Hi, let me start by saying I’ve been playing aoe2 multiplayer for approximately 10 years already on quite a high level - currently 1v1: 15xx and TG: 23xx rating.
AoC, HD, Voobly, DE - I know them all. I am also familiar with Age of Empires 2 pro scene.
I’m amazed by recent progression of aoe2 and thankful to Definitive Edition team for listening to player base input.
The purpose of this topic is to point out areas of aoe that require additional balance changes and give an example of how to improve it.
Let me just add that most of the time I play Random civilization cause I enjoy the strategic aspect and untypical scenarios that you can get by doing so. Therefore I would say that I have a broad knowledge and understanding of the game in current balance.
I expect this topic to render strong emotions.
What I had in mind was adding small improvements to the balance step by step and this would be one small step out of many.
I tried to come up with changes that would influence the game the least yet improve mentioned subjects and create more options by broadening range of possible strategies to choose from.
Balance section:
Improve Turk’s playability
The greatest enemy of Turks is Turks themselves - lack of no gold options (aka “trash units”). But so is enemy’s combination of Arbalesters with Cavalier or Elephant line, because in this situation Turk’s gunpowder with mounted units is not a viable option (economically and militarily) but they don’t have anything else going for them. Even pure Elephant line is enough to fight Turks’ composition.
The best solution I could come up with that would keep Turk’s identity:
Possibly give them civ bonus that makes all their stable units have +1 pierce armor per age (starting from Castle Age)
OR
Have their unique upgrade Sipahi affect all mounted units.]
THEN
In addition to one of those give Turks Flaming Camels (possibly change the design of Flaming Camels to make them deal much more damage particularly against Elephant line than they currently do)
Khmer fast boom into castle or imperial elephants in teamgames is too strong and their castle elephants are far superior to any other civilizations because of faster movement, which makes them counter archers and reduce chances of enemy conversion.
Possible changes:
Battle Elephants no longer are 15% faster as a civilization bonus
new civ bonus: Battle Elephants receive +1 attack per age (starting from Castle Age)
change to unique upgrade Tusk Sword (Battle Elephants move 15% faster instead of +3 attack)
OR
reduce Khmer’s civ bonus from 15% speed increase to 10% speed increase
Hand Cannoneers should be improved.
The following example is for 1v1 game (Saracens vs Incas but can be applied for other match-ups as well):
Player 1 has 30 Hand Cannoneers and 20 Hussars.
Enemy has 40 Skirmishers and 20 Halberdiers.
1st Player’s army requires a lot of gold, but is much worse.
Skirmishers focus target 1st Player’s HC while he’s trying to snipe those Skirmishers with his Hussars.
1st Player cannot take the engagement hand-on, because Halberdiers receive huge bonus damage dealt to his Hussars.
Hence 1st Player is trying to snipe those Halberdiers with his HC but it’s hardly possible because of their inaccuracy meanwhile Skirmishers outrange HC by +1 and additionally deal bonus damage to HC.
1st Player’s composition should require enemy to make onagers or bombard cannons - instead 1st Player is trading inefficiently in numbers despite of investing gold.
Apart from that HC do not occur in teamgames because of slow speed, low hp, small range, and again - inaccuracy.
Updating Hand Cannoneers in current balance seems necessary. Even though infantry became much stronger HC is the not unique unit that you see the least of (maybe apart from Siege Tower).
Possible solutions:
Reduce bonus damage dealt by Skirmishers to HC by few units or even remove it entirely (HC already have the lowest amount of HP - 35 (5HP less than Elite Karambit Warrior from Malay) and 0 pierce armor! Which is good because this makes them extremely vulnerable to Onagers but then additional bonus dealt by Skirmishers is just unnecessary.
Create and implement Elite Petard upgrade
(potentially higher attack to buildings,
more hp and pierce armor)
available in Imperial Age
Readers - I encourage you to give out your own opinion on above changes and add your own input in comments but please:
respect each other;
make sure that you’re adding something researched and constructive to the topic;
before posting your opinion make sure that it’s clear, grammatically and stylistically correct so there’s no misunderstanding on anyone’s part.
Before i started: I got a bit tired about all players making balance threads. It would be nice if the devs create some structure for all discussions. You will see the same points again and again in many threads. To be clear: This is not something against you, but my general opinion. I think you really think about what you post.
Turks are quiet weak in 1v1, because gold runs out. In teamgames they can be really strong because of trade. It is hard to buff Turks 1v1 without making them too good for teamgames. Turks are meant to be a gold dependent civ. I dont think that needs to change. So yeah, Turks can use a buff, but i dont know if you made the right buff. Flaming Camels are a meme units. I dont think they suite Turks too.
Khmer was recently nerfed. Now there win rate seems to dropped. Lets wait before we talk again over the balance for this civ. I dont like civs getting changes every month. Lets have some time to see how this civ plays out now there farm rate is nerfed.
Why are Hand cannoneers and Skirms in range to hit each other? Isnt this a micro mistake? Hand cannnoneers vs skirms is inefficient, because skirms counter hand cannoneers. Every gold unit has some trash counter. So you compare the gold in such match up, you indeed will see the trash unit will win and cost no gold. I do like Hand Cannoneers, but they really need a meat shield.
Petards are a meme unit for me. I dont think they really need a buff. They wont be used many times and that is fine to me.
You can’t rely on statistics that are only about 10 days of matches, but I agree with the rest, except I think changes every month are a good idea.
Thats the exact reason why they need a buff. Altough I think that implementing an elite petard upgrade is a wrong choice, rather buff the unit. Like @AlightJewel1130 said, increasing HP or pierce armor could be handy.
I think we think the same. What i meant: We have the first signs the nerf is working, but we need more data. I also very much like monthly updates to buff underrated civs and nerf OP civs.
I think i wasnt clear: I very much like monthly updates. There is just one slight thing: Do not change the same civ every month. Khmer got a big nerf in April patch. Give it some months to gather some data about Khmer before you make another change to Khmer. In the mean time focus on balancing the other civs.
I dont think they decide about balance changes just the day for release. I wont be surprised if they already know what changes they wanna make for this month. Like you said: 10 days isnt enough data to have reliable statistics. I dont like balance changes based on these 10 days of data. If we talk about the June patch, they have data from 40 days (a lot more). If it is about the July patch, they even have 70 days of data. 40 or 70 days is a lot more than just 10. Your statistics will be much more reliable.
So it is better to leave Khmer like it is and wait for another patch to change Khmer again (if needed).
Note: Only change a civ multiple months in a row if a change make the civ completely broken. Broken like OP and broken like completely garbage. This isnt applicable to Khmer for me. @AlightJewel1130 thinks Khmer are still strong, but i have also seen statements where they claim Khmer needs a buff again. There is no real reason to think this civ is completely off balance.
On top of that, you see stuff like Burmese getting a 42% increase in win rate for 1650+ ELO for like no reason at all, so what we see on these stats sites is either random or the result of people overreacting to buffs/nerfs.
They need a buff yes. However sipahi should NOT affect the full stable. If it should affect something other than cavalry archers, hussar would be the way to go. Not cavaliers and camels. And even then, not necessarily with the full 20 hp on the hussar.
Actually one funny (and possibly interesting) suggestion someone said recently was to make the turks’ useless spear an even cheaper unit, just like trashbows are for persians, but maybe as a civ bonus instead, something like when reaching castle age, spears cost a little less resources than normally. Maybe the same could be done (or not) for the skirmisher too.
You have to realise that this is not a very good engagement to begin with and you should try to avoid it. What you can try to do while actually trying to make a proper counter to this setup, is run away and shoot some halbs and run some more. But you are going to need halbs of your own or just champs.
Petards are a good surprise unit to get through walls with. They have their uses. They aren’t supposed to be a unit that you see all the time anyway, instead a situational unit.
Why are Hand cannoneers and Skirms in range to hit each other? Isnt this a micro mistake? Hand cannnoneers vs skirms is inefficient, because skirms counter hand cannoneers. Every gold unit has some trash counter. So you compare the gold in such match up, you indeed will see the trash unit will win and cost no gold. I do like Hand Cannoneers, but they really need a meat shield.
Thank you for your responses. On 15xx level and higher people tend to focus fire instead of just patrolling units. Hussars have a role of a meatshield, but it simply doesn’t work.
And exactly that I tried to explain here:
Skirmishers focus target 1st Player’s HC while he’s trying to snipe those Skirmishers with his Hussars.
1st Player cannot take the engagement hand-on, because Halberdiers receive huge bonus damage dealt to his Hussars.
Hence 1st Player is trying to snipe those Halberdiers with his HC but it’s hardly possible because of their inaccuracy meanwhile Skirmishers outrange HC by +1 and additionally deal bonus damage to HC.
The following quote is from Age of Empires wiki:
“Hand Cannoneers are treated to be archers in the damage calculation, so Skirmishers and Huskarls have attack bonuses against them, and Huskarls also have a high defensive bonus against their piercing damage. They are of course also gunpowder units, giving Condottieri an attack bonus against them as well”.
So I argue to not treat Hand Cannoneers as archers in those calculations.
Just keep them a gunpowder type. That’s really it. I think the change is simple, subtle and needed.
You have to realise that this is not a very good engagement to begin with and you should try to avoid it. What you can try to do while actually trying to make a proper counter to this setup, is run away and shoot some halbs and run some more. But you are going to need halbs of your own or just champs.
Thank you for trying to coach me but this is not a thread for it.
This is a simplified example in order to not make the situation too complex.
The composition was justified because of overall situation - economical and potential development of military compositions from both sides - aspects I didn’t mention and I’m not going to.
Please keep your focus on a unit in the discussion.
Petards are a good surprise unit to get through walls with. They have their uses. They aren’t supposed to be a unit that you see all the time anyway, instead a situational unit.
Exactly, make them a situational unit in Imperial Age as well! Cause in realistic situations you will never see castle age petards in Imperial age, because of no upgrades which keeps them at low hp, slow, with low pierce armor, low attack damage output.
Yes, but not against halberdiers. It doesn’t help if HC is countering the halbs, you need your frontline unit to last at the frontline too. Hussar is not supposed to be fighting halberdiers in any good engagement. Makes zero sense.
Why is this needed? This would just make gunpowder units totally op. Right now, they are pretty balanced.
But you are using the example as an argument nonetheless and it was not a good argument as I showed you, is the point here. A situation where the HC is in an underdog composition is showing nothing about how good or bad the unit is. Only thing you are showing here is, the opposing player was countering the HC+hussar mix and it works, as is intended. Good job. This is telling nothing about why the first player is going for such a composition though. If you want to fight a halb/skirm mix, then make halbs or champs with HC or skirms. Not hussars.
And yes, this is exactly the thread to coach you, since you are clearly trying to make a balance suggestion based on wrong observations.
There is an upgrade that affects petards, siege engineers. Just not all civs get it. And it is not the kind of a unit that even needs to become “more meta”. It has its situational uses even in the Imperial age, few as they are and that is fine.
Why is this needed? This would just make gunpowder units totally op. Right now, they are pretty balanced.
Erm what? Do you even understand what OP proposed. I actually think the idea isnt too bad. HC are a rather weak unit, that does have its occasional usage in 1v1. I dont think skirms not gettin bonus damage would help the unit, but it would be incredibly far from OP.
They simply dont have enough DPS for being that fragile, because of accuracy. This goes so far that even fast infantry units can kill them, even though they are supposed to be countered.
It is an anti-infantry unit and works for the job very well, especially when screened with a meatshield like champs or halbs.
Then what unit is supposed to be countering HC, if not the skirmisher? Condottiero? That only 1 civ gets?
HC do 27 damage to infantry before armor is taken into account. If they hit something else than their intended target, it’s around half of that. And they do surprisingly good damage to cavalry too if the situation demands. Are you saying a huskarls is countering HC? Of course it is, IF it gets in range of it. However huskarls themselves are countered by champions, so champions+HC are a very good counter to goths since goth champ is also a lesser unit than generic ones, althought much cheaper. If you talk about a fast infantry like condottiero, well it is an anti hand cannoneer so of course. If you talk about eagles, again, you just need a meatshield and it works wonders, especially with champs which already are a counter to eagles and cost less than half in gold so you will be affording the HC too.
HC are only bad when their numbers are very low. But that works for all archers.
“I can just make champs as meatshield then my HC are good.” What kind of argument is this? Of course HC+Champs is gonna beat any kind of infantry. Its still not a strong army vs most other compositions (e.g. any kind of good archer unit).
If u want units that are good against HC (except skirms):
-Siege in any form (rams tanking fire as usual, Scorps/Onager/BBC kill them because theyre so incredibly fragile and harder to micro than arbs)
-Heavy cavalry
-Any good archer unit (Arbs, CA, Plumes, Mangus etc…)
-Strong infantry unique units (not in low numbers, but in a general post imp fight) like Woads, Zergs, Huskarls, samurai (lesser),
-(condos ofc)
So no I dont need skirms to fight HC. They shine in low eco, low army situations against non arb civs and do surprisingly well against eles (cause eles are so slow and have a huge hitbox).
Im very confused that u try to tell me u need skirms to deal with HC.
Ok.
FU ESkirm have:
35HP
7 Pdmg + 4vs Archers
8 PA
3,05 RoF
8 Range
100% acc
FU HC:
35HP
17 dmg
4 PA
3,45 RoF
7 Range
65% acc
So ESkirm need 5 shots to take down HC, HC need 4 to take down ESkirm, but 65% acc mean in fact need 6 or 7 shots. ESkirm shot 6th shot far before HC shot their 6th. ESkirm also have 1 more range, and smaller frame delay, so this difference will be even larger.
But if we add to the HC +5HP (make them equal to the arbs), ESkirm will need 6 shots to take them down, witch is still good enough, but HC will be little more resistant to the archers or meele.
It’s not supposed to be good against archers. >:o And even then, it can be somewhat worthy.
Of course siege is good against any archery unit. However, HC can kill an onager in much lower numbers than arbs can and hence, can even more easily split and evade the shot. Obviously in large enough numbers you move your archery units away completely until the siege is dealt with anyway.
Well, right there HC works better than arbs. Also, if you happen to have a modest group of halbs with them, they’ll do some nice work, unlike with arbs, which are almost useless to heavy cavalry.
If you just pit them against archers, of course you lose. It’s intended.
If you are trying to tell me that arbalests are better than HC against woads, well you’re completely wrong in that, aren’t you? Woads can be the best from the lot against HC but HC is still a counter to them nonetheless, no way around it. Samurai and berserk, how did you even come up with those? No chance, HC is their counter. And the huskarl? They both counter each other yes, but the trick is not to let the huskarls reach your HC by screening something in front and unlike arbs, they’ll wreck the husks up.
Why you even put it there when it’s the only job that the unit even has and it belongs to 1 civ. The fact such a unit was added to the game probably tells more about how good the HC is.
A trash unit that does. Champion is the only generic gold unit that has no trash counter. Also HC is a ranged unit, so it needs a trash counter that can reach it from behind the lines, as a skirmisher does and melee units do not. Also HC is not supposed to make arbalests obsolete either, so you can make both (if the civ has them).
HC have 1 base melee armor. And they don’t need to be more resistant to archers. They aren’t supposed to be the best archer unit in every situation nor make arbalests obsolete for civs that do get both.
They will not be. Still having -1 range nad much lower accuracy, rate of Fire and frame delay means they still will be worse than arbs in most situations.
Is that really the case though? And does it have more to do with if they weren’t even needed in the said game and also not many civs having access to it in the first place? I know I make them and I’ve seen matches that they were used in for a great effect. But they aren’t an all around usable unit like the arbalest is, HC has a more defined role where it works better while arbalest has a more flexible role.
If you want to see HC for the sake of seeing them, then that’s really on you. And especially for civs that don’t even have arbalest but have HC, it is the go to option at the archery. And it works.
Yes. I am around rank 200-300 on the DE 1v1 Ladder. So i can actually judge that situation better than u probably. Im not even saying we NEED TO BUFF THE HC. This discussion started with me being very confused about “if we take away archer armor class, HC would be OP!”. Now u even say urself, that HC are very situational (which they are) and that arbs are a better all around unit.
HC are simply not a strong unit in general, because of accuracy, fire rate and frame delay ( like the other guy actually stated correctly) + no Ballsistic(!).
But i glad that we reached a consensus: HC is a situational unit, that is not strong in most situations.
So taking away archer armor class would not make them OP, not even close.
That is great, however I am not going to make this an ELO war.
But making them not be counterable by skirms whose basic attack damage is just worthless anyway, would obviously make them OP if the opponent has ran out of gold and yes completely OP towards huskarls. And they are an archery unit after all so why would you even remove it? Again, champions are the only generic gold units with no trash counter, which is rightly deserved with its role as a trash killer and so, should stay that way too. And while they are more situational than the arb, they are still a good unit nonetheless.
This was changed with DE for the worse btw. Don’t know why though.
Even if HC was to be buffed, things like its cost, frame delay, accuracy or armor should be the ones to be touched, but totally not its armor class. If you can’t understand the implications of it as I just explained, then I have to tell you, whatever your rank is or you claim it to be on the ladder seems to mean very little here. And maybe the question to ask first should be why their frame delay was lengthened on DE to begin with. Seems like an odd choice if the unit is considered to be underpowered. However I’ve been unable to find information about the reason so far.