Overall I like all changes except the Burmese one
For Vikings i feel the Inf HP bonus should have been increase to eg. +20%/25%/30% (possibly with a adaptation to berserk HP?) to compensate for thumbring
Don't know if Nomad treaty will lead to some walling nonsense, then again
n dark age walls...
"1. Players are allowed to use any graphical or UI modifications publicly available in the official mod
workshop."
What about local graphical mods? ( I believe some players have or had some of the changes to the in-game UI adapted locally)
I am reading completely different things from this post 11
They answer to the posts above, repling that even the cheaper supplies will not affact standart m@a play, just conceding that if you go full yolo forward tower + lots of m@a there might be a situation where it is worth to grab it. To me...
If the 'center' players are in the front getting tripled/quadrupled might become a problem, - right now you can have a sad time on flank if you get 2v1 and your pocket booms, but if you are in the center it is much easier for the entire enemy team to get to your base. I feel especially in 3v3...
I don't have the numbers, but if i compare queueing for both 1v1 RM and EW with both RM and DM, which I did at some point last year, I definitely get more EW, and closer matched EW games compared to DM (but still more RM then EW)
If I queue with a friend for both RM and EW 2v2 we also get a lot...
I don't know if it has already been fixed, but the edge of the minimap was cut of last weekend, so sometimes when units where at the very edge/corner they would not be visible on the minimap.
Judging by the amount of complaints there are issues with the current (mostly teamgame) matchmaking for a relevant portion of the player-base.
However, based on only my personal experience I voted 'contented' because for 1v1 as a ~1450 1v1 Player who does not mind playing any map I get games vs...
Maybe cheaper barracks techs could be a thing? Inca should atleast have the most techs there to benefit compared to any other civ. The question is how useful is it - helps slightly for m@a aswell as eagel and general infantry play.
What I like is that there seems to have been at least an effort to make the game fell "AoE" and not like something else entirely, some of the features shown also look intriguing to me (e.g. the landmark building mechanic)
What I am a bit wary about is the eco to army balance, I really hope that...
Portuguese have 20% less gold cost for all units, not only knights and thats not op. and 20% cheaper is better then 20% refundet so anything less would probably be on the weak side (of course it depends on the rest of the civ)
Not necessarily thrilled to see new civs added, but for me personally not the biggest problem in general as long as they are not too broken.
I will probably get on board with general design of Burgundians after some adjustments, although some non european civ probably could have filled that spot...
Just because with restarts it may be (still) fair and competitive does not mean that it disregards the point of (possibly) influencing the risk reward factor of strategies (mostly 'laming' - both for the defender and aggressor - as well as needing some type of map to execute the plan).
This is...
Way to strong. Pierce armor is more important then melee armor.
In castle age (assuming FU):
Crossbow deals 5+2-(2+2) = 3 dmg to regular knight, with one more armor it would be only 2 dmg. So damage reduced by 33%. This is equivalent to +50% Hp on the Knight when it comes to knight vs...
So maybe I missed it, butI did not find any mention of spectator delay in the rules, only stream delay for pov. Just wondering if this is intentional or is there supposed to be some spec delay mirroing the pov stream delay?
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.