A Simple Math Problem

[xanaína]

I think AoE2 balance should follow three principles, especially in team games, where reaching Castle Age and massing specialized units is easier:

1. Wood-and-gold units should not perform well against all three basic trash units: pikemen, hussars, and skirmishers. Their economy also makes adding siege support convenient. Camel Archers’ 7 base attack makes them too effective against their intended counters and even mangonels and scorpions. Bolas Riders raise a similar concern: their high initial damage, speed, and cost make Bolas + mangonel too broadly effective. More of that damage should be a bonus specifically against mounted units. War Wagons with 9 base attack are effective even against knights and skirmishers.
2. High HP with high pierce attack should come with clear weaknesses. Elephant Archers combine these advantages, and I think their counters need to work more reliably once they are massed. Hussite Wagons should also deal less damage to mangonels and knights. Bohemians already have strong anti-cavalry tools; reducing wagon HP and base attack would help make their weaknesses clearer.
3. Infantry needs effectiveness, not endless discounts. I would welcome higher costs for Eagles and Champi Warriors in exchange for more HP or pierce armor. They need to survive long enough to contribute against ranged armies. Extending Gambesons to them could help;.

“Prevent them from getting there” is not a sufficient balance argument for team games. Strong units should still have practical, cost-effective counters after they are on the battlefield.

Cost is only a good measure in 1v1 games. In team games, HP, base attack, and attack speed matter much more. Nowadays, it’s almost impossible to play Aztecs in Imperial Age. What’s the point of having cheap units if they all have low HP and get wiped out by a single enemy push? You may be able to replace them cheaply, but you still need time to mass a new army — and during that time, the enemy can destroy your buildings and production, making it even harder to recover.

The game should take team-game balance more seriously, without compromising 1v1 balance.

[casusincorrabil]

Oh yeah you reminded me that the onager buff will make EAs more powerful. It’s already one of the strongest comps in the game. So far it was mostly specific to dravidians, but now it might turn on a phenomenon.

Generally speaking high HP pierce damage units can be ok when they are costly enough and have limited pushing power. However that’s exactly the issue that made stuff like War Wagons sometimes oppressive (before the nerf).

[Vindy]

@xanaína

“Prevent them from getting there” is not a sufficient balance argument for team games. Strong units should still have practical, cost-effective counters after they are on the battlefield.

Cost is only a good measure in 1v1 games. In team games, HP, base attack, and attack speed matter much more. Nowadays, it’s almost impossible to play Aztecs in Imperial Age. What’s the point of having cheap units if they all have low HP and get wiped out by a single enemy push? You may be able to replace them cheaply, but you still need time to mass a new army — and during that time, the enemy can destroy your buildings and production, making it even harder to recover.

The game should take team-game balance more seriously, without compromising 1v1 balance.

Everything you say here is also applicable to FFA. Preventing them from getting there is not an option. They’ll get there, and you’ll have to deal with it.