As a bonus, I like the Ornlu idea on Onager & co of higher projectiles speed
I’ve said it elsewhere, but I think it’s better to move SO’s +1 pierce to Onager than experiment with projectile speed changes on techs. The ranged UU that counter onager will still continue to do so, but maybe the archer line/uu that do 2-3 damage per shot to current Onager do indeed need to have to play more prudently if their opponent is sinking 1300 resources into a slow tech with low payout.
We’re still getting yet another nerf to Onager next update with Armenians +5 HP by the way, it dramatically improves their performance vs vanilla Onagers.
Alternatively, they could consume wood to produce the resources. With an alternate mode to produce just wood at a pretty slow rate.
Actually no. because you only get 1 TC until castle age. The 5% faster working is equivalent to 5% more villagers, which means 5% more resources, but villagers only account for ~45% of resource expenses in dark age, and a much smaller ratio in feudal age.
However, because 5% is such a small amount, I think it would be better for it to be 8% faster working at 65 60 food apiece.
Imagine the villager is created on debt, a more expensive villager means more debt is incurred and takes longer to pay off, but a faster working villager means once the villager is paid for it is strictly better. Before the villager is paid off more interest must temporarily be paid, but once the debt is paid off the increased productivity is permanent. Perhaps the 5% greater productivity is not quite worth a 20% premium, but it is definitely worth at least a 10% premium (in a vacuum).
The ratio “how better/how expensive” already exists in AOE1/ROR, though they have extra armor also. Not that I played a lot ROR, but seems like its a bit tested already.
Horrible idea. Lots of data to be seem in DM and Black Forest. Rather make the upgrade cheaper. The projectile speed is not a problem, its just so expensive that its hard to justify teching into (Siege) Onager, specially in 1v1.
Even these changes combined (Onager +1 pierce armour, SO upgrade cheaper) could improve the situation.
The developers could certainly have experimented more with negative bonuses over the years. Unfortunately, this would have a number of unforeseen consequences:
Food is scarce in the Dark Age. Even paying 5 extra food per vill means you have to produce an extra 75 food if you want to click up with 18 vills.
Since each vill is more expensive, losing one vill comes at a higher economic cost than it would for any other civs. That is why the Palmyrans have extra armour. And in AoE2, having stronger villagers leads to Noburu.
It’s not even if killed, an idle or distracted villager who is being harassed might as well be considered dead while not working and if that “dead” villager costs 20% more to train this time loss is 20% more devastating
Lot further expand: in aoe1 the Palmyran bonus is actually better than it sounds. See the gather rates weren’t boosted by 1.2x. They were given an additional gather speed of +.2 and to give an idea of how strong that is, woodcutting in aoe1 is normally .303 so it becomes .503 which is disgusting enough that an aoe2 player would salivate since in many cases the gather rate is increased by more than 50% compared to the cost. Yet this civ isn’t high ranked.
Interesting idea, probably acceptable, but I think I’d prefer 55 food. Traction trebs after this nerf is also an interesting idea (removing Romans late-game weakness to BBCs). The villager cost increase might be better than reducing the economic bonus. Also would have interesting impact on hybrid maps (where fishing helps supply food, but isn’t impacted by the villager bonus/penalty).
Would be a devastating nerf on 10x civ bonus mods though.
Not really - villagers collect far more resources than they cost. The main disadvantage comes from needing more of your natural food resources to produce villagers, which may slow down Feudal age timings as well. And you’d need more farmers/TC (though not much more - probably less than 1 extra farmer)
It should be noted that Roman villagers don’t move 5% faster as well, so walking time does mitigate the 5% boost a tiny bit.
Which is why a mere 5% more food throughout the game can’t compare with the extra 200+ you spend on vils. Dont forget every idled villager is even more penalizing because they cost more
Granted, I usually agree with almost all your suggestions, but this would effectively kill off a MaA opening. If you produce 16 villagers, you’ll need to find another 80 food in the Dark Age, which isn’t easy.
In Return of Rome, the Palmyran bonus is actually 25% with a 75 food cost, they also get +75 food to start with. Overall, it’s pretty balanced (for RtR standards). Because you can get more productivity out faster you can actually stop creating vills earlier in Stone Age and get a pretty wicked Tool Age timing, and even if you skip the Tool Age timing you can still get far enough ahead in economy that the earlier farm transition still doesn’t bring you down below even (aided also by the fact that you need 20% less farms for the same amount of food production).
But the bonuses in RtR tend to be a lot more intense than in AoE2, and other civs have similarly overpowered bonuses. So, a similar bonus would likely have a lot lower values. However, 5% work rate bonus wouldn’t be enough to provide sufficiently distinct gameplay to the majority of players, while +10% work rate would largely be overpowered at the pro level. So, I estimate if such a thing were to be implemented in AoE2 it would likely be a 7%-9% work rate increase for a 10-12 food premium. (Please ignore my previous miscalculation of 8% at +15)
It’s not actually that hard, most of the extra food is already there, it just ends up being stockpiled for later. So instead of stockpiling it you could spend it to get a larger economy, which would end up putting you ahead later. Also, the Roman MaA rush is probably the strongest one, so it wouldn’t hurt it too much to be made slightly weaker, if that is even what would happen.
Also, 5% faster food gathering would be enough to make up the 80 food. (18 x 50) + 500=1400, (1400 x 1.05 = 1470, only 10 short of the +80), 1400 + (50 x 3) + 100=1650, (1650 x 1.05 = 1732.5, 2.5 over the 80 food cost premium). On a standard Arabia (blegh!) generation there is 8 sheep, 2 boar, 3-4 deer, and 6 berries, totaling about (8 x ~90 [due to losses] = ~720) + (2 x ~300 = ~600) + (3 x ~110 = ~330) + (6 x 125 = 750) = ~2400, more than enough food for the rush.
The thing is the palmy in og RoR the bonus was a +.2 which meant again your standard woodcutting went from .303 to .503 instead of like .37875 which is immense. But nobody is calling the civ top back then. It might be the not getting 75 more food mind you but still
Either way none of this accounts for a smart enemy knowing he needs to hyper aggress early and deny you work time so you essentially paid 20% more for dead weight even if all they’re doing is making a bunch of towers to fight off enemy tower aggression that’s an economy they aren’t using
That is exactly the reason for my suggestion, as it exists in another game. The reasoning is if they are better at everything, the cost should reflect that. Maybe 60 is overkill and 55 food is more reasonable, but I wouldn know the exact math, but you may get my point. They could also get extra armor to manage probable loses.
Exactly 11. And hey, if American Civs AND Cumans can get the Catapult Galleon, Romans can get Traction Trebs right?
It might be my absolute hatred of the Portuguese civ talking, but there is no reason for them to have cheaper monks that convert siege because it completely negates the only counter to Organ Gun spam, and is not like theres a reason for them to convert siege in late game having some of the best BBCs in the game.
Good idea. I was reasoning to how Factories work in AOE3, a game designed to have unlimited resources that limits the factories to only two a game (unless you play as the United States); but AoE2 is NOT designed to have unlimited resources, and it’s ridiculus to do a fast imp, build 4 to 7 factories and get unlimited resources; so if Portuguese are the only civ that can do it, then give that or any sort of limitation.
Hmm, I understand, however, taking away Fire Ships again wouldn’t that break them lacking one of the three water triangle units? Or them having cheaper Hulks is more than enough? I seriously ask, I do not have that much experience with the new water balance.
At least you have a reason. I don’t agree with it, but at least you have one.
Yeah, Feitorias as they are, are either cracked or worthless. But if they had a consumption mode that produced more resources at the expense of consuming a resource then one or both of their overpowered situations could be easier to balance.
