AOE-II November PUP changes - buffs to infantry UU, Viking losses thumbring, Cumans discount -100w to 75w, Burmese UT change

[z3us]

New trade carts

 

[Ayase_Chihaya]

Also i heavily disagree with removing thumbring to the vikings, what they have now? just eco? stupid change imo, they should have nerf a bit the eco.

I agree, the problematic situations arise from their eco being too good. I think removing free hand-cart but keeping wheelbarrow would have tuned them nicely...

 

[Sticky Ice Cream]

Oops. I was thinking of Knight creation time for some reason when I made the comparison. Nevertheless I still say needing a Castle matters little when it's a given that most games will have one Castle in late Castle Age anyway, and the UU buffs on top of the faster creation time than Militia ought to rapidly speed up the value of an infantry army much faster than adding another Barracks.

 

[Progeusz]

Nosense, because all infantry civs basically play infantry during the game. First, Japanese, Vikings, Goths and all the others have an initial boost in the feudal that allows you to play infantry cost effective. Second, in Imperial Age your best combo is always with infantry with those civs, for example Vikings with shitty cavalry and no halbs are already forced to switch to Berserks to raid and counter other units (in Imperial Age, in Castle Age is just stupid to play infantry because infantry in Castle Age die against everything), same for Japanese, Celts (and Woad Riders are incredibly strong in Imperial Age) and all the others.

This change is just an incentive to do stupid Castle Age all in and play 1 TC UU and the Vikings nerf is bad aswell just for the reason already explained.

>wall up
>do archers on the way to castle
>pressure with xbows
>fast imp
>finish the game with arbalests
nice infantry civ

No, what you're saying is utter nonsense.
Couple of militia/m@a at the start and maaaaaybe switch to UU/champs in very late game isn't "all infantry civs basically play infantry during the game"

 

[Philippe le Bon]

I agree, the problematic situations arise from their eco being too good. I think removing free hand-cart but keeping wheelbarrow would have tuned them nicely...

Nerfing Viking economy, when upgrading Berserks costs seven freight trains of meat (especially with the recent nerf to Chieftains costing 400 ► 700 food) will lead to:

— Even less Berserks and Long Swordsmen in the battlefield ;
— Even more Xbow and Arbalest play (when Viking was designed as an infantry and naval civ).

In short, boring generic meta play, boom 3 TCs, go to gold and mass Xbow, amazing.
Even worse than that, it would be returning to the state where Viking was in AoC 1.0c:
An archer civ where players made Berserks and Long Swordsmen only to troll the opponent, when the game is already won (except if your name was Melkor_).

It's the worst thing that could happen to Vikings, returning to that 1.0c state. I'm grateful that on the Viking issue, developers are listening to the noobs and not the pros.

(The same pros who suggested to put picking position in TGs during the Userpatch days, a change which still plagues current TGs.
If devs only listened to the pros, we would all still play 1v1 Arabia Hunwhore nowadays )

 

[_The_Deep_One_]

>wall up
>do archers on the way to castle
>pressure with xbows
>fast imp
>finish the game with arbalests
nice infantry civ

No, what you're saying is utter nonsense.
Couple of militia/m@a at the start and maaaaaybe switch to UU/champs in very late game isn't "all infantry civs basically play infantry during the game"

try to play in this way at a decent elo and let me know how many games you'll going to win. If you can win a game in this way the problem is not the civ but the opponent.

 

[im the cookie]

Love the idea of infantry play, but as a low ELO player, I still struggle a lot to balance economy in feudal to be able to produce militia-line, would like them to have a little more health or PA to be able to stand against archers in feudal and transition alright against mass archers, maybe I'm playing it wrong, any suggestion?

I know it is rough, but I think it is probably to try to build skirms insteado of Man At Arms, to be honest.
MAA are useful, but I do not think you should commit to them in Feudal Age.

I think other folks here will be better advisors than myself, though

 

[arizonatears]

I really like these little graphical changes. I would love to get region-specific monks and maybe a few other graphics changes, like making the karambits look less like male villagers.

 

[warownia]

That UI thing could help noobs but noobs already moved to aoe4..

Im noob but i wonder if it will be helpful to check if u didnt miss important upgrades in reasonable period of time.

 

[Sticky Ice Cream]

WIth the new Manipur Cavalry, I wonder if Burmese would want to prioritize Manipur Cavalry over Cavalier? I don't know how much more valuable +3 attack is over +20 HP vs. Archers. But for 450 more resources than Cavalier, the Burmese have an upgrade vs. Archers which researches 60 seconds faster than Cavalier. And it's not like Burmese are 'that' terrible vs. Archers in the Castle Age. No +2 Archer armor? Yes. But a Knight line only lacking Paladin backed by an indirect eco bonus to farming? Also yes.

 

[Progeusz]

try to play in this way at a decent elo and let me know how many games you'll going to win. If you can win a game in this way the problem is not the civ but the opponent.

Pros do it all the time against other pros. I guess they aren't at the level of decent elo 11

 

[Paint]

WIth the new Manipur Cavalry, I wonder if Burmese would want to prioritize Manipur Cavalry over Cavalier

I think the "correct" army composition is still Hussar + UU and now it's better against Arbalest.

 

[Sticky Ice Cream]

I think the "correct" army composition is still Hussar + UU and now it's better against Arbalest.

Hmmm. I didn't think about that. Perhaps this change is also an indirect buff to late game Arambai, now that their support unit can trash Archers.

 

[SouFire]

try to play in this way at a decent elo and let me know how many games you'll going to win. If you can win a game in this way the problem is not the civ but the opponent.

Lierey has joined to the conversation!

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

New trade carts

Looks good

 

[Sticky Ice Cream]

New trade carts

I like! I wonder if this means this patch will also introduce more regional Monk skins.

 

[Lord_patito]

I like! I wonder if this means this patch will also introduce more regional Monk skins.

I been asking that forever. Regional queens would be anice detail aswell

 

[ltm]

Vikings being played as a full on Archer civ doesn't really make much sense so i like the approach of weakening their Arbs.

But we'll have to see if they should get something other in return on top of the changes they made, maybe a further buff to their Infantry HP or cost reduction for fully upgraded Bezerks or something.

Most of the UU buffs probably won't make a difference, but it's nice either way and makes sense considering the recent buff to the standard infantry.

All in all i think this looks pretty good, only the Burmese change seems a bit pointless.

Edit: The trade carts are a cool addition as well, they are easy to recognize anyway so it's nice to get some more variety.

 

[Sticky Ice Cream]

Hmmm, I wonder if the House armor nerfs would make Houses a viable target for Drushes… Imagine the early game damage a Drush could do without actually attacking Villagers if it could destroy just one House and pop cap the opponent because they’re not used to AoE II having a supply block strategy.

 

[SouFire]

Negative armor on houses is a right step to add negative armor to unfinished buildings, so no more fornite in aoe.

I used to be a waller my self back at voobly, but now i got old and i just want to win or die quickly, but people is always walled now, overextending the duration of the matches, walling is just so much efficient and i am against playing all the time with mono strats like m@s+archers to break into wallers, cause playing always the same ain't fun.

 

[Philippe le Bon]

...playing always the same ain't fun...unless you're HOANG

 

[Zenack]

Vikings without thumb ring.... it will become a useless civilization

 

[Tocaraca]

Nosense, because all infantry civs basically play infantry during the game. First, Japanese, Vikings, Goths and all the others have an initial boost in the feudal that allows you to play infantry cost effective. Second, in Imperial Age your best combo is always with infantry with those civs, for example Vikings with shitty cavalry and no halbs are already forced to switch to Berserks to raid and counter other units (in Imperial Age, in Castle Age is just stupid to play infantry because infantry in Castle Age die against everything), same for Japanese, Celts (and Woad Riders are incredibly strong in Imperial Age) and all the others.

This change is just an incentive to do stupid Castle Age all in and play 1 TC UU and the Vikings nerf is bad aswell just for the reason already explained.

This is one of the stupidest replies I have ever seen on this forum.

 

[Lord_patito]

I heard someone said that inversing the order of Burmese UT (and adjusting the price of both) could be a great Idea. and I agree.

Maybe this won't be needed and the upcoming change will be enough, but if not, this could be an amazing idea

 

[Zeev]

Infantry is viable, especially Viking one.

With these changes, Vikings will be up there with Goths as the best infantry civ (even better infantry than Goths in my opinion, but I'm a little bit biased as I am a notorious Vikingwhore)

Which I think it's great because it is their true colours, both in-game and in real life:
Infantry and Navy civilization, with exceptional eco as they were great traders (they traded with China and all).

Historically vikings were well known for their archery. In old Norse laws it was even required for every free man to be armed with a spear, a sword or a battle axe, shield and bow and arrows. In ship battles bows had very important role. Many Viking sagas even have great archers in central role like Einar Eindridesson.

Vikings having great infantry, archers and navy is historically very accurate.