Imagine more op civs in some maps then...Are we really defending AOC balance? 11 this's so mind-boggling... Huns and Aztecs are *bleep* op.
Imagine more op civs in some maps then...Are we really defending AOC balance? 11 this's so mind-boggling... Huns and Aztecs are *bleep* op.
Till this moment in time the most OP expansion in the Game is The Conquerors. Mayans, Aztecs, Hunts are the top three 1v1 civilizations while Spanish is top choice for team games. Only Koreans lag behind but they have treir strengths in post_Imperial game as well.
Most Forgotten civs needed few buffs to get competative while African Kingdom civs got much needed nerfes. What Cysion said on releasing the Rajas is that new civs may be a little OP at first but they will be nurfed . They wanted to have these civs find their way of playing before rebancing. The same process happened with AK civs and is going to happen with the Rajas. But still even as they are now they are not as much OP as the Conq civs.
Are we really defending AOC balance? 11 this's so mind-boggling... Huns and Aztecs are *bleep* op.
Indeed, they release new civilizations but in 4 years they where not able to fix how the units are moving. I never seen units moving like this in any RTS game ... ever. I cannot even understand how they can ask money for a game that is forever in beta stage.The HD version has been released in April, 2013, so it's almost fu.cking 4 years and the game is still not playable.
Huns dont have bad trash wtf :lol:
Huns trash is one of the best in game... Only lacking 2 upgrades for all 3 units is pretty amazing. Only Spanish have totally fully upgraded.Huns dont have bad trash wtf :lol:
They lack ring archer armour and plate mail armour. This means their skirmishers and halberdiers die to enemy skirmishers in two hits less, which is very noticeable. They also lack onagers and champions, which are two of the main counters to trash. This makes halberdiers and siege rams backed up by elite skirmishers very difficult for them to deal with in the late game. On top of that, the late game is where the Hunnic housing bonus doesn't have an impact anymore. When the Huns run out of gold, they're in trouble.
You're funny :lol:They lack ring archer armour and plate mail armour. This means their skirmishers and halberdiers die to enemy skirmishers in two hits less, which is very noticeable. They also lack onagers and champions, which are two of the main counters to trash. This makes halberdiers and siege rams backed up by elite skirmishers very difficult for them to deal with in the late game. On top of that, the late game is where the Hunnic housing bonus doesn't have an impact anymore. When the Huns run out of gold, they're in trouble.
This. Especially because it was not a hard thing to do, they just had to change graphics(in fact, that wasn't a must, AoC original graphics are great) get Usepatch team fixed bugs, new features etc and it would be fine. But it was kind of too much for HD developers.I think when someone purchases an HD edition of an old game it is reasonable for them to expect a product that is at least slightly better than the original. Instead, they got something that is inferior to the existing game in just about every regard
It´s a far superior game in every aspect aspect except for more lag and bugs. The gameplay itself is a good improvement.
I should add there is no lag in 1vs1 from what I could tell, 2vs2 is usually good too.
Huns trash is one of the best in game... Only lacking 2 upgrades for all 3 units is pretty amazing. Only Spanish have totally fully upgraded.Huns dont have bad trash wtf :lol:
They lack ring archer armour and plate mail armour. This means their skirmishers and halberdiers die to enemy skirmishers in two hits less, which is very noticeable. They also lack onagers and champions, which are two of the main counters to trash. This makes halberdiers and siege rams backed up by elite skirmishers very difficult for them to deal with in the late game. On top of that, the late game is where the Hunnic housing bonus doesn't have an impact anymore. When the Huns run out of gold, they're in trouble.
Civs that win Huns when gold is gone
[linethru]Aztecs[/linethru]
Byzantines (cheap trash, but not good)
[linethru]Celts[/linethru]
Chinese
[linethru]Franks[/linethru]
Goths (not sure, close fight)
Japanese (really bad lightcav-line)
[linethru]Mayans[/linethru]
[linethru]Saracens[/linethru]
Spanish
[linethru]Teutons[/linethru]
[linethru]Vikings[/linethru]
Civs that Huns win when gold is gone
Britons
Koreans
Persians
Mongols
Turks
If we split the civs in 3 tiers, Huns will be in the lowest, so they are a bad trash civ.
Skylabs should use the UP instead of the 1.0c and that would fix the pathing which is the most annoying issue of the HD, the games played during the announcement of the Rajas the experts showed clearly how OP are the new civs, nicov was totally lost in that game vs tatoh but at the end managed to win due the free gold two hand swordmen, or viper doing insane fast castle age and controlling the game with poor economy but strong units, no one abused the monks yet but for arena there is no chance to fight that, well i guess those monk can be done in any map.
@rorarimbo, the rajas civs have amazing strong tech trees, they all have cannoners, gud monks, good econ techs, their eles are stronger than palas, they were made to counter the Ak civs, but all the AoK civs got nerfed, making most of them unplayable vs the new civs, there is a lot to discuss in terms of balance but well thats for another topic, meanwhile we can confirm that the civs were originally designed to make them powerful and sell the DLC for first instance, maybe in 10 months of 2 years cysion would make small adjust to balance it.
Huns trash is one of the best in game... Only lacking 2 upgrades for all 3 units is pretty amazing. Only Spanish have totally fully upgraded.
@Onemillion
Malay faster age advancement is strong bonus but it is not game breaking mechanics by itself. It may not be 100 % faster it can be 60 or 75 % instead. And the water balance now is not Grush when all that maters is the faster Up time. All types of ships are available and required starting from Feudal age, while transport is available in Dark Age. Its completely different to what most ppl are used to.
Anyway when I say That Conq civs the most OP its not becuse I think so, as Im not such an expert. Its because of 15 years of testing, tournaments and established meta that shows that Huns, Aztec, and Mayans are considered as the strongest 1v 1 civs, Spanish is a must civ in Team Games with only Vikings on Water being OP and not being a conq civ.
Most postconquerors civilizations havent been even tested proparly especially the Rajas ones. The time will prove where their place in the lader is but on a first glance they seem to have some very strong bonuces combined with limited Tech Trees what points to a relevant balance. For example none of them has Paladin or SO two of the strongest units of the game. The battle elephans are very situational and in no case they can replace good heavy cav. But anyway I dont want to go into much details as I dont pretend to be the best of expert.
I don't really see the issue with Forced Levy being a winning tech in a trash war - That's precisely what the tech is for, of course it's going to give you the edge. As for the amazing tech trees, e.g. the Khmer have neither Arbalest, Champion, Paladin or Hussar. That makes them pretty limited, they can pretty much only go for Elephants.
I'll just repeat my original grievance - the new civilisations are horribly unstable. That means they're overpowered in some circumstances, but underpowered in others (in contrast with a civilisation like the Japanese, whose bonuses are evenly distributed throughout the game). For example, the Burmese have an insane monk rush, but an awful archery range, to the extent that their skirmishers lose to arbalests one-on-one. There is no way to balance civilisations that are based on boom-bust cycles like that, either they are too strong in the early game or they are too weak in the late game.
Imagine more op civs in some maps then...Are we really defending AOC balance? 11 this's so mind-boggling... Huns and Aztecs are *bleep* op.
@Onemillion Chinese were considered OP as they had their additional vils at the start when its most important not two more before clicking up the difference is huge. Yes You could have the advanced techs earlier but in the new water balance (despite its probably wrong turm yet) unit counts and earlier tech just doesnt mean what it used to as you can switch towards different unit composition that benefits you more. Does it mean you loose a game if the opponent gets Castle age 1 min earlier and upgrades his archers first. Its the same. There is a small window he has an advantage but this doesnt mean he won already . Also As I said I think this particularly should be nurfed a bit.
Conq civs are top tear as of now despite being nerfed in HD as in any other balance patch for a good reason. I would agree though they may not be as OP as they used to be if you think of the full set of civs and also its not quite really tested. But what You are trying to compare is conq civs after numerous rebalnces nurfing them compared to newly released civs whose creator mantioned they might be nerfed if needed. And still to my impresion and the feedback of players who actually tryed them they are not as near so OP as many ppl consider them to be.
Do you expect every civ have equal opportunities in every aspect? Original AoC has late-game powerhouses whose early age is mediocre (Saracens) and vice versa (Viks). Even in the various balance patches, HD balance etc, one cannot simply "evenly distribute" bonuses/techs in all ages, because then what's the point of having different civs? You might as well just play with all tech enabled (and disable civ bonuses) so the only difference would be the unique unit. Won't that be "evenly" distributed?
Also, what about water? Only few civs have water bonuses... isn't that unbalanced? But that's what it is supposed to be like. Regarding Forced Levy, you are completely overlooking the fact that in a gold-based game it won't even come into play because Malay don't get Champions so food-only two-handed swords will be utterly useless against gold units (and against regular Champs). It only affects very late-game out-of-gold situations. Compared to Goths this is nothing - there dirt cheap infantry spam is way faster, comes for free as a civ bonus and can be used from early imperial.
More OP civs = more competition = more fun(and you know they're going to be nerfed)...
@Onemillion Chinese were considered OP as they had their additional vils at the start when its most important not two more before clicking up the difference is huge. Yes You could have the advanced techs earlier but in the new water balance (despite its probably wrong turm yet) unit counts and earlier tech just doesnt mean what it used to as you can switch towards different unit composition that benefits you more. Does it mean you loose a game if the opponent gets Castle age 1 min earlier and upgrades his archers first. Its the same. There is a small window he has an advantage but this doesnt mean he won already . Also As I said I think this particularly should be nurfed a bit.
I would clarify that the Chinese were be one to one-and-a-half villagers (depending on the start) ahead in the dark age due to loom and waiting for 50 food to make the next villager. They gain the extra villager when their opponent researches loom, so two to two-and-a-half. For reference, the Malay currently gain just over two-and-a-half villagers at the start of the feudal age, which is definitely on the same level of Age of Kings Chinese. Anyway, the point with water is your opponent can get out a fire ship to counter galleys, but you can get out a demolition ship faster than he can get out galleys of his own, etc. The nail in the coffin is the Malay can then get up faster because they have two-and-a-half villagers extra, which is why the Vikings can advance so quickly (free wheelbarrow).
Conq civs are top tear as of now despite being nerfed in HD as in any other balance patch for a good reason. I would agree though they may not be as OP as they used to be if you think of the full set of civs and also its not quite really tested. But what You are trying to compare is conq civs after numerous rebalnces nurfing them compared to newly released civs whose creator mantioned they might be nerfed if needed. And still to my impresion and the feedback of players who actually tryed them they are not as near so OP as many ppl consider them to be.
I'll put it another way; the Conquerors civilisations are overpowered, but not by much. If you reduce the Aztec carry bonus to +3, the Maya archer bonus to 10%->15%->20% and the Hun cavalry archer bonus to 15%->25% (I would personally change their housing bonus instead, cavalry archers are simply the most in-demand change), then they're suddenly a lot more evenly matched with everyone else. To balance the African civilisations, you'd have to remove a lot of those bonuses worth hundreds and hundreds of resources for free, or which gives them very strong units. The Ethiopians save just over 1,800 resources completely free of charge by the start of the imperial age, as well as having instant halberdiers and extra thumb ring. That is just ridiculous.
Malay swordsman are weak to gold units, but that's what standard trash units are meant to counter. Skirmishers, halberdiers and light cavalry can whittle down an enemy's gold reserves until it becomes a trash war, and by the same token, Malay two-handed swordsmen whittle down enemy champions because they are 25% cheaper and cost no gold. The Gothic champion spam may be obnoxious, but at least they don't have scale mail armour and a large economic bonus from their town centres saving time on ageing up to make more villagers.
Problem is that the Malay have a way better feudal/castle than goths due to their insane uptimesBottom line: Malay have a definite age, but only if you have let the game go to that stage..
Problem is that the Malay have a way better feudal/castle than goths due to their insane uptimesBottom line: Malay have a definite age, but only if you have let the game go to that stage..
Civs that win Huns when gold is gone
[linethru]Aztecs[/linethru]
Byzantines (cheap trash, but not good)
[linethru]Celts[/linethru]
Chinese
[linethru]Franks[/linethru]
Goths (not sure, close fight)
Japanese (really bad lightcav-line)
[linethru]Mayans[/linethru]
[linethru]Saracens[/linethru]
Spanish
[linethru]Teutons[/linethru]
[linethru]Vikings[/linethru]
Civs that Huns win when gold is gone
Britons
Koreans
Persians
Mongols
Turks
If we split the civs in 3 tiers, Huns will be in the lowest, so they are a bad trash civ.
Dont know what youre smoking dude.
Imagine more op civs in some maps then...Are we really defending AOC balance? 11 this's so mind-boggling... Huns and Aztecs are *bleep* op.
More OP civs = more competition = more fun(and you know they're going to be nerfed)... but i guess you're in love with picking vikings for all water maps and aztecs or huns for all land maps and calling that balance, and oh did i mention that we see the same civs all the time in 4v4 games too?
Aztecs can flood champions with relics bonus + selling some wood/food, if they researched siege onager when there was gold 2/3 SO protected with champion and pikes would give Huns player hard time
Byz have cheap trash, does not matter if huns have bloodlined and +4 attack hussar
Celts have elite woad, buy some gold and they do the job
Franks have axmen, if they mass 30/40 of them(relic, selling food/wood) huns have trouble
Japanese- same as 2 above, make unique unit buying some res, then it's hard time for huns
Mayans- it was a mistake, Huns indeed beat them
Saracens- same as Mayans
Teutons- Teutons are so strong when gold is gone, what no gold unit can beat ETK(+ huns have no so/onager to attack ground them)
Vikins- get some gold selling res/relic and their champion/elite berserk should do the job.