AOE-II DE R.I.P balance - Lord of the West release discussion

[Paint]

I think the Sicilians tech tree is pretty good, there are some obvious omissions like hussar, thumb ring etc. but overall I think it's solid. Arbalest without thumb ring or ring armour are still pretty dangerous, light cav with all upgrades are still a solid raiding unit, you can go fu halb and siege, plenty of flexibility there. And the anti-counter mechanic makes all those options that much tougher to deal with. If first crusade was nerfed a bit I think they'd be a really fun civ overall actually. They do lack an obvious game-ending lategame composition, but lots of strong civs don't have that, e.g. Malians: you just have to play in every age and try and get to lategame in a good position, then use your flexibility to counter your opponent's comp.

I actually agree that they would be a fun civ if the extra TC speed was moved back to castle age and first crusade was gone.

TC speed would also be fine if it's just reduced so they don't get it up faster then Spanish on Nomad.

 

[im the cookie]

First Crusade is just... not balanced, IMO. That 50 army spike does not seem like fair play.

Sure, you need to get to that point and your opponent needs to let you get there, but if you do you can either change the tide of battle or overwhelm your opponent.

I'm taking into account I'm just a low elo player, but it just does not feel right. The tech is not that expensive either, so the cost-benefit of the tech is just too damn high. I'm aware their tech tree is not great late game it they kind of lack options, but they feel far from balanced.

I remember the Cumans release and how it just felt dirty. Sicilians give me the exact same feel.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Also, New civs are a joke. Don't feel AOE.

Yup. A plain fact oddly overlooked by those who defend the DLC.

 

[kaaro]

Yup. A plain fact oddly overlooked by those who defend the DLC.

Just to clarify, I do not regret paying the extra cash for the DLC, I am happy to support this game for years to come.
But broken civs hurt.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Just to clarify, I do not regret paying the extra cash for the DLC, I am happy to support this game for years to come.
But broken civs hurt.

The campaigns were that good?

 

[Clemensor]

The campaigns were that good?

Not gonna lie, I found the campaigns to be very enjoyable. Especially the sicilian one.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Not gonna lie, I found the campaigns to be very enjoyable. Especially the sicilian one.

It is good to hear this. I will be more careful when I criticize the DLC to avoid discrediting this component if it is not deserved. I just wonder why the developers felt compelled to add Burgundy and Sicily as full-blown civs rather than focusing their efforts exclusively on the SP experience. No one can credibly argue they were needed for MP and if the creators could have treated them as special variants of their respective "base" civs then I imagine the campaigns would have been even better than you already say they are.

 

[Tarsiz]

It is good to hear this. I will be more careful when I criticize the DLC to avoid discrediting this component if it is not deserved. I just wonder why the developers felt compelled to add Burgundy and Sicily as full-blown civs rather than focusing their efforts exclusively on the SP experience. No one can credibly argue they were needed for MP and if the creators could have treated them as special variants of their respective "base" civs then I imagine the campaigns would have been even better than you already say they are.

This point feels incredibly contrived. Are you just being negative for the sake of it?

I don't disagree the civs were unneeded, incredibly lazy in term of chosen region (western Europe), and use broken gimmicks that should not belong in the game in the first part.

That being said, if you focus entirely on the single player experience, having new civs with a completely different set of bonuses, new graphics for special units, etc., is a lot more fun than using Franks or Vikings/Italians.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

This point feels incredibly contrived. Are you just being negative for the sake of it?

No I was trying to say basically what you are saying. To me "special variant" doesn't preclude the level of customization you describe: it just means that the mindset switches from "let's try to make a new civ which is unique" to "let's try to alter an existing civ for a fun campaign." I think this is a less daunting way of framing the design task and in my experience at least that tends to lead to better creative results.