Tim you should give up your favorite nation!

[Mr Suplex]

I've been making the case that the British are objectively better for almost a year now, but no one listens or seems to care. Its good to see that others are finally starting to see what I was talking about back in Enlightenment Age.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that the British are OP because Riflemen/Submachine Gunners are OP. Nexon really needs to do something to bring that troop type back in line with its peers.

 

[Mr Suplex]

In fact Romans, French, Germans, Koreans even Chinese and Greeks can be better as each of them still do have an edge (German Fury, French Tank, Greek Tank, Chineese extra Mercs, Korean extra Tactic, Roman troops space)

No, none of those things comes close to the power of KRR. KRR with their +1 range fundamentally alter the mechanics of the game and get an enormous edge out of it. Remember when Fusiliers had 3 range? They were so ridiculously strong and everyone used lots of them. Then they got their range nerf and most people don't bother with assault infantry anymore The British can abuse their range advantage with an entire army that shoots at range 5. Its broken and I just shake my head about it at this point. Once you go above the 2000-2200 medal range, a ridiculously abnormal proportion of the opponents are British. That should be the red flag right there, but Nexon does nothing about it. Game balance is clearly not a concern for them.

 

[Wendy]

koreans are 3 steps above romans, romans are useless, i can tell, i've played with romans for months.

 

[Wendy]

What were the romans famous for? Roads
i think some kind of bonus to roads ( maybe a 2-5% more road network) could make romans a more appetible, because right now 14 troops more is not a great advantage.
About british, if nexon ever decide to eliminate the plus 1 range of the special troop, they should reinvent the entire civilization, as a normal special troop and no civilization bonus would make them the worst of the game.
Anyway the range of british archers is something very old as it was the same in Age Of Empires game, the BHG masterpiece.

 

[Radzeer]

If I as a French get 33 krrs from donations I am using the same krrs as you. And still have better tanks, you don't seem to get the point I was explaining

 

[The Huns]

The question is still in what aspect of the game are Brits the best.
In WW? At which age? For looting and thus quick advancing?
WW: I don't see the difference at an Alliance with many Brits all other players can be "British" Just ask for 27-33 krrs and suddenly they are all British. In fact Romans, French, Germans, Koreans even Chinese and Greeks can be better as each of them still do have an edge (German Fury, French Tank, Greek Tank, Chineese extra Mercs, Korean extra Tactic, Roman troops space)

Looting: Hm, Noone can match the French here.

So in a good Alliance with enough active Brits, I don't want to be one of them

All I know is I look through my defensive logs. British have about a 20% better clear rate on average on my base (through multiple iterations) than any other nation. So either all the good players decided to play British or the British are objectively better.

 

[ccfoo]

I would like to start off to say that British is a good offensive nation, similar to Germans and Koreans. There is no dispute to that. Because the nature of this game is more to raiding and attacking, British seems overpowered because of it's unique range, but it is debatable of it's superiority as compared to other offensive nations mentioned. There are strong arguments why Germans are better than British, especially at later age when 15% applies to ALL troops, but i would not going into that here. I would like to bring up three points:

1) Calls for nerf in any game is detrimental in the long run. Didn't people complain about heavy Calvary before, and what happen to the Greeks? Didn't people complain about Romans before, and what happen to infantry units? It took them close to a year to buff back heavy calvary with the upgrades available in global age, as well as the research chapter 5 for fusilier in library. I rather support buffing nations which seems weaker as compared to nerfing those which seems stronger. I do support the further upgrades to tanks for French and Greeks, although it makes them beasts by having tanks with slightly lesser HP but half the troop space as compared to heavy tanks now. This brings greater balance to the game's unique units and I believe more should be done for those with infantry next. Furthermore, new nations might be released in global age which have a high chance to be the next OP nation to earn crown from existing players, adding British to the pool of seemingly under powered nations won't help to balance this game.

2) Are nations really under powered near "end game" in offense now, which is global age currently? Didn't those pros in global alliances complain of stalemates because offenses is too over powered? Unless all of them are 100% using British, it is an indication that near "end game" at this moment, all of the nations are viable and have sufficient offensive power to 5 stars any base even without the +1 range of their rifleman. These alliances claimed that the unbalance in offensive power compared to defense is not unique to a few skilled player but their entire alliance. Doesn't this some sort of "negate" the advantage British or other attacking nations have, since other nations are able to score five stars in the hands of mediocre global age players too? It is usually a fallacy to claim something as OP before we understand the balance towards the end game. In my opinion, defense need a buff in IA and above as a whole package, nerfing a single nation won't help balance the game in this aspect too, there will still be over powered tanks and other unique range and other bonuses. University research really helped in this aspect, players are starting to feel the pinch of unseen buff to towers and mortars which might be even more obvious towards the end of the year when more researches are being completed.

3) I do agree with the point raised earlier by Radzeer. With the increase in alliance troop space but stagnant barrack troop space in global, alliance support is more important than ever before you can exploit any nation advantage by requesting for their uniques. A French nation can request 33 black watch from British to replace all their rifleman while still retain their awesome tanks. When everything adds up, they still have more 3 more troops! Similarly, Germans could do the same and retain the +15% damage to ALL units, I suppose its on top of the passive bonus damage which British or Korean range units have, but British can't import the increase damage or reduced rally advantage from them. Romans can replace all their rifleman too, but can British gain that 10% increased troop space from them? The only real advantage British has is its unique troops, which are pretty interchangeable with increase alliance troop space at later age, however it cannot inherit other bonuses from other nations like the 2 extra citizens from Chinese. Aren't a shortage of workers the real headache in this game?

Of course, you can argue that no one use alliance troops in every battle, especially in multiplayer! However, if you take normal multiplayer raiding, its another debate between the efficiency of British and French for another time.

To sum it up, the problem does not lie in British, but in the balance between offense and defense in the game, and the economics which is basically non existent. Nerfing a nation won't help to solve any of the bigger issues out there, as proven in the case with other nations which have gone down similar path.

 

[Mr Suplex]

Calls for nerf in any game is detrimental in the long run.

Anyone who has played games seriously knows that this is not necessarily true, if the nerfs are well thought out or done in a fair way and complemented by buffs in an overall game balance plan (which Nexon seems incapable of doing). The problem is that the nerfs have not been done evenly, as you pointed out. If the other basic troop types have been nerfed (cavalry and infantry), but rifles have been left alone, that is an unfair advantage for nations with specialist rifle troops and a nerf to those needs to happen as well. And the calls for nerfing anything are not in a vaccuum, as many of us also want to see buffs in other areas (mortars, Greeks/Japanese, assault infantry, saboteurs, etc)

A redesign of the broken +1 range on British rifles is long overdue, although I think the real issue is the rifle unit itself, which pound for pound significantly outclasses most other troop types. The reason the British are the best right now is because they have the best version of the best unit in the game. A quick fix would be to just give their rifles the same perk as Koreans...still very strong but not fundamentally game altering like +1 range is.

To put the power of +1 range into perspective, in Starcraft one of the most powerful upgrades in the game was +1 range on troops, and whoever was able to secure that upgrade first often had a large advantage until his opponent caught up. People just seem to not understand how powerful this really is, or choose to ignore it for their own benefit.

 

[Mr Suplex]

So either all the good players decided to play British or the British are objectively better.

At the end of the day, I'd bet these two things have a strong positive correlation.

I'd honestly love to see the stats on how nations break down above 2400 medals or so. I bet you British have a crazy skew in their favor, and that there are almost no Japanese or Greek players. Nation balance is a joke right now.

 

[Danix den Andre]

British french and romans are the trade goods i have tha most of, but you tend to use those as well, but since they are tha leftovers...

 

[The Huns]

I would like to start off to say that British is a good offensive nation, similar to Germans and Koreans. There is no dispute to that. Because the nature of this game is more to raiding and attacking, British seems overpowered because of it's unique range, but it is debatable of it's superiority as compared to other offensive nations mentioned. There are strong arguments why Germans are better than British, especially at later age when 15% applies to ALL troops, but i would not going into that here. I would like to bring up three points:

1) Calls for nerf in any game is detrimental in the long run. Didn't people complain about heavy Calvary before, and what happen to the Greeks? Didn't people complain about Romans before, and what happen to infantry units? It took them close to a year to buff back heavy calvary with the upgrades available in global age, as well as the research chapter 5 for fusilier in library. I rather support buffing nations which seems weaker as compared to nerfing those which seems stronger. I do support the further upgrades to tanks for French and Greeks, although it makes them beasts by having tanks with slightly lesser HP but half the troop space as compared to heavy tanks now. This brings greater balance to the game's unique units and I believe more should be done for those with infantry next. Furthermore, new nations might be released in global age which have a high chance to be the next OP nation to earn crown from existing players, adding British to the pool of seemingly under powered nations won't help to balance this game.

2) Are nations really under powered near "end game" in offense now, which is global age currently? Didn't those pros in global alliances complain of stalemates because offenses is too over powered? Unless all of them are 100% using British, it is an indication that near "end game" at this moment, all of the nations are viable and have sufficient offensive power to 5 stars any base even without the +1 range of their rifleman. These alliances claimed that the unbalance in offensive power compared to defense is not unique to a few skilled player but their entire alliance. Doesn't this some sort of "negate" the advantage British or other attacking nations have, since other nations are able to score five stars in the hands of mediocre global age players too? It is usually a fallacy to claim something as OP before we understand the balance towards the end game. In my opinion, defense need a buff in IA and above as a whole package, nerfing a single nation won't help balance the game in this aspect too, there will still be over powered tanks and other unique range and other bonuses. University research really helped in this aspect, players are starting to feel the pinch of unseen buff to towers and mortars which might be even more obvious towards the end of the year when more researches are being completed.

3) I do agree with the point raised earlier by Radzeer. With the increase in alliance troop space but stagnant barrack troop space in global, alliance support is more important than ever before you can exploit any nation advantage by requesting for their uniques. A French nation can request 33 black watch from British to replace all their rifleman while still retain their awesome tanks. When everything adds up, they still have more 3 more troops! Similarly, Germans could do the same and retain the +15% damage to ALL units, I suppose its on top of the passive bonus damage which British or Korean range units have, but British can't import the increase damage or reduced rally advantage from them. Romans can replace all their rifleman too, but can British gain that 10% increased troop space from them? The only real advantage British has is its unique troops, which are pretty interchangeable with increase alliance troop space at later age, however it cannot inherit other bonuses from other nations like the 2 extra citizens from Chinese. Aren't a shortage of workers the real headache in this game?

Of course, you can argue that no one use alliance troops in every battle, especially in multiplayer! However, if you take normal multiplayer raiding, its another debate between the efficiency of British and French for another time.

To sum it up, the problem does not lie in British, but in the balance between offense and defense in the game, and the economics which is basically non existent. Nerfing a nation won't help to solve any of the bigger issues out there, as proven in the case with other nations which have gone down similar path.

First off I'm not calling for a nerf. Like many top players I plan on changing over to British soon. But as I said earlier going over my defensive logs in the last 20 battles one third were British. They had an average level of 166 and averaged 63% damage to my base. A quarter of them were French, had an average level of 166 and averaged 51% damage. A quarter were Korean, had an average level of 166 and did an average of 49% damage. A quarter of them were Roman, had an average level of 167 and did an average of 43% damage. While this is anecdotal it is a pattern I've seen before when I ran the numbers. British players do more damage to my base on average.

 

[Veldan]

I play Chinese (Enlightenment Age) and actually like it, not planning to swap. It may not be the most powerful thing but some of us actually play for fun and want to find a nation that fits our playstyle. Not everyone is a min/maxer for offensive combat strength.

 

[Player Killer]

I was planning to switch from Chinese to Brits but now having second thoughts. The Chinese nation is great and well balanced. 1. Defensively it has extra defenders coming out of TC. 2. Economy and a big one, extra worker to help with those tower and clearing tasks. 3. Offensively it has pretty strong shooters and an extra merc. Calling for nerfs is just silly, other nations should be more balanced like the Chinese. I have played both Germans and French over 2400 medals, and people who spam brits are sometimes destroyed with good base designs.

 

[ccfoo]

First off I'm not calling for a nerf. Like many top players I plan on changing over to British soon. But as I said earlier going over my defensive logs in the last 20 battles one third were British. They had an average level of 166 and averaged 63% damage to my base. A quarter of them were French, had an average level of 166 and averaged 51% damage. A quarter were Korean, had an average level of 166 and did an average of 49% damage. A quarter of them were Roman, had an average level of 167 and did an average of 43% damage. While this is anecdotal it is a pattern I've seen before when I ran the numbers. British players do more damage to my base on average.

I do not disagree that British is indeed good at attacking. It's unique strength lies there. However, there r some points which I have to raise:

1. We can't compare apple to oranges, attacking nations definitely do have an advantage in attacking. Similarly, Germans n Koreans will be better than Chinese n French.

2. Multiplayer might be a good gauge but not necessarily accurate to portray the full abilities of a nation. Not many French will use their advantage of alliance troops, neither will Koreans use their tactics in multiplayer. In wars when their different abilities come into play, British might not have that significant edge then. As explained earlier, global age players complained of stalemates in their wars and the unbalance in offense, not targeting British alone. This might mean that every nation is "over powered" in this aspect to some extent. May I attribute one factor to the sheer amount and power of tactics we can use? Which brings me to my next point.

3. When comparing orange to orange, British might not have a significant advantage then. Yes, British's unique might be good, but Germans offers more with damage increase to ALL units, faster rallies etc and it has an advantage over British that it offers more flexibility and it's army can be adjusted instead of mass shooters. It can use more tanks against base with more mortars upgraded, or switch over to shooters when AT guns are more upgraded.

In comparing British to Koreans, British do have an advantage in MP due to long retraining time of tactics. If anything, I would propose a reduction time to retrain tactics, especially for Koreans. However I would feel that amount of tactics we can use in IA above are kinda overpowered, especially the duration of sabotage which might be a reason why offence is too strong. Koreans then have that advantage as tactics can be adjusted according to battle too.

4. Earlier this year, there was a competition between nations based on the overall statistics on battles won if I didn't remember wrongly. Is it based on multiplayer or wars combined? Regardless, British didn't even make it pass round one. Therefore, the statistic which feeds to Nexon might be different from what some of you at higher medals are experiencing on the ground, and maybe that's why it doesn't ring a bell to them. Anyway, I would prefer someone to five star my base in multiplayer, gives me longer peace treaty lol. The genghis event result in more players using tactics in MP, and I have more full peace treaties from other nations too.

 

[ccfoo]

Anyone who has played games seriously knows that this is not necessarily true, if the nerfs are well thought out or done in a fair way and complemented by buffs in an overall game balance plan (which Nexon seems incapable of doing). The problem is that the nerfs have not been done evenly, as you pointed out. If the other basic troop types have been nerfed (cavalry and infantry), but rifles have been left alone, that is an unfair advantage for nations with specialist rifle troops and a nerf to those needs to happen as well. And the calls for nerfing anything are not in a vaccuum, as many of us also want to see buffs in other areas (mortars, Greeks/Japanese, assault infantry, saboteurs, etc)

A redesign of the broken +1 range on British rifles is long overdue, although I think the real issue is the rifle unit itself, which pound for pound significantly outclasses most other troop types. The reason the British are the best right now is because they have the best version of the best unit in the game. A quick fix would be to just give their rifles the same perk as Koreans...still very strong but not fundamentally game altering like +1 range is.

To put the power of +1 range into perspective, in Starcraft one of the most powerful upgrades in the game was +1 range on troops, and whoever was able to secure that upgrade first often had a large advantage until his opponent caught up. People just seem to not understand how powerful this really is, or choose to ignore it for their own benefit.

1. If we are to take away the +1 range from British, what advantage then does it has as compared to Korean or Chinese archers? And nation bonus wise, won't it have significantly less advantage? I would rather trade to have more workers or an extra tactic, since resources are less of an issue in late game with long build time. It will be relegated to a useless nation too.

2. Yes, range is over powered at lower ages, but it's not entirely true from IA above with tanks in play. A German manoeuvring heavy tanks, French with their S35 etc show that other nations and other units are quite powerful when combined too. Range do suffer from the worst AI in the game, with archers shooting walls all the time, canons wandering off n shooting at farms etc, while tanks, in a way are "smarter". As witnessed by many global age players, they complain of stalemates, which means at end game, every nation are rather strong in offensive power regardless of whether it has bonuses in attacking or not. If only British are capable of 5 stars, u do have a valid point then.

3. Star craft one is a rather balance game, I'm not sure why you use this example. As much as a plus one range is desired, many other upgrades like getting spells or rushing to air units or even faster move speed on most basic units like zerglings to counter range can be considered game changing too. In dominations, getting tanks and planes and betrayal etc are game changing for most. British plus one range is indeed powerful, but so are other benefits like Super tanks and increase damage to all units including air. I believe Germans are slightly stronger and offers more flexibility than British in global, and the difference might get even wider depending on what atomic age offers.

 

[Ravenlord]

Tactics for mortars? What are your planes doing - sitting this one out??!

The best thing for mortars is rallying on them ''just'' as they're about to fire ..... love seeing that shot fall behind me!

 

[Radzeer]

In multiplayer you play mostly alone, maybe every 3rd attack you use some donations, and you get what they give you. I was talking about kitchen sink attacks used in WW, where the British can be at least matched by the others.

 

[IzEagle]

The simplest solution is reducing the shooters range to 3 (for British it will be 4) it will let the defense system to do more with these attackers.

But in my opinion the best solution is modifying the way the units are working. The units should work similar to what they do in real world. Now only the mortar and bazooka are working in this way. The cannon/artillery should have splash damage in offense as it has it in defense like a real artillery. After GA, assault infantry and submachine gunner should be merged to a strong human infantry (assault) with range 3 who can’t fire over walls and instead of submachine we could have an special unit like sniper. Snipers did a lot in WWII, It will be a long range unit (even 6) who take 4 troop space and fire slowly but deals high damage to human based defenses like generals, forts and towers (he will shoot at the 3 person who stand on a tower not the tower itself)

Also 4 air space for GA is not even close to reality. In WWII many cities were completely destroyed by folks of bombers not just 2 bomber that could be destroyed by a single GA tower!

 

[Wendy]

I just want to share the experience i had 10 minutes ago in my WW attack with british.
after rally on TC my army has divided because i didn't notice that my rifleman could shot without breaking the walls from another side.
i didn't scout a lot, as the war is won ( the oppenents made only 3 five stars and the first 3 players have attacked our numers 15-20, making impossible for them to attack our top numbers)
result was 2 shameful stars.
with a bad rally and a superficial scouting my special unit bonus has been more a disadvantage than an advantage.

 

[IzEagle]

Thanks for sharing your experience, all of us regardless of nations have problem with rally. Units AI don’t work properly with rally it is the same for all nations. My nations is German and often when I press the rally my foot troops ignore the opening just next to them and try to open a new way and since they can’t fire over wall usually most of them will be killed in this situation.