fin the Relic bonus cool and unique but Lithuanians with a full monk tech tree when they were literally the last Pagans in europe and got converted by the Poles will never not be funny.

[@Prawn47]

I don't feel like you can say the Lithuanian relic bonus is problematic on some maps with extra relics when you don't level the same criticism at Chinese which are also problematic whenever they have the opportunity to start with extra food

[@erikdw8379]

The biggest cliffhanger left by this video is actually not where Ornlu is going to put the next nine civs on the Tier list, but rather what backround footage is he going to use when talking about the Romans. They currently don't have a single official playable scenario. Is he going use footage from Attila or Alaric which features the Romans, even if you don't play as them, or is he going just use custom scenario footage? So many questions.

[@inconemay1441]

Alaric 4 can be used as it shows Rome, or Attila 5 (Attila 6 doesnt actually show the Romans, just multiple civs such as Celts and Teutons as stand ins)

[@Spiror]

Hi ornlu 🎉🎉 can you pls make a video for aoe1 civs even if we dont play all so much. The civs are limited so maybe needed only 1 video for aoe1. I like aoe1 alot more since they introduced it in platform aoe2 . 💪💪 keep strong bro and ty for your nice content.

[@olivertate4983]

Thoughts on giving Lith the final attack upgrade back but limiting the relic bonus to +2? It makes their castle age snowball less powerful as it caps Knight attack at 14, but equally means they only need 1 relic to have units that are more powerful than their opponents. Also it means it's more feasible to boom and make use of the getting food for a TC bonus, as getting two relics is much easier than 4. I think overall it's a buff for Lith, but it does take away their unique identity of potentially having super powerful castle age knights that steamroll everything, so they become another generic cav civ.

[@blumchenb.9688]

I personally think that Gurjaras are extremely weak vs Castle Long Sword Pushes. Until they get a Castle up they have no units to counter them. At least that's my strat I play against gurjaras.

[@botond3141]

Interesting I will certainly try this one out. Thanks for the tip❤❤❤

[@Mattroid99]

I'm pretty sure they can play crossbow siege and be fine since Longswords are still garbage. Sure they don't have arbalests but have HCs and Chakrams to go into

[@blumchenb.9688]

@Mattroid99 I'm speaking of early Castle Age Ingantry Push. Like instantly. Hide 2 Baracks and Push fast with 1 TC. Of course, you should try to reduce His Ar her numbers in Feudal.

[@teddyhaines6613]

@@blumchenb.9688 If they fail to scout that or to pressure you at home or to have their base walled by early castle then they were doing a bunch of things wrong already.

[@Mattroid99]

@@blumchenb.9688 That's why going crossbow siege is completely fine vs that It can work don't get me wrong, but I think is very difficult to actually pull off since very few civ can do it anyways (You need good eco and strong infantry bonuses), and it will probably only work if the opponent misplays or of the map is really good for that

[@francescosantelli1888]

What about Silk Road giving also extra gold from relics? Othwerwise it's useless in 1v1. Another option could be giving Italians che monasteries discount that was there for bohemians. Huns discount for cav archer in castle age could be increased to 15% Incas food cost reduction is too strong in my opinion, especially considering hot good in terms of cost efficiency are units like kamayuks

[@TheSrijitMajumder]

I can give an argument for Silk Road. In AoE4, the Turks have a landmark named Sultanhani Trade Network. That thing generates gold with garrisoned traders, like lets say how Gurjaras make food off sheep. It will have a relic gold generation of 1 relics with max garrison of traders of 10 shared across all markets so that there cant be infinite gold gen(this shouldnt be a problem since Armenians get a free relic that instaspawns). I can see why the Incas are way too strong, because its like a permanent Gurjara Castle Age UT as a civ bonus. Ofcourse it will be strong.

[@jasonsmith1950]

Having Silk Road allow for garrisoned traders seems like a fine addition to the tech. The gold trickle would have to be slower than normal trade (but could be faster the Feitorias). The traders would take up pop space (so there wouldn't really need to be a global limit to the number of garrisoned traders). And the trader discount could remain as the main effect for team games (and would help with creating the garrisoned traders in 1v1). Would provide Italians a powerful option once the game goes to trash wars similar to Portuguese Feitorias.

[@inconemay1441]

Silk Road seems to be a weird name for Italians especially when it's the middle eastern civs that controlled trade in that region.

[@ordinaryrat]

Gurjuras are the most annoying civ to play in team games imo since the shivamskas can just run into your territory and resist enough hits to make it past your main defenses.

[@adnivisorx5873]

Koreans is in a mixed place right now it feels like. Their identity have shifted many times through the years, that leaves it today a bit of a mess in my eyes. They have a focus on long range, while being slow and tanky. Nowadays, when towers in general have been nerfed, koreans can get back their civ bonus, instead of an UT. It only comes in castle Age making it not a severe threat, but a respectable one combined with free guard, keep and faster stone miners. Koreans is such a slow civ so they need one thing they truly are the best in in order to keep up to the others Their SO is also in a weird spot. They used to have 12 range, but wore severely nerfed down to 10 range today. They used to have +1 from their TEAM BONUS what today are locked in a castle, costing ~1500 resources. Their TB was strong, but (for example) Spanish's is still better, and jet it was changed (it is not horrible, but much weaker and less fun). When you are giving a civ a UT it should be one of their strongest and most defining bonuses they have. When you are making a civilization focus on something (like range in this case), make it defining and being a UT, it should be something they truly excel in, now koreans SO is weaker than Ethiopians or celts despite being a expensive UT that just focus on onagers specifically. Make it back to least +2 extra range on onagers. Their bonuses is pretty fine, a discount does not fit very well, but they need it. Koreans need something more punchy and stronger in imperial Age, where they are right now really weak, witch is the point where they should be really strong in. They need help

[@tommig1995]

Koreans getting one of their onager bonuses back would be welcome, but the days of 12 range should definitely be left to history!

[@adnivisorx5873]

@@tommig1995 I sadly agree. It was really fun to use back in conquerors but it is to unbalanced to work.

[@daniloalves1139]

Celts and Ethiopians if u reach a certains number of gold miners, farms and castles is impossible to beat since u can literally spam thousands of units. Once did 888 unique ethiopians unit I don't remember the name now

[@jprp12]

I do agree with bulgarians being power creept, but I dont think balancing other civs is enough for them, while bulgarians are great for beginner players, they are really lacking for high levels, even in tournament play they dont see much play if any and I think that says how they dont have a clear reason to be picked, while do having really clear weaknesses, a buff or rework could be needed that is aimed for higher levels while not making them too strong on lower levels

[@teddyhaines6613]

Bulgarians have seen tournament success in the past, though. Daut in particular has quite a few high-profile Bulgarians wins under his belt from NAC3 and the Redbulls.

[@jprp12]

@@teddyhaines6613 NAC3, but we are now on NAC 5 and they werent picked even once, even daut who loves them knows they are way to unreliable at the moment to be played in a serious game. Even in a tournament with several maps and random bans that can encourage different civs than just the meta

[@teddyhaines6613]

@@jprp12 The point is they're not so intrinsically weak that they can never succeed. Your argument AIUI is that toning back the overall power creep in the meta wouldn't be enough to get Bulgarians to see high-level use. Them seeing high level use and success in the past indicates otherwise. And you latched onto NAC3 while ignoring what I said about RBW. They saw healthy usage and success in RBW3, 4, 5 and Legacy, the last of which was only a couple years ago.

[@jprp12]

@@teddyhaines6613 couple of years ago is a lot in terms of balance in a game, specially with a competitive scene like aoe2, I think current stats is what should be important for changes, its like saying that persians shouldnt be nerfed after the recent buffs cause they were bad a year ago

[@teddyhaines6613]

@@jprp12 But you can't disentangle current stats from how power-crept the current meta is. You seem to be presenting two cases at once: that Bulgarians aren't strong enough to keep up with the current meta, and also that they'd need to be directly buffed to become relevant because weakening the power creeping civs wouldn't be enough. The second premise is questionable in light of how recently Bulgarians were still relevant.

[@inconemay1441]

Hindustanis are fun to play even with the risk of running out of gold. At least they have superior trade bonus to fall back to, and you're not just restricted to camels, it's like a mishmash of the Saracen+Turk tech tree but still stands out in its own way. Gurjaras on the other hand are miserable to use especially in the last two missions of the Prithviraj campaign, the sheep nerfs dont help either. The Huns are missing something when other cav civs do their job better. Japanese suddenly focusing on cav archers feels like a weird retcon, but it gives them something that isnt just crossbows. Idk how to rework Kataparuto to be more historically accurate when their siege is bad but simply giving them bombards would make them generic too.

[@robchang4533]

Welcome to the newest episode to ornlu realizing that the rest of us were right all the time.

[@nathanvanbeek1237]

Maybe this also leads to power creep, but how about removing the wood penalty for Huns?

[@marshallpaliga322]

Can we still call first?

[@oskargrabowski126]

Khmer losing hussar is a bold suggestion but I completely agree with you. This 'Hussar spam goes brrr' identity doesn't fit them at all. Oh and I predict another non-AoC civ joining complete tier, let's go Magyars! And maybe Malians too?

[@zhiz3074]

And the award for the most unnecessary balance tweak of 2023 goes to ... Japanese cav archers Seriously, I don't think a civ with FU elite skirmisher, HCA, onager and heavy scorpions + siege engineers should complain about being too weak to archers.

[@NoraNoita]

I still don't like the 10% movemenspeed for Lith trash, seeing it nerfed to something like 5 or 7 percent would be not as bad maybe.

[@mubashirulmoula1798]

Gurjaras - "Somewhat Problematic". They have too many camel bonuses just like Goths infantry bonuses as well as some elephant bonuses that wasted on them since they are not good at that department. They should lose Husbandry so that Extra MA Camel match Extra MA Teutons Paladin, and S.Rider becomes a bit less annoying. Chakram pierce through damage should be go back to 50% and get +1 base attack to compensate. Team Bonus need to be limited to Camel as their Siege Elephant is nothing less than a monster. Hindustanis - "Almost there". Other then current villager discount number being ugly, the "Grand Trunk Road" UT is too weak to be an UT. Villager discount should not exceed 15% in Castle Age. So a flat 10% in all ages or 15% starting from Feudal should be implemented. As for the UT, some new civ should get it as a free eco bonus. Since Caravanserai is now a shared building, new UT should be related to this building. Caravanserai speed boost reduced from 20% to 15%, this UT buff it further by 10% and also increase healing range from 8 tiles to 10. Huns - "Almost there". Maybe I'm vanilla but I don't like debuffing your opponent as a bonus. New Atheism could be a very big conversion resistance for mounted units, maybe turn their resistance to the same level as building. Since this is an Imp tech, it will barely make any difference. And the random trebuchet extra accuracy bonus should be replaced by something more aggressive, even removed Saracens CA +2 attack bonus vs building will be fine imho. Incas - "Complete". Perfectly designed. Maybe balance wise the food discount can further be nerfed and applied only from Feudal Age. Maybe "Andean Sling" UT can be more useful like skirmishers also get +1 range while Aztecs UT changed from +1 attack, +1 range to +2 attack. Italians - "Complete". I have no design change proposal for them. The only balance suggestion is maybe change their "Silk Road" UT to all ally 25% cheaper trade units. Japanese - "Complete/Almost there". I'm a bit hesitant. New CA bonus feel very random. The real issue is obviously make Samurai more unique and not just another champion but with attack bonus vs UU and more expensive. Since Gambeson made champion line better vs archers, I think both standard & elite Samurai should get +1MA so that they have different route to shine. Khmer - "Almost there". They are also responsible for power creep. They are "THE" reason for all the changes Slavs had to go through. And Romans was the final nail on Slavs coffin. Khmer should absolutely lose Husbandry. Elephant speed bonus is already there which should be 20% to adjust. Ballista ele speed also increase by 10% to keep it the same. UTs should be swapped as all elephant techs should be Imperial anyway. If removal of Husbandry is over nerf, bring back BBC. Koreans - "Something is off". They have to be given a ridiculously huge 50% wood discount as they were so terrible against cavalry/camel/eagle civs. This obviously calls for a infantry bonus, but nope. Devs went to archer route and ended up in this mess. As I suggested to remove wood discount from Dravidians, Koreans should get all military units wood discount 20%. Free archer armor is replaced by spearman line takes 2/3/4 less damage from mounted units in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age. Lithuanians - "Something is off". Revert the extra food bonus but remove fire galley line and they are balanced in hybrid maps. Really hate their instant Drush strategy being gone forever. The Imperial Age UT should be cheaper and +1/+1 as extra PA on skirms vs skirms is complete useless. Maybe Leitis should also be benefited from the tech as they literally carry the "Tower Shield". In that case Leitis cost should also be revised 70f/50g to 65f/60g.

[@Crossil]

I feel like the "Power Crept" tier makes very little sense because it doesn't fit into the chart. It more brings up the question of just what exactly you consider to be a problem for civs in your tier list? For the most part I can get the idea that the tier list is based on how well designed and overall formed up the civs are overall, but just adding this part about civs being power crept doesn't really match with anything concerning this particular notion. Because you're basically admitting that a civ like the Huns would be Complete, but because you don't see them in competitive play, you're proclaiming that they are not good anymore, and is therefore on par with civs that are designed worse in your mind? That's two tiers of difference just because they aren't seeing competitive play. It just makes your tier list feel more arbitrary.

[@OrnLu_AoE]

The point of the "Power Crept" tier is that the civs are well designed. They just feel a little weak in the current meta. The underlying theme of these videos is that balance and design, although separate, are still closely connected. Some of the top civs like Incas, Khmer, and Malians getting some small nerfs would bring those civs into the spotlight more

[@TheSrijitMajumder]

Let me give you an example of powercreep, the Magyars vs Huns. They had seperate identities till Magyars received the 25% faster cav archer training bonus. So now the Magyars have better cavalry and faster training cav archers. While Huns have faster training but weaker cavalry, but just a measly 10% discount on CA that is nowhere close to that 25% training time bonus. Cav archers need to be massed to show good value, and the Magyars just do that quickly, unless the Huns conserver their mass and not take engagements. That CA switch from 3 archery ranges is more devastating for Magyars than Huns. Magyar CA also scale well unlike Huns. So my point is, Magyars do, what Huns do, but just better.

[@botond3141]

Shrivamsha riders are shit. I go cav gurjara goes camels, I go raged they go shrivamsha😢. If I tech into spear line they just run away and raid. Just nerf or remive the unit😂