That’s a little bit underwhelming that you’re simply negating all ideas without giving anything of your own - just as you did in other of threads I opened:
07-05-2020 | Game Balance | #101.101.36906.0_4941835
I will still try to respond to your replies with all seriousness.
The line formation already exists to keep the formation “filled”. With box formation, you could make a pikeman square wall and have a large group of archers or monks inside protected from cavalry, just as an example. This is what box formation is for, so you can have another group inside it. Not just a singular monk with a relic.
And the formation would stay that way for cases you mentioned. In your example the monk in the middle would be a “filling” object or objects. Basically it wouldn’t change it. At the same time if you started adding more and more pikes with this singular monk to the formation then instead of drastically increasing perimeter of the square it would fill in the square until capacity is reached and then creating a square with sides larger by one unit filling it in as consistently and as much as possible.
Let me clarify - It wouldn’t change mechanics of “Box Formation” that you presented. It would change how it scales up - creating a filled square instead of a hollow one!
Wouldn’t it be just splendid!
Why?
And its not even 5 relics, it depends on the maximum relics for the map. If you know you are playing standard, then try and get atleast one relic. Simple. You should be going for some relics anyway normally.
“Why” is actually a good question! I should have explained myself. Well - the change was asked by multiple most popular aoe streamers and some pro players in order to prevent games from dragging on and create potentially more entertaining endings of the game with multiple destructions of Wonders.
Imagine seeing how the Wonder crumbles and the player that invested into it resigns, because that was his last hope!
Keep in mind that the set purpose would be for 1v1s not teamgames!
Let me further explain the idea. The mentioned victory would allow players to win not only by conquesting the opponent but as well by investing loads of resources into a fragile building that then needs to be defended.
So you could ask why not just use “Standard Victory”? - The issue is with the Relic Victory that is a part of the options of winning a game in those setting. It creates this situation where everything else apart from gathering relics early on is put aside. Gathering all relics and starting the countdown in castle age is a small investment (you still get gold profit from relics). If you add defensive castles around Monastery then it’s is just too hopeless, tedious and unstoppable. This way of winning a game usually doesn’t feel rewarding nor entertaining at all.
But your comment made me rethink my proposed solution and I would change it to that:
Keep everything as it is so no one can argue that something was taken away from them but add the following options:
“Triumph” or “Wonder Victory”:
win by conquesting your enemies or building and defending the Wonder.
“Relic Victory”:
win by conquesting your enemies or collecting and holding all relics.
For idle military units “,” is the default key, press Shift+ , to choose all (max. 60) idle military units.
I tested it multiple times so I doubted myself. So I tested it again and your statement is not truthful.
There’s no “Select all Idle Military Units” hotkey and simply holding shift while pressing “Go to Next Idle Military Unit” hotkey doesn’t do anything.
I think you might have confused it for “Select all Land Military Units”, which serves different purpose.
Please, test arguments you make before publishing your comments.
Best Regards