No need to try to take a higher ground here You don`t need to explain anything to me, as it looks like you`re trying not to get the point. You said it yourself - AoC has the issue, AoFE has the issue, so even if you are right and it is a fact, it only means that it can be improved in the future, through an AoFE update, right? So everything is still goodBugA_the_Great said:Well, you`re entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I`d say that you can`t use this as a fact, as it is not. Or, you may try to discuss with expert players that were/are included in AoFE testing phase And as already said, any disbalance that is spot later on will be easily fixable thanks to the AoFE update system (which is one of the great things we needed in the game), so there is nothing to be worried about, even less being negative
actually it is fact
competitive aoc is about what viable strategies each civ has access to in a rush setting, and resource/military speed bonuses are the #1 factor
fast civs can afford to skip or delay walling because there is no way a rush can succeed against them with high enough probability
fast civs can take deer while denying their enemy deer
fast civs can put their villagers in optimal locations for resource gathering (better eco). slow civs have to put their vils in optimal locations for safety
fast civs can reach feudal faster and deny the enemy scouting (sc get speed boost in feudal age) and often kill the sc.
fast civs can dedicate their scout to luring deer because they don't really need to find out what the enemy is doing until fairly late (slow enemy is not a threat)
fast civs can often delay loom or skip it (slow enemy is not a threat. combined with the sc advantage, this is viable)
fast civs can afford luxuries like horse collar and gold mining upgrade with no worry about risking their safety. slow civs cannot
all of this adds up to multiply any seemingly minor boost that one civ has over another in the early game.
if one civ has any advantage, they quickly widen the gap. the things you can do to optimize your economy when the enemy doesn't pose a threat are way too useful.
and this list ignores the resulting strategic choices that can widen the gap even more like drushing or castling quicker. those are viable options for fast civs, but suicide for slow ones
aoc has this issue. aofe has this issue, and you're delusional if you pretend that it has substantially improved.
that's why competitive aoc/aofe unfortunately is only civ wars, which now reward map luck / deer luck / boar stealing luck even more than aoc.
I`m sure that each valid suggestion and improvement will be more than thought of, discussed, tested, and if still valid - implemented, improving the game we play. Is that a bad thing?
I`m just saying that instead of being negative, try keeping criticism constructive, helping the community. If the issues are highly acknowledged by players (and it does take time for that, AoC has been around for more than 10 years, lol), there is no reason not to fix them. But rushing and trying to fix too many things at once can bring more problems than solutions. Let`s take it easy and slowly, and we`ll see what happens. Rome wasn`t built in a day.