AOE-II DE Age of Empires II DE — new update is finally out!

[flightlessbird]

having played with/against Burgundians 3 times in 1v1 and seeing them destroy all 3 games even coming back from far worse positions I think they are going to be S tier civ if not best civ in the game. They feel like chinese or viking eco combined with Lithuanians with 2 relics. Maybe they just got lucky in the games I played but at worst this is really going to be a civ to take seriously.

 

[Zbyszek]

Unfortunately I have succumbed to the "time heals all wounds" effect and now actually enjoy a lot of the new civs/units.

all it needs is a data mod

 

[nimanoe]

Out of curiosity: off the people that claim that balance is going down the drain or the devs have no clue what they're doing, how many changes do you actually disagree with? And how many do you agree with or are neutral towards?
During these balance discussions, people generally only focus on one or two changes that they disagree with and then claim that the overall balance is ****, but meanwhile there are a lot of changes that aren't discussed and they'll probably agree with are good changes.

I certainly don't agree with all the changes that the devs make, but if only one or two changes are bad, while the other 10-15 changes are neutral or a good change for the game, maybe the overall balance of the game is still going in the right direction?

 

[Shakal]

I certainly don't agree with all the changes that the devs make, but if only one or two changes are bad, while the other 10-15 changes are neutral or a good change for the game, maybe the overall balance of the game is still going in the right direction?

I guess many changes are considered too small or insignificant, so people don't talk about them that much regardless of whether they are good or bad..

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Since it's a hot topic

Any news/leak of the New expansion ( release date, civs)?

 

[HyunaOP]

Out of curiosity: off the people that claim that balance is going down the drain or the devs have no clue what they're doing, how many changes do you actually disagree with? And how many do you agree with or are neutral towards?
During these balance discussions, people generally only focus on one or two changes that they disagree with and then claim that the overall balance is ****, but meanwhile there are a lot of changes that aren't discussed and they'll probably agree with are good changes.

I certainly don't agree with all the changes that the devs make, but if only one or two changes are bad, while the other 10-15 changes are neutral or a good change for the game, maybe the overall balance of the game is still going in the right direction?

I think the changes are overall good

Maybe incas need some compensation in return, that's as much as I can input here.

Also Sicilians early game is still a big hurdle, the payoff with that civ is midgame but only if you go for a set strategy like scouts since without hoese collar, you aren't really using the civ to its max potential (most people skip hc in man at arms or hyperaggressive full yolo swag 420 all in full balls no walls kind of play) !

But they're late game got a whole lot more greater sooo.... I can accept their changes

 

[huntskiki]

Out of curiosity: off the people that claim that balance is going down the drain or the devs have no clue what they're doing, how many changes do you actually disagree with? And how many do you agree with or are neutral towards?
During these balance discussions, people generally only focus on one or two changes that they disagree with and then claim that the overall balance is ****, but meanwhile there are a lot of changes that aren't discussed and they'll probably agree with are good changes.

I certainly don't agree with all the changes that the devs make, but if only one or two changes are bad, while the other 10-15 changes are neutral or a good change for the game, maybe the overall balance of the game is still going in the right direction?

Well, there's a couple of points to go off of here. First, I don't know the devs intentions, so I can't really give them the benefit of the doubt for certain things. E.g. did they introduce the tower range mod because they felt it was unfair that people didn't know about it, but then felt that they had to nerf incas because they were adding the tower range mod? or did the nerf incas because someone on the balance team played against a noboru rush twice in one day and got frustrated? Second, it's not so much the balance changes they make, but the balance changes they don't make. E.g. cannon galleons, sure that's fine, get rid of the extra tech, water maps are such a small part of the overall game I'm not sure why this is the focus for the devs when (IMO) their are a lot of other things they could fix.

Anyways, here is my opinion on all of the changes:

Steppe lance cost = useless change, won't actually affect anything

cannon galleon = no opinion, seems like a fine change for water maps

Burgundians = huge buff, which I am fine with, but why so many nerfs to other strong civs? They did the same thing with tatars where they buffed them heavily and then nerfed them in the next patch. Will they do the same thing with burgundians.

cumans pallisade wall nerf = not happy with this. makes cumans even less viable in 1v1s, where they are already bottom of the barrel. I wish they'd move the pallisade wall bonus to civ bonus and make something else the team bonus.

Franks = lazy balance change. doesn't really affect them in 1v1s. Franks will still be a great civ in 1v1 and TG. Not sure what they are going for here

incas = overnerf, no buff to compensate. Lazy balance change IMO

Malay

fish traps = doesn't really affect the game. Seems fine, not sure why they are so concerned about malay fish traps but not about feitorias on islands games.

battle elephants = discount will be nice, not sure how often they will be used in actual games. want to see some pros try it out.

Karambit = I don't think this buff will really affect things.

mangudai = lazy balance All Mongols have at this point is mangudai and they are being nerfed again. Not sure why this is the focus.

organ gun = whatever, no opinion really. the civ will still be horrible on arabia and other land maps. I'm find with unique units being buffed, I just don't think they will change the game for the most part unless it's a unique cav archer.

Sicilians = huge buffs. Will likely be nerfed in the next patch.

Again, it's really difficult to comment without knowing the devs intentions. From an outsiders perspective, it seems like they focus on a lot of things that don't really affect the general balance, but more so things that might be annoying to play against once in a while.

 

[Spring_]

Out of curiosity: off the people that claim that balance is going down the drain or the devs have no clue what they're doing, how many changes do you actually disagree with? And how many do you agree with or are neutral towards?
During these balance discussions, people generally only focus on one or two changes that they disagree with and then claim that the overall balance is ****, but meanwhile there are a lot of changes that aren't discussed and they'll probably agree with are good changes.

I certainly don't agree with all the changes that the devs make, but if only one or two changes are bad, while the other 10-15 changes are neutral or a good change for the game, maybe the overall balance of the game is still going in the right direction?

The problem is it doesn't matter what changes they make (balance wise) because they are always trying to do the same thing, make the game play out one specific way. So even when they make some cool new unit like lancer, incan vills, or the good early de horse pathing they end up nerfing it out of the game because it breaks the narrow minded approach of seeing all 4 ages and 2 unit types with eco/defence civs. This leaves all the players who want to play counter meta or aggressive civs nerfed over and over. the game is becoming a more balanced game for mediocre players who cant think on their toes and need the game to play out in a specific order that they can follow and doesn't change minute by minute requiring new reactions and calculations. If you want a balanced game you need someone who understands aggression, defense, optimization, unit interactions, micro, game theory, costs of units value vs realistic implementation of said units, timing windows, changing meta trends. not some dudes who wana play campaigns against a computer all day. Balance requires information and an unbiased approach, devs have neither. furthermore, by the way you see updates going id say there is almost a willful spirit of refusing to listen to community members suggestions on how to fix or un"fix" certain aspects of the game.

 

[huntskiki]

The problem is it doesn't matter what changes they make (balance wise) because they are always trying to do the same thing, make the game play out one specific way. So even when they make some cool new unit like lancer, incan vills, or the good early de horse pathing they end up nerfing it out of the game because it breaks the narrow minded approach of seeing all 4 ages and 2 unit types with eco/defence civs. This leaves all the players who want to play counter meta or aggressive civs nerfed over and over. the game is becoming a more balanced game for mediocre players who cant think on their toes and need the game to play out in a specific order that they can follow and doesn't change minute by minute requiring new reactions and calculations. If you want a balanced game you need someone who understands aggression, defense, optimization, unit interactions, micro, game theory, costs of units value vs realistic implementation of said units, timing windows, changing meta trends. not some dudes who wana play campaigns against a computer all day. Balance requires information and an unbiased approach, devs have neither. furthermore, by the way you see updates going id say there is almost a willful spirit of refusing to listen to community members suggestions on how to fix or un"fix" certain aspects of the game.

Nailed it.

 

[-R-]

Capoch (Burgundians) just steamrolled Mr. Yo (Japanese) on Ara as soon as he got his eco rolling (without using Vineyards or Flemish Revolution). I wouldn't want to make too much out of such a small sample but it looks like Burgundians might have gotten too big of a boost.

 

[Zbyszek]

Out of curiosity: off the people that claim that balance is going down the drain or the devs have no clue what they're doing, how many changes do you actually disagree with? And how many do you agree with or are neutral towards?

The Cannon Galleon change is good. The nerf toi chivalry is good. The rest is either pointles or makes the game worse. So overall 2 steps forward and 4 backwards.

 

[Clemensor]

Capoch (Burgundians) just steamrolled Mr. Yo (Japanese) on Ara as soon as he got his eco rolling (without using Vineyards or Flemish Revolution). I wouldn't want to make too much out of such a small sample but it looks like Burgundians might have gotten too big of a boost.

Reminds me of Khmer farms. Catapulting them from the bottom to the very top.

 

[asdfasdfasdf1]

great changes, burgundians seem a bit busted though.

Also, i find it funny how inca one trick ponies are enraged all over reddit because they can't do their 1 strat with 1 out of 37 civilisations 11

 

[GosBanyat]

Actually such a waste of a patch, not offense for the small balance changes, but the real issue that affects playability in multiplayer was not even touch or at least acknowledge it as an issue, they announced more nasty maps so the pool and all the mess will continue the same system.

If aoe4 will use the same MM and elo, that game is already dead.

The freeze when going up was not even fixed, but look how they immediately fix bugs on campaigns, cysion and co guys, the player base of your game don't play campaigns just look at the completion rate from the last campaigns, stop focusing on things that don't affect the big number of players, please focus your efforts on multiplayer, you already have the numbers of the sale of the last dlc and it wasn't that positive compared to the number of active players, so why keep focusing into that, you are slowly killing the multiplayer, while the pro players have the attention on showmatches and tournaments in their very very small group the rest of the players and community cries on forums where nobody listen.

actually, the vast majority of players play either sp or occasionally with friends, if im not wrong

 

[Tocaraca]

Elite Steppe Lancer [Standard & Elite]: Reduced gold cost from 45 ▶ 40 gold.

This is good, probably not enough to make them seen frequently but I have had success with the unit every time I've used it (16xx ELO), I don't think it's 100% useless. Better than kts at dealing with cav archers (since they move faster and have 1 range), better vs melee units in general once massed up. People keep trying to use them in low numbers to raid eco like you do with knights, but it doesn't work coz you need a critical mass to be effective.

• The Cannon Galleon technology is no longer required to train the unit. Instead, researching Chemistry now unlocks the ability to train Cannon Galleons.

Good change, don't need to comment as other people have already summarized it pretty well

Burgundians​

CIVILIZATION
Increased the amount of food generated by Relics from 20 ▶ 30 food/minute, which now mirrors the generation rate of gold.
The food cost of economy upgrades is now reduced by 50% in addition to being available one Age earlier.

Even before this patch came out I thought this would make the civ S tier or at least A tier and it seems to be getting results today.

Flemish Militia: Reduced attack versus cavalry from 12 ▶ 8.
Flemish Militia: Reduced attack versus camels and ships from 8 ▶ 6.

This is good considering that this tech had the potential to completely flatten enemy cav civs and even infantry civs. Unit was a bit too well-rounded I think. Should still obviously beat cavalry, but due to its base stats it's also a good all-round unit that beats infantry as well. Haven't yet seen its performance vs archers though, I would imagine it's not good.

TECHNOLOGIES
Burgundian Vineyards: Now converts half of all food into gold rather than the entire stockpile.
Burgundian Vineyards: Increased the rate at which farmers generate gold by +33%.

Don't care

Cumans​

CIVILIZATION
Reduced the team bonus health granted to palisade walls from +50% ▶ +33%.

This one is sad since the civ is considered bottom 5 in 1v1. The only good thing they have is the Kipchak, and Steppe Husbandry. No idea how to balance this civ and would just prefer it wasn't in the game, its design is such garbage. Feudal TC is insanely hard to balance, feudal rams don't work coz you don't have enough resources to afford rams in feudal age (and even if you do, they're not Mangonels, they can't deal with units), castle age Capped Ram is pretty good but it's before that point where the civ struggles.

Franks​

TECHNOLOGIES
Bearded Axe: Now available in the Castle Age (was Imperial Age).
Bearded Axe: Reduced the cost to research from 400 food, 400 gold ▶ 300 food, 300 gold.
Chivalry: Now available in the Imperial Age (was Castle Age).
Chivalry: Increased the cost from 400 wood, 400 gold ▶ 600 wood, 500 gold.

Addresses their overpowered instant Cavalier + Paladin research in team games, and doesn't have too much effect for 1v1 since Paladin isn't as common there, so this is a very good change overall IMO

Incas​

CIVILIZATION
Villagers now gain the benefits of Blacksmith upgrades starting in the Castle Age.

Thank god

Malay​

CIVILIZATION
Fish Traps now provide +300% food as opposed to an unlimited amount.
Battle Elephants now cost -30% in the Castle Age and -40% in the Imperial Age.
UNITS
Karambit Warrior [Standard & Elite]: Increased attack from 6/7 ▶ 7/8.

Eles in imp are now only really gonna be locked by the insanely expensive Elite Battle Elephant tech as opposed to the cost of the unit itself, for Malay. If I see anybody playing Malay and not going for either elite battle eles or elite karambits or both I will be extremely disappointed.

Mongols​

UNITS
Mangudai [Standard & Elite]: Reduced speed from 1.45 ▶ 1.4.

This is a good change, Mangudai have been extremely oppressive vs civs like Slavs, Teutons, Franks etc for years, now their heavy cavalry will have an easier time chasing them down, although they still move slower (especially Teuton palas, and boyars). Also happy because now Mamelukes don't get outrun by them FeelsGoodMan

Portuguese​

UNITS
Organ Gun [Standard & Elite]: Secondary projectiles now consistently deal 2 damage as opposed to 1 or 2 depending on whether they hit their primary target.

I advocate for this unit to actually deal full damage for every bullet (but obvs have the base damage dramatically reduced) but this is still better than nothing. Makes a bit more of a splash damage effect, which is what it's SUPPOSED to have.

Sicilians​

CIVILIZATION
Now receive access to the Siege Onager upgrade.
UNITS
Serjeant: Increased Feudal Age melee armor from 1 ▶ 2.
Serjeant: Increased Castle Age hit points from 60 ▶ 65.
Elite Serjeant: Increased hit points from 75 ▶ 85.
Donjon: Reduced the stone cost to build from 200 ▶ 175 stone.
TECHNOLOGIES
First Crusade: As an added effect, the technology now also improves all Sicilian units’ resistance to conversion.

Donjon should probably cost 150 stone in my opinion but this is also better than nothing. Feudal age Serjeants will be superb vs other villagers, scouts, spears, m@a etc but the issue is actually producing them since they are expensive, and require forward villagers to build at least one starting Donjon.
Castle age Serjeant getting +5 HP is kind of a joke, and imperial age one getting +10 HP is kinda unnecessary since the one time the unit is already strong is imperial age once you research First Crusade and have +4 armor. But we'll see.

 

[IYIyTh]

The problem is it doesn't matter what changes they make (balance wise) because they are always trying to do the same thing, make the game play out one specific way. So even when they make some cool new unit like lancer, incan vills, or the good early de horse pathing they end up nerfing it out of the game because it breaks the narrow minded approach of seeing all 4 ages and 2 unit types with eco/defence civs. This leaves all the players who want to play counter meta or aggressive civs nerfed over and over. the game is becoming a more balanced game for mediocre players who cant think on their toes and need the game to play out in a specific order that they can follow and doesn't change minute by minute requiring new reactions and calculations. If you want a balanced game you need someone who understands aggression, defense, optimization, unit interactions, micro, game theory, costs of units value vs realistic implementation of said units, timing windows, changing meta trends. not some dudes who wana play campaigns against a computer all day. Balance requires information and an unbiased approach, devs have neither. furthermore, by the way you see updates going id say there is almost a willful spirit of refusing to listen to community members suggestions on how to fix or un"fix" certain aspects of the game.

Boom. Shaka. Laka.

 

[XDDXOXO]

They remove the Inca vill/Tower rush, because its an annoying strategy to play against, but at the same time they buff a Sicilian Donjon rush. Help me understand.

 

[Tocaraca]

They remove the Inca vill/Tower rush, because its an annoying strategy to play against, but at the same time they buff a Sicilian Donjon rush. Help me understand.

Because villfighting is considered an exploit, that is not how the game is supposed to be played (villagers are not military units and are not intended to be used as such). Serjeants, however, are intended to work as military units. Also buffing the Donjon is necessary not just to buff the Donjon rush but also to help them defensively since having to make defensive Donjons instead of defensive Watch Towers is really bad vs other trushes

 

[amazing_knight]

Like all the changes except:

- Burgundians eco buff is pretty strong. They were already okay in my opinion. Getting eco upgrades an age earlier and 50% cheaper stable is no joke, and now cheaper upgrades and that too by 50%. On top, their late-game is going to be pretty strong now that Burgundian Vineyards will generate 33% additional gold from farms so you're good even when you're out of gold. Seems pretty strong.

- Incan tower nerf is harsh, it's fine but at least give them something in return.

Rest of the changes seem good to me (a casual player/viewer).

 

[Huehuecoyotl22]

They remove the Inca vill/Tower rush, because its an annoying strategy to play against, but at the same time they buff a Sicilian Donjon rush. Help me understand.

They also first heavily nerfed towers and the Korean trush. So first it was the Korean identity, the the Incan, and now Sicilians are kind of the successor.

 

[IYIyTh]

Because villfighting is considered an exploit, that is not how the game is supposed to be played (villagers are not military units and are not intended to be used as such). Serjeants, however, are intended to work as military units. Also buffing the Donjon is necessary not just to buff the Donjon rush but also to help them defensively since having to make defensive Donjons instead of defensive Watch Towers is really bad vs other trushes

I suppose Spanish Supremacy vills are also an exploit, especially with Sappers? Flemish Revolution is just an absolute hack?

Face it, you just don't like it. It's not an exploit.

It's repeating things like this that make this sort of balance happen and in the end we get a watered down, boring version of AoE 2. Devoid of any need for game knowledge, or knowing when to make what unit on the fly, or how to adapt. Completely cynical that pro's repeat this to get alternative strategies removed from the game simply because they prefer not to play against it because it interferes with their precious meta.

Can't even be bothered to pretend that Inca's would need something in return since without it their civ has the worst combination of Civ/Team bonuses. "They have a great tech tree and interesting Castle Age unique units!" ...that are situational and with any skill you'd be dead before you can get to them....

 

[Tocaraca]

I suppose Spanish Supremacy vills are also an exploit, especially with Sappers?

Face it, you just don't like it. It's not an exploit.

These techs/bonuses primarily are meant to help villagers defensively. Sappers is a niche case for late game where you have excess villagers and need to throw away some of them for pop space.
Villagers fighting military units or buildings can be considered intentional situationally considering that villagers specifically have bonus damage vs defensive structures, however villagers fighting other VILLAGERS is not intended.
The first thought that came to my (and presumably most people's) mind from "villagers benefit from blacksmith upgrades" was that it helps them save villagers in the event of archers/xbows or scouts/knights/eagles showing up on your woodline/gold.
This is why in my opinion they should have changed the bonus to "villagers benefit from scale/chain/plate mail armor", instead of what they did this time. The attack upgrades aren't nearly as important and are only really relevant for villfighting, which encourages the noburu rush strat. Keeping the armor effect in feudal but not the attack effect would discourage the trush strategy (although it would be still be benefitted coz extra armor is helpful) but still leave their defensive capabilities the same.

 

[Nicov]

Oh god please just bring the inca rush back. I would have never imagined that removing the dumbest civ bonus in the game would lead to someone ranting over it for an entire month 11

 

[IYIyTh]

These techs/bonuses primarily are meant to help villagers defensively. Sappers is a niche case for late game where you have excess villagers and need to throw away some of them for pop space.
Villagers fighting military units or buildings can be considered intentional situationally considering that villagers specifically have bonus damage vs defensive structures, however villagers fighting other VILLAGERS is not intended.
The first thought that came to my (and presumably most people's) mind from "villagers benefit from blacksmith upgrades" was that it helps them save villagers in the event of archers/xbows or scouts/knights/eagles showing up on your woodline/gold.
This is why in my opinion they should have changed the bonus to "villagers benefit from scale/chain/plate mail armor", instead of what they did this time. The attack upgrades aren't nearly as important and are only really relevant for villfighting, which encourages the noburu rush strat. Keeping the armor effect in feudal but not the attack effect would discourage the trush strategy (although it would be still be benefitted coz extra armor is helpful) but still leave their defensive capabilities the same.

What are you talking about? Supremacy is absolutely an offensive tech.

Perhaps step out of the meta and you might uncover some nuance, to include diverse strategies -- and fun within age of empires 2. Do it while you still can!

 

[IYIyTh]

Oh god please just bring the inca rush back. I would have never imagined that removing the dumbest civ bonus in the game would lead to someone ranting over it for an entire month 11

These forums, watch some streams and aoe2reddit -- it's not just one person.

Not everyone agrees with you on removing it. Vehemently not on not giving them anything back.