Noticed a few things.
- Rams don't "take extra damage", they have negative armor. Just look at their stats after Ironclad.
- Listing Camels' and Spears' effective (instead of) bonus damage vs. Phracts *could* be misleading. Especially as you don't differentiate between Phracts and Ephracts for...
Re: Vilager
Thats an elevation issue. Villagers get the same bonus to attack when higher on a hill than the target, and the penalty when below.
On hitting or missing: with a boar's huge hitbox and a villager's really short range (remember, the standard no-thumb-ring miss chance gets higher with...
Been a while since I worked on this, but iirc Phant Archers don't get the bonus damage.
Slightly relevant: Kamayuks seem to have no Pike armor listed, so they aren't vulnerable to every archer unit's +2 anti-Pike damage nor to Parthian Tactic's bonus. Again, this is what I remember from some...
Only one of these can happen at the same time.
Again, not simultaneously, and both options require input from the player - Skirms attacking Archers doesn't. Also, if you read your own comment carefully, the only option for P1 not to have at least one half of his army vaporized is to run away...
As far as I know, it doesn't only take the damage per shot into consideration, but also the rate of fire. Tech bonuses the units get are also used, even though Chemistry was bugged in AoC. You may remember that a Dark Age TC shoots with only one Villager, a Fletching'd TC however doesn't. And...
Let's think about the following scenario: Player 1 goes for Scouts + Archers, Player 2 does Spears + Skirms. Both have comparable civ bonuses, economy and skill. What happens if:
a) P1 attacks, so most of the fighting happens close to P2's base, sometimes in range of his TC, or at least inside...
I usually rename my replays with player names, civs, bot difficulty and a comment, leaving the timestamp intact save for the seconds. And i can tell you: without a ridiculous amount of shorthands and omitting spaces, these wouldn't ever be usable. So as long as we don't come up with a set of...
Wouldn't that be similar to a tech that upgrades your leftover Scouts into Knights? And about Men-at-Arms serving as a counter to Eagles: Spears counter Scouts, on a level M@A's can only dream of, and people still play Scout flushes.
Two thoughts on that. One: Adding a bunch of Chevvies can give anyone kiting infantry with ranged units a headache. Two: Phants are Rams that can beat up any human units that dare touch them in melee.
You're just jealous of our swordsmen's ability to throw their swords out of towers.
On a more serious note, you don't even need towers once you can place Castles for far less than anyone else. Thats probably the reason behind this, and its totally OK.
Two pages, but nobody else commented on the wc3 reference? Bah, younglings these days.
If only the AIs would play that way... in most of my games, they are going for disgustingly large counter unit zergs from the start.
Hunting Dogs was never free for anyone. It had different effects for a few Civs (Persian starting Wood/Food, Japanese cheaper Mills, Mongol hunting bonus), but Mongols were the only one that got a special mechanic.
That being said, taking out Hunting Dogs should still be on the rader for you...
And make them ride wolves, and give them nets to root flying units. And oversized kukris for weapons, and jokes about the wolves not being house-trained.
The tech should apply to swords as well, though...
In that case, you could just change their bonus damage to work on archers instead of buildings (aka give them the effect every cavalry unit should have instead of Skirms). But then they wouldn't be Tarks anymore, they'd be mounted Huskarls. We should rather try to come up with something that...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.