AOE-HD Behold the true power of "Obsidian arrows"!!!

UnknownIcewind

New Member
Feb 18, 2013
11
0
0
25
#1
Can Skirmishers destroy a Castle?

Well, with "Obsidian arrows" researched you only need 50.

Lets see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30dZ7m2F-_8

It works the same way with archers or plumed archers, but skirmishers don't cost gold.

And at post-imperial it works too, but you will need a few more archers if the enemy has Hoardings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWtwwa3KsuI

Other facts:

- 25 Archers/Skirmishers with "Obsidian arrows" destroy a stone wall faster than a Ram.
- With 30, you can destroy a FU Bombard Tower pretty fast.
- The bonus armor that buildings receive from masonry and architecture is ignored by archers with "obsidian arrows", they do 4 damage against buildings regardless if they have or not those techs.
 

UnknownLukeMam

New Member
Oct 21, 2011
236
0
0
#5
It'll be interesting to see how Obsidian Arrows would change the metaplay. At the moment it sounds like a very strong tech - Mayans can just bust through the gates and destroy castles with skirmishers alone. No need for rams or trebuchets. This tech may put Mayans up a few notches in trash wars.
 

SlovakiaIvIaximus

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2010
3,336
60
63
#6
Obsidian arrows? What the hell ... 11 Obsidian was used in stone age and it definitely is not so usefull as metal arrowheads. :smile:
 
Jan 27, 2012
300
0
0
28
Californication
#7
Obsidian arrows? What the hell ... 11 Obsidian was used in stone age and it definitely is not so usefull as metal arrowheads. :smile:
Obsidian was used by the Aztecs and Mayans on their weapons. Obsidian is sharper than metal but is brittle and loses it's edge quickly so it's actually very useful for "one-time" use weapons like arrows.

Aztecs would put obsidian shards into their wooden clubs and called them macuahuitls. The Spanish Conquistadors said that a macehuitl could decapitate horses in one swing.

Obsidian Arrows doesn't have a whole lot to do with archers razing buildings but there wasn't anything else to name it.
 

Unknowncontra1

New Member
Dec 24, 2012
12
0
0
#8
Obsidian arrows? What the hell ... 11 Obsidian was used in stone age and it definitely is not so usefull as metal arrowheads. :smile:
Obsidian was used by the Aztecs and Mayans on their weapons. Obsidian is sharper than metal but is brittle and loses it's edge quickly so it's actually very useful for "one-time" use weapons like arrows.

Aztecs would put obsidian shards into their wooden clubs and called them macuahuitls. The Spanish Conquistadors said that a macehuitl could decapitate horses in one swing.

Obsidian Arrows doesn't have a whole lot to do with archers razing buildings but there wasn't anything else to name it.
You are talking out of your ass, any metal or hard stone can be made "one-time" sharp. The only reason they were used by the Aztecs is because they were a stone age civilization who had almost no knowledge of metallurgy.
 

SpainMoneimon

Active Member
Nov 20, 2011
412
0
31
#9
Normal skirmisher even without +1 killing a castle... god, and u asking why there is no players in voobly playing AOFE. I was so excited about AOFE before it came out, becouse im a bit bored of the hun whoring every 1x1 game, but once AOFE were out and I played it, i found that i didnt like; new civs, new "balance" things... the only one i liked was BL for japanese, and it is becouse i like japa as a civ 11. Even fixing a lot of bugs, i find wrong a lot of decisions they made. Thats my opinion, and looking at the number player u can see in voobly playing AOFE, there are more people thinking like this, or something similar.
 
Jan 27, 2012
300
0
0
28
Californication
#10
You are talking out of your ass, any metal or hard stone can be made "one-time" sharp. The only reason they were used by the Aztecs is because they were a stone age civilization who had almost no knowledge of metallurgy.
I'm not talking out of my ass, I'm talking from a position backed by research. Just go and peruse wikipedia for 5 minutes and maybe you'll learn something.

Solid objects have many attributes such as hardness, brittleness, strength, ductilty, etc. Obsidian is very brittle but it's much sharper than steel. It can't hold an edge. That's why it would make more sense for an arrow that you're going to fire at a long range and not get back any time soon.

The Aztecs were expert gold metallurgists. They didn't use iron or steel because using it sucked in that part of the world. Spanish Conquistadors would give up their steel armor in the Mesoamerican rain forests because it as humid and hot as hell, and their armor would just rust.

Moneimon said:
Normal skirmisher even without +1 killing a castle... god, and u asking why there is no players in voobly playing AOFE. I was so excited about AOFE before it came out, becouse im a bit bored of the hun whoring every 1x1 game, but once AOFE were out and I played it, i found that i didnt like; new civs, new "balance" things... the only one i liked was BL for japanese, and it is becouse i like japa as a civ 11. Even fixing a lot of bugs, i find wrong a lot of decisions they made. Thats my opinion, and looking at the number player u can see in voobly playing AOFE, there are more people thinking like this, or something similar.
That Castle doesn't have Masonry, he used like 50 Skirmishers so that's like 3000 resources vs the Castle's 650 resources, AND you have to build your own Castle and research the UT first so you're already spending way more to have a Castle killing Skirmisher corp. What's your problem?
 

SlovakiaIvIaximus

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2010
3,336
60
63
#11
Obsidian arrows? What the hell ... 11 Obsidian was used in stone age and it definitely is not so usefull as metal arrowheads. :smile:
Obsidian was used by the Aztecs and Mayans on their weapons. Obsidian is sharper than metal but is brittle and loses it's edge quickly so it's actually very useful for "one-time" use weapons like arrows.

Aztecs would put obsidian shards into their wooden clubs and called them macuahuitls. The Spanish Conquistadors said that a macehuitl could decapitate horses in one swing.

Obsidian Arrows doesn't have a whole lot to do with archers razing buildings but there wasn't anything else to name it.
Whoa I thought it is about European civs. :| Anyway Obsidian could be really sharp if carefully flintknapped (or whatever english word for that is 11) but it still is pretty fragile. I did some flintmaking myself and it is really time consumpting and hard to do, may be that I lack exp thou.
 

Unknowncontra1

New Member
Dec 24, 2012
12
0
0
#12
I'm not talking out of my ass, I'm talking from a position backed by research. Just go and peruse wikipedia for 5 minutes and maybe you'll learn something.

Solid objects have many attributes such as hardness, brittleness, strength, ductilty, etc. Obsidian is very brittle but it's much sharper than steel. It can't hold an edge. That's why it would make more sense for an arrow that you're going to fire at a long range and not get back any time soon.

The Aztecs were expert gold metallurgists. They didn't use iron or steel because using it sucked in that part of the world. Spanish Conquistadors would give up their steel armor in the Mesoamerican rain forests because it as humid and hot as hell, and their armor would just rust.
I'm sorry but reading wikipedia articles does not make you an expert. It wasn't that steel "sucked" and obsidian was better, they just didn't know how to use metals in the way that more advanced civilizations did.
 

UnknownCaelir

New Member
May 21, 2012
1,099
0
0
#13
I'm sorry but reading wikipedia articles does not make you an expert. It wasn't that steel "sucked" and obsidian was better, they just didn't know how to use metals in the way that more advanced civilizations did.
I wouldn't compare any civ with each other based on metallurgy and make a statement about advancement. In fact, I would never state there is such a thing as advanced civs, because it implies that there is a necessary road to follow by all civilizations.

Meso- and South-American civilizations had no practical use for metals. They domesticated plants which had such an inherent high calory value that there was no demographic pressure to expand the agriculture extensively. The much easier available stones did the daily tasks just as well. Most of those civs knew bronze and gold metallurgy though. In contrast with other parts of the world, bronze was just as gold a sign of wealth and prestige. Very few - or even none - of the excavated pre-Columbian American objects show a purely practical use.

Outside America bronze was used for practical reasons. It was created en masse and was casted in multiple everyday objects. Iron objects already existed in this period, but was still experimental and just as in America the metal served as signs of wealth. The real transition from bronze to iron was partly triggered by a crisis: deforestation, tin shortages and demographic pressure. The former two were essential in creating bronze and bronze objects were used as everyday objects which links this problem to the latter problem. Iron was found to be the solution, since it wasn't so dependent on tin and fit for much harder work it allowed for extensive and intensive expansion of agriculture.

Thus, due to the nature of their agriculture the pre-Columbian Americans had no incentive to innovate the metallurgy. Easily available and easily shapeable metals (gold and copper) served only as prestige objects, so the production level never rose to the heights of those in other parts of the world where those metals served as practical objects. For the everyday life in pre-Columbian America the cheaper stone objects served just as well as bronze objects.
 
Jan 27, 2012
300
0
0
28
Californication
#14
I'm sorry but reading wikipedia articles does not make you an expert. It wasn't that steel "sucked" and obsidian was better, they just didn't know how to use metals in the way that more advanced civilizations did.
I never said I was an expert, I'm saying that your ignorance is extremely easy to cure.

Yes steel "sucked" in that part of the world, thank you for conveniently leaving that part out. Iron rusts in humid climates. Steel doesn't suck objectively, it has a huge advantage in mass production. However, there's tons of obsidian in Mesoamerica. The earliest metalworkers there would have tried to use copper tools (the Aztecs had copper) and deemed them inferior to the obsidian that's all over the place and never advanced them.

"Advanced" is a pretty weird term to throw around, but if you're comparing the Aztecs to European civs lol you've got another thing coming.

Tenochtitlan was probably the biggest city in the world at the time, it actually had indoor plumbing, civic systems for keeping their cities clean, mandatory education, farms that yielded way more crops than what anybody else had except for the Chinese, not to mention the sheer engineering challenge of constructing a big ass city with huge stone monuments and aqueducts on a grid on a bunch of dirt on a lake without the help of draft animals or thus without the wheel.

The Aztecs were not as advanced as Europeans in warfare and maritime exploration, and that's about it.
 

Unknowncontra1

New Member
Dec 24, 2012
12
0
0
#15
I never said I was an expert, I'm saying that your ignorance is extremely easy to cure.

Yes steel "sucked" in that part of the world, thank you for conveniently leaving that part out. Iron rusts in humid climates. Steel doesn't suck objectively, it has a huge advantage in mass production. However, there's tons of obsidian in Mesoamerica. The earliest metalworkers there would have tried to use copper tools (the Aztecs had copper) and deemed them inferior to the obsidian that's all over the place and never advanced them.

"Advanced" is a pretty weird term to throw around, but if you're comparing the Aztecs to European civs lol you've got another thing coming.

Tenochtitlan was probably the biggest city in the world at the time, it actually had indoor plumbing, civic systems for keeping their cities clean, mandatory education, farms that yielded way more crops than what anybody else had except for the Chinese, not to mention the sheer engineering challenge of constructing a big ass city with huge stone monuments and aqueducts on a grid on a bunch of dirt on a lake without the help of draft animals or thus without the wheel.

The Aztecs were not as advanced as Europeans in warfare and maritime exploration, and that's about it.
Metals are always going to better than stone when used as weapons no matter what spin you try to put on it, they used stone because they were a stone age civilization. Eurasian civilization was millennia's more advanced than Mesoamerican civilization in almost every single way.


Their primitive farming techniques were in no way greater than European farming, centralising everything doesn't make it better, they didn't even have wheels or ploughs.


Europeans didn't have many large cities because as you already mentioned we didn't live in huge cities, we were spread out across the continents mostly in towns, villagers and other small settlements until relatively recently, our cathedrals and palaces were much greater accomplishments than some stepped pyramids (common among all primitive civilizations) and aqueducts (which we have been using in our larger cities long before Tenochtitlan was founded).


I understand you think the Aztecs are cool and want to fight their corner but they were by the very definition of the term; a stone age society.
 

UnknownCaelir

New Member
May 21, 2012
1,099
0
0
#16
Their primitive farming techniques were in no way greater than European farming, centralising everything doesn't make it better, they didn't even have wheels or ploughs.
Have you ready anything of my post :tongue: They did not need those farming thechniques, their plants were superior in yielding more calories per m². They did not need metal, so yes if you want you can call it a stone civlization. Yet this doesn't say anything about advancement (again, I think the question about advancement is a faulted one).

The fact that tenochtitlan housed 200 000 people shows that this civilization was complex, no matter what metallurgy they achieved. Is it more advanced than Europe? Totally wrong question and will only derail the original topic:

Icewind showed how obsidian arrow can work out in a game. I loved how skirms were able to bring down a castle :D (not that it was a realistic situation, but still).
 
Dec 25, 2012
112
0
16
64
www.thehannies.com
#17
Tenochtitlan was probably the biggest city in the world at the time, it actually had indoor plumbing, civic systems for keeping their cities clean, mandatory education, farms that yielded way more crops than what anybody else had except for the Chinese, not to mention the sheer engineering challenge of constructing a big ass city with huge stone monuments and aqueducts on a grid on a bunch of dirt on a lake without the help of draft animals or thus without the wheel.

.
Living in a big ass city is the reason Aztec women didn't wear pants. :wink:
 

UnknownREVOFEV

New Member
Feb 8, 2013
26
0
0
#18
Jan 29, 2013
170
0
0
#21
What's the deal with people getting worked up on skirms having a bonus vs buildings? That scenario would never happen in a real game. These skirms would prolly be able to bust through a palisade or a house to get in to do some harass, but that's it. That tech is too expensive and late for that stage of the game (feudal, early castle) anyway. The opponent would thank you if ur archers target his castle instead of his vils and army. Cuz then he can clean up with a mang or two.

Saracens can do the same theoretically with their foot archers, skirms and CAs. I don't see anyone being scared of these Saracen bonuses. Mayan and Huns have lethal archers and CA bonuses while Saracens are stuck with weirdo stuff. I don't see anyone going: "OMG, these OP Sara CAs/archers are gonna bust through my palisades".
 
Jan 27, 2012
300
0
0
28
Californication
#22
Metals are always going to better than stone when used as weapons no matter what spin you try to put on it,
Jesus Christ, I'm not putting any kind of spin on it. You clearly don't understand: obsidian is HARDER than most metals, at least it's harder than any thing available at the time. That's a scientific fact. Obsidian is harder for the same reason diamond is the hardest material on the planet but easily broken to bits. Hardness, brittleness, ductility, and all that are completely different properties.

When it comes to the "why," no matter what cheapness overcomes most other advantages when it comes to anything, food, building materials, etc. That's why nobody made buildings out of iron. That would have been alot better in a siege wouldn't it? But it was still too costly up until the Industrial Revolution…

Their primitive farming techniques were in no way greater than European farming, centralising everything doesn't make it better, they didn't even have wheels or ploughs.
You clearly have no idea what"advanced" means. What's the point of farming? To feed a group of people. Who cares what techniques somebody uses as long as it feeds alot of them? You can call Aztec farming techniques "primitive" but I'll gladly take higher yields per plot of land with sticks and mud than something "flashy" that takes way more work. European farming was very inefficient at the time.

They didn't have wheels and plows because they didn't have donkeys or horses or cattle. That further shows how
"advanced" they were, doesn't it?

Europeans didn't have many large cities because as you already mentioned we didn't live in huge cities, we were spread out across the continents mostly in towns, villagers and other small settlements until relatively recently,
And? Europeans still tried to create giant cities and live in them. Constantinople? London?

You don't understand something. The "Aztecs" were a city-state, like Genoa or Venice. They didn't actively go out and colonize their "empire." All of the civilizations in Mesoamerica lived in cities, towns, and villages spread out across Central Mexico. They weren't as spread out as Europeans because they lacked efficient transportation.

our cathedrals and palaces were much greater accomplishments than some stepped pyramids (common among all primitive civilizations)
Very subjective. "Your" ancestors at the time didn't think that. Societies such as the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, French, Spanish, among others would visit the pyramids and look at them in awe and wonder how they were built. They couldn't replicate them.

and aqueducts (which we have been using in our larger cities long before Tenochtitlan was founded).
That's great but Europeans had the advantage of pack animals. Mesoamericans were building aqueducts since Roman times, too. I'm saying the Aztecs had to build that aqueducts on a lake without much stable ground and using only their own hands.

Accomplishing similar feats to Europeans like that in more challenging conditions makes them more advanced.

I understand you think the Aztecs are cool and want to fight their corner but they were by the very definition of the term; a stone age society.
No, I think you're dumb because you have no idea how minerals work.
 

UnknownCaelir

New Member
May 21, 2012
1,099
0
0
#23
I believe most would agree that Aztecs had their own wonderfull achievements, so let us not dwell on purely provocative statements and return the discussion to the original topic.

Let us pick up discussion from predator's reaction:

predator145 said:
What's the deal with people getting worked up on skirms having a bonus vs buildings? That scenario would never happen in a real game. These skirms would prolly be able to bust through a palisade or a house to get in to do some harass, but that's it. That tech is too expensive and late for that stage of the game (feudal, early castle) anyway. The opponent would thank you if ur archers target his castle instead of his vils and army. Cuz then he can clean up with a mang or two.

Saracens can do the same theoretically with their foot archers, skirms and CAs. I don't see anyone being scared of these Saracen bonuses. Mayan and Huns have lethal archers and CA bonuses while Saracens are stuck with weirdo stuff. I don't see anyone going: "OMG, these OP Sara CAs/archers are gonna bust through my palisades".
Do you see any other use of the tech? Would you agree that it won't be usable in a real game?
 

Time

Your time
G M T
Your zone

Upcoming Events

Road from 1.6k to 2k
Thursday 11:00 (GMT +02:00)
Daut's Road to 2k
LotH2 - Quarterfinals
Thursday 19:00 (GMT +02:00)
MbL vs Spaden
ECL Europe East 4v4
Saturday 16:00 (GMT +02:00)
ECL Europe East 4v4 Finals
Weekend Smackdown
Sunday 16:00 (GMT +02:00)
1 day event 1v1 on Yucatan

Age Of Empires On Twitch

There are in total 13 streamers online
Click here for details
Age of Empires II 290 viewers
Age of Empires 233 viewers
Age of Empires II 76 viewers
Age of Empires II 25 viewers
Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties 24 viewers