TheMadCADer
Lokalo
How are we supposed to complain about and look down on civ pickers if we deliberately allow multiple civs to be completely unviable on the most popular map?
Today's birthdays
Biggest AOE 2 DE PUP changes
-
Thread starter
hellhammer
- Start date
How are we supposed to complain about and look down on civ pickers if we deliberately allow multiple civs to be completely unviable on the most popular map?
I've said it before and will say it again, a unit can only be useful if it's strong in at least one of the following AoE2 aspects (preferably more than one):
1. Fast (ie. knights)
2. Ranged (ie. xbows)
3. Tanky (ie. knights again)
4. Cheap (ie xbows again)
5. Production rate (neither knights or xbows are significantly behind infantry in this aspect)
That's why knights & xbows dominate the meta. They're the best option in too many key aspects of the game. To put it plainly infantry sucks at every of the above aspects.
In fact Goths prove that if you buff 3 of those aspects: cost, production rate and tankyness (Huskarl), all of a sudden infantry is viable.
I think that if they want a real buff to infantry it has to mirror history and why infantry was popular in historical battles. And here's why: mainly because infantry was:
1. cheap
2. Easy to assemble (ie. production rate)
3. Flexible (ie. able to help with siege, or fire arrows if need be)
In order to mirror history the game should reduce the cost (give all civs automatic supplies), increase production rate by like 10% and give arson to all civs for free too.
Infantry can never match the speed and tankyness of knights nor the ranged nature of xbows. But if they mass sooner than either of those and just smash down enemy buildings, then suddenly they're a force to be reckoned with.
1. Fast (ie. knights)
2. Ranged (ie. xbows)
3. Tanky (ie. knights again)
4. Cheap (ie xbows again)
5. Production rate (neither knights or xbows are significantly behind infantry in this aspect)
That's why knights & xbows dominate the meta. They're the best option in too many key aspects of the game. To put it plainly infantry sucks at every of the above aspects.
In fact Goths prove that if you buff 3 of those aspects: cost, production rate and tankyness (Huskarl), all of a sudden infantry is viable.
I think that if they want a real buff to infantry it has to mirror history and why infantry was popular in historical battles. And here's why: mainly because infantry was:
1. cheap
2. Easy to assemble (ie. production rate)
3. Flexible (ie. able to help with siege, or fire arrows if need be)
In order to mirror history the game should reduce the cost (give all civs automatic supplies), increase production rate by like 10% and give arson to all civs for free too.
Infantry can never match the speed and tankyness of knights nor the ranged nature of xbows. But if they mass sooner than either of those and just smash down enemy buildings, then suddenly they're a force to be reckoned with.
Well my prediction would be that maybe few civs like celts might start using swordsmen, but swordsmen will be still crap in castle age, maybe in some tournament maps where they fight for fish a lot, like tatoh did with dravidians a lot of swordsmen in NAC4 and it was really meh, with +1 pierce armor might be way better in such situation. But now champs for some civs should be really good in imp. So for most games probably wont change much if we are talking about arabia.
USC_kiky
Have you been living under a rock? Infantry can already garrison in siege towers and each garrisoned infantry unit increases the movement speed of the siege tower
Someone has never died to Malian siege tower longswords 111
How about a completely different approach? Since the devs are already changing 20 year old balance, why not the following?
- Introduce a light and heavy mode to the Swordsmen line (inspired by aoe4)
- One of the two options :
1) Either let them switch between the modes, like as in the case of the Ratha (Fan)
2) Or make two different versions available in the Barracks (Not a Huge Fan)
Stats of the Light Version
- As fast as the spear, but without the cav bonus damage
- Low armor (can work different values for melee and pierce to balance)
- Lesser attack (so they do not simply chase units and melt them)
Uses :
- Better in catching upto xbows. But they still melt to a huge ball firing at them
- Extremely better utility vs Monks and Siege, one of the major counters to Infantry currently. Right now infantry suck so much because they just die to mangonel attack grounds or monk conversions in low numbers
- Not useful vs Knights head on, but light version can be used to cover some distance vs them and not get completely outplayed due to lack of mobility
- A somewhat better counter to Skirms and Pikes than they are currently. Still die big time to Hussar but thats where the Heavy version comes in
Stats of the Heavy Version
- As slow as a Serjeant (balanced accordingly)
- More armor (an work different values for melee and pierce to balance)
- More attack (just enough base attack to trade somewhat even vs Kts and win vs Hussars convincingly)
Uses :
- Better in tanking xbow arrows, forcing the xbow player to micro backwards or preserve some distance
- Back to how they are currently vs Monks and Siege. Die to Attack ground, get's easily converted
- Useful vs knights head on, as they trade somewhat evenly. But being so slow means they can never catch up to knights, even if switched to light mode
- Wins Hussar head on, very effectively. This is the balance we need vs the OP Hussar spam in imp. Still super slow so need to constantly switch modes costing micro
- Harder counter to Skirms and Pikes, especially in Imp due to more armor. However, keep in mind, in Imperial age we also have the Hand Cannon tech particularly vs this version.
TLDR;
The Light version is essentially a Karambit. It's not as fast and cheap though, so it will still die accordingly, but fixes the issues vs monks-siege and fixes the mobility issue. You do not want to use this mode to fight head on in melee engagements. And vs Ranged, you cannot abuse "running at them" tactic as they will melt due to low armor.
The Heavy version is essentially a Serjeant. It's even slower, so you need to constantly switch between modes to make use of mobility. And in Heavy version, it trades so much better vs everything, especially Hussars and Skirm/Pikes, as they are meant to.
Of course this is a major game changing idea, but just something the devs can look into. Not saying they should completely implement this, but the main goal is to bring to everyone's attention the high level ideas of what is fundamentally missing in the unit.
- As it stands, Longswords die to almost everything way too easily (monks, siege, hussar),
- They do not provide the mobility that can help turn the game around via raiding or dictate the pace of the game/dictate where favorable fights can happen
- They do not provide the tankiness/performance to combat meta units like xbows/kts
- Introduce a light and heavy mode to the Swordsmen line (inspired by aoe4)
- One of the two options :
1) Either let them switch between the modes, like as in the case of the Ratha (Fan)
2) Or make two different versions available in the Barracks (Not a Huge Fan)
Stats of the Light Version
- As fast as the spear, but without the cav bonus damage
- Low armor (can work different values for melee and pierce to balance)
- Lesser attack (so they do not simply chase units and melt them)
Uses :
- Better in catching upto xbows. But they still melt to a huge ball firing at them
- Extremely better utility vs Monks and Siege, one of the major counters to Infantry currently. Right now infantry suck so much because they just die to mangonel attack grounds or monk conversions in low numbers
- Not useful vs Knights head on, but light version can be used to cover some distance vs them and not get completely outplayed due to lack of mobility
- A somewhat better counter to Skirms and Pikes than they are currently. Still die big time to Hussar but thats where the Heavy version comes in
Stats of the Heavy Version
- As slow as a Serjeant (balanced accordingly)
- More armor (an work different values for melee and pierce to balance)
- More attack (just enough base attack to trade somewhat even vs Kts and win vs Hussars convincingly)
Uses :
- Better in tanking xbow arrows, forcing the xbow player to micro backwards or preserve some distance
- Back to how they are currently vs Monks and Siege. Die to Attack ground, get's easily converted
- Useful vs knights head on, as they trade somewhat evenly. But being so slow means they can never catch up to knights, even if switched to light mode
- Wins Hussar head on, very effectively. This is the balance we need vs the OP Hussar spam in imp. Still super slow so need to constantly switch modes costing micro
- Harder counter to Skirms and Pikes, especially in Imp due to more armor. However, keep in mind, in Imperial age we also have the Hand Cannon tech particularly vs this version.
TLDR;
The Light version is essentially a Karambit. It's not as fast and cheap though, so it will still die accordingly, but fixes the issues vs monks-siege and fixes the mobility issue. You do not want to use this mode to fight head on in melee engagements. And vs Ranged, you cannot abuse "running at them" tactic as they will melt due to low armor.
The Heavy version is essentially a Serjeant. It's even slower, so you need to constantly switch between modes to make use of mobility. And in Heavy version, it trades so much better vs everything, especially Hussars and Skirm/Pikes, as they are meant to.
Of course this is a major game changing idea, but just something the devs can look into. Not saying they should completely implement this, but the main goal is to bring to everyone's attention the high level ideas of what is fundamentally missing in the unit.
- As it stands, Longswords die to almost everything way too easily (monks, siege, hussar),
- They do not provide the mobility that can help turn the game around via raiding or dictate the pace of the game/dictate where favorable fights can happen
- They do not provide the tankiness/performance to combat meta units like xbows/kts
i am tired of the constant changes to parts of the game that I was used to for twenty years (yes, including DE time, because many civs didn't change much). I don't really like them buffing or nerfing civilizations because they tend to force people to play this civilization a certain way the devs want you and not how players want. I used to be able to drop the game for a year and come back and it was the same, now I have to relearn things each time and get really annoyed at certain things (nomad: China/Mayan, Korean trush, etc.). i dont hate all change, e.g. trackings removal is fine with me. to be honest im still a little annoyed at halberdier, thumb ring and bloodlines but that's me being weird, i dont actually reocmmend anyone go back to AOK lol, just wanted that for emphasis that I'm almost on the extreme i guess...
Also the second unique tech for everyone was a ok gimmick back when they made FE but with 42 civilizations it is a disaster. There are too many technologies in the game.
also also they used to think the same way, didn't they? at least with FE i thought it felt like AOC didn't change too much? never anything like changing china start and making dark age more homogenous across all civilizations, the second unique techs weren't too bad in RM because they were gatekeeped behind castle (DM was a different story), it still felt like AOC but with new civs, technologies, some small balance changes and a new mechanic (weak buildings in dark age)
no seriously why are they making dark age so homogeneous
Also the second unique tech for everyone was a ok gimmick back when they made FE but with 42 civilizations it is a disaster. There are too many technologies in the game.
also also they used to think the same way, didn't they? at least with FE i thought it felt like AOC didn't change too much? never anything like changing china start and making dark age more homogenous across all civilizations, the second unique techs weren't too bad in RM because they were gatekeeped behind castle (DM was a different story), it still felt like AOC but with new civs, technologies, some small balance changes and a new mechanic (weak buildings in dark age)
no seriously why are they making dark age so homogeneous
Last edited:
tbh the changes are for competitive players, not casual players.
if it wasn't for the competitive players, the game likely would have been dead and buried long ago.
With berbers changed, goths are going to be the lame civ now, send a villager kill boar, deers, make fwd barrack and militia spam since your boars provide more food, the devs are just making the civ more annoying rather than versatile or have you all forgot when goths had the big discount starting in dark age for the 1st year of DE.
Incas are still the same disaster, they are powerless, food discount for a civ that doesn't use heavy food units is a waste unlike gurjaras, that is like giving turks cheap spears and skirmishers.
Britons are going to be the same after the patch, cause that 10% is better than nothing and that bonus stacks badly for team games, so the poorly attempt from the devs to remove britons dominance on team games has already failed.
Vikings are going to be back at top 5 civ ranking because why not, it wasn't enough for them to be at the top since age of kings 24 years ago.
Steppe lancer is going to be more used but it might buff quite a lot mongols in castle age for no reason, also it might be dangerous for a cuman fully boomed on feudal age and cumans are already a very powerful civ if not the best for mass production when hitting castle age.
Incas are still the same disaster, they are powerless, food discount for a civ that doesn't use heavy food units is a waste unlike gurjaras, that is like giving turks cheap spears and skirmishers.
Britons are going to be the same after the patch, cause that 10% is better than nothing and that bonus stacks badly for team games, so the poorly attempt from the devs to remove britons dominance on team games has already failed.
Vikings are going to be back at top 5 civ ranking because why not, it wasn't enough for them to be at the top since age of kings 24 years ago.
Steppe lancer is going to be more used but it might buff quite a lot mongols in castle age for no reason, also it might be dangerous for a cuman fully boomed on feudal age and cumans are already a very powerful civ if not the best for mass production when hitting castle age.
How are Mongols getting buffed in castle age?
The last time I checked, Elite Steppe Lancer is an Imperial Age upgrade, and Mongols don't get the last cav armor, so they are the worst against archers anyway 11
Why let facts get in the way of a good story
I'm trying to find a way to blame the devs for something, but it makes it hard when they don't put their secret master plan in the patch notes!
Because their steppe lancer has more HP and now it will have the same base PA armor as a knight, for lower the gold cost, i saw the prime of the steppe lancers and they were melting everything back then, now mongols have a third option on their arsenal which wasn't necessary.
So the logic would be to add more laming civs, so goths wouldn't be a first option "gotcha". In my eyes they finally will have proper eco boost and might be decent civ in arabia.
Because Incas don't have FU halbs and skirms and instead 60 food kamauyk costing 46food in imp and 49 in castle age is not cheaper by your math, right. Not to mention that even turks sometimes do skirms in feudal, but sure, that's a useless bonus. I heard many people worried it might be too OP and somehow you say it will be useless, so far so good.
Were they? I mean I wasn't around for like 15 years, but at zone times I can;t remember anyone playing vikings in land maps. Don't think many people back then valued wheelbarrow much either, though here I might be wrong, idk, I remember just huns, mongols, mayans, aztecs mainly. Unless we are talking about water, then sure, but those changes nerf them on water a bit as I understand to be as strong as now they will have to grab extra upgrade. But yes, Vikings might be really good now again, not sure why it's bad though. I mean they indeed might be too good, who knows, will have to see, I'm more afraid of having infantry buffs together with arb buff. but I'm not looking into every change as a negative change, happy to see some changes as vikings were super akward besides their good eco.
So we might see unit bit more often which was never done(i mean elite version)? Yeah, disaster. Although talking about how this unit will be OP and not mentioning tatars which already have extra pierce armor with silk armor is interesting(unless they will remove silk armor effect on them, but didn't hear about any changes on it).
That's clearly a bait post or the one typing it seems high. Incas = disaster is jokes because Incas probably overtakes Aztecs and potentially Mayans on certain maps where you can get into all-in Eagles. Vikings getting 11 attack on their arbs does not make a difference because you need a castle and an expensive UT for that. So its the same as getting to Elite Rattans or Elite Longbows which have 7+4 attack as well, and by the time you get there, Enemy will already have a counter prepared. Onagers are still a decent counter to viking arbs and infantry to some extent.
They won't have the same pierce armor in castle age (because the change only applies to elite steppe lancers, which still aren't available in castle age) and Mongols don't get plate barding armor, so they will have 2 less pierce armor than a similarly upgraded knight line unit.
So to recap:
Absolutely zero change to Mongols in castle age whatsoever
Small change to an *imperial age* unit which won't see much use given the lack of final armor upgrade
HongeyKongNot to mention this is Mongols. That 900 food and 550 gold for the elite upgrade would pay for most of the cost of elite mangudai instead, and there's no question which of those is preferable.
If you are teching elite steppe lancer as mongols, you're either so far ahead that your unit choice doesn't matter, or you are actively throwing
Incas and goths I can see (but you're still gonna get wrecked by halbs?)
I'd much rather have camel vs berbers
Not sure what they give you vs sicilians? If it's an anti-cavalier play... why not camel?
vs Viet wouldn't you much rather have onager or siege ram?
Vossnyeah I'm guessing the steppies were for cavalier, and camels are better by far for that role.
Time
Your time
G M T
Your zone
Calendar
Events
AoE Live-Streams
Voobly Top 5 RM 1v1
MUHAMMEDD DE Top 5 RM 1v1
Hera 2644
_Barles_ 2639
Villese 2617
GL.TheViper 2602
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 2594
Voobly Top 5 RM Team Game
DE Top 5 RM Teamgame
2583
痛大师 2245
HGB_AOE 2181
chaos_2_win 2009
正义的威震天 2008
Voobly Top 5 DM 1v1
Voobly Top 5 DM Teamgame
DE Top 5 Empire Wars 1v1
[aM]_MbL40C_ 2053
ACCM |AOEbuilds.com 2031
Hera 1999
Yo 1964
CDUB.dogao 1935
DE Top 5 Empire Wars TG
mYi.Sitaux 1752
__BadBoy__ 1726
ELEOS | ElNoniro 1690
Lauth3 1687
BlackRock 1668
