People there have this idea that if Humans have access to all units in the game, and have unique units and worldspells and Orcs have some unique units and worldspells and mechanics. But, if Orcs get a unit that's slightly more powerful comparitively and if they get a building that doubles their amount of units built.
How can I explain to these people that those 2 examples are not balanced. Saying that Orcs can't build Musketmen makes no more sense than saying humans can build Musketmen. Orcs not being able to build Horsemen does not make Orcs balanced with their other abilities. And the fact that you've never seen any balance issues in your game means absolutely jack.
His post is thus:
I understand that most of you don't play this game, and if necessary I'll elaborate on any of the points above and on the context thereof.WarKirby;8487242 wrote:That's a rather sweeping statement.
There are quite a lot of civs which have no gunpowder units. The primary thing they have in common is a relatively tribal, more free, or less civilised society. Doviello, hippus, chislev, elves, calabim etc.
The Khazad are also missing marksmen and Archmages. And horse archers. and rangers. And yet they're widely considered one of the most powerful and flavourful civs in the game. They have Dwarven druids, myconids, and hornguard, focusing more power where they have it to make up for where they don't.
And then there's the sheiam, who are missing an entire melee line.
One of the core precepts of the game is that not everyone has the same tools to work with. Many civs are deliberately restricted in some areas, and more powerful in others.
Any help is appreciated,
Bill