for me a unit that does area damage should have weaker damage then a monotarget unit.
its illogical that scythe has more damage than normal chariot
aspect.> @Totalste said:
Well if it remains a trash unit, you are right. But i think they will add some gold to the cost of it in the beta
If chariot is gold unit. What will be the difference between chariot and cavalry then? Bonus against priest or bonus against infantry isn’t huge enough difference.
@Tgaud said:
for me a unit that does area damage should have weaker damage then a monotarget unit.its illogical that scythe has more damage than normal chariot
Lots of games are avoiding situations where upgrading units or class would make them weaker at some aspect.
Would be easier to balance the units tho. If Microsoft decides to implement this type of unit upgrade then scythes chariot would be a good unit to do so.
@Tgaud said:
Sorry but iron age normal chariot is fine.its enough of a counter against catapults.
It doesnt cost gold, so you’re not to expect too much from it
Then how about instead of a unit upgrade through stat or ability changes, make it start off costing gold and the upgrade would take away the gold cost.
@Tgaud
@Emberguard said:
@Tgaud said:
Sorry but iron age normal chariot is fine.its enough of a counter against catapults.
It doesnt cost gold, so you’re not to expect too much from itThen how about instead of a unit upgrade through stat or ability changes, make it start off costing gold and the upgrade would take away the gold cost.
@Tgaud
pay 800 gold so that you don’t have to pay gold for creating them…
40 food 60 wood is chariots current cost, so if the cost is 60 gold/chariot it means that the upgrade has paid itself out in gold at 14 chariot. The upgrade will also cost wood so no reason to make the upgrade. Chariot won’t gonna be the main unit of the army, so you are not gonna make those 20+ anytime soon. Means the upgrade is good only if the game is very very long.
And the chariot in bronze will be useless because if you have gold you will create cavalry.
best suggestion i have seen thus far is the reduction of an attack damage in upgrade. would make countering them so much easier. Any unit that has armor of it’s own would be so much more durable against them.
I use upatch I didn’t rember the difference, exactly.
@pate623 said:
@Emberguard said:
@Tgaud said:
Sorry but iron age normal chariot is fine.its enough of a counter against catapults.
It doesnt cost gold, so you’re not to expect too much from itThen how about instead of a unit upgrade through stat or ability changes, make it start off costing gold and the upgrade would take away the gold cost.
@Tgaudpay 800 gold so that you don’t have to pay gold for creating them…
40 food 60 wood is chariots current cost, so if the cost is 60 gold/chariot it means that the upgrade has paid itself out in gold at 14 chariot. The upgrade will also cost wood so no reason to make the upgrade. Chariot won’t gonna be the main unit of the army, so you are not gonna make those 20+ anytime soon. Means the upgrade is good only if the game is very very long.
And the chariot in bronze will be useless because if you have gold you will create cavalry.best suggestion i have seen thus far is the reduction of an attack damage in upgrade. would make countering them so much easier. Any unit that has armor of it’s own would be so much more durable against them.
Except if paying 6000 gold its no use.
The point is that at some time, you can spam this unit for free and ravage everything, even gold units, is bullshit.
this unit has no sense in itself. it doesnt fit in army composition because its strong against everything.
Even returning to normal chariot / archer chariot when gold is depleted, would be a better idea than having this units.
Gold Control must have a strategic impact.
if you’re weaker with gold than people without gold, what the point ?
Lol saying that the balance in Rise of Rome is worse than in the original. Are you kidding me? AOE is basically Assyrian and chariot archers, that’s it. In AOE only Assyrian and Yamato are viable civs. The rest is at a big disadvantage. Scythe chariots actually bring balance to the game as in it makes some weaker civilisations stronger. Also they are not invincible and have plenty of counters. Mass helepolis will usually win and so do mass horse archers. Especially heavy horse archers are good at killing Scythe chariots. Towers also work wonders.
RoR is definitely not a one unit game. Also, RoR didn’t die. There are people in Vietnam literally making money by playing RoR.
@AKC_HellStriker said:
Lol saying that the balance in Rise of Rome is worse than in the original. Are you kidding me? AOE is basically Assyrian and chariot archers, that’s it. In AOE only Assyrian and Yamato are viable civs. The rest is at a big disadvantage. Scythe chariots actually bring balance to the game as in it makes some weaker civilisations stronger. Also they are not invincible and have plenty of counters. Mass helepolis will usually win and so do mass horse archers. Especially heavy horse archers are good at killing Scythe chariots. Towers also work wonders.RoR is definitely not a one unit game. Also, RoR didn’t die. There are people in Vietnam literally making money by playing RoR.
sorry but scythe counter just 95% of units without costing gold.
most end game are scythe vs scythes.
At the time there were many.
Catapults, archers, elephant archers, elephants, helepolis, chariot (when no gold), cavalry…
Now ?
Its just scythes and archers.
Vietnam play ror because of shit computer and connection that can’t get working modern games. Thats all.
When ror went out, it totally died and lost most of players after some month.
Now what’s is your opinion after see a couple minutes gameplay?
NDA
lol. You change mind.
I can’t say.
I know. I’m only imagined your enjoy.
For the most part, I believe we all agree we will absolutely not want this unbalanced unit to show up in AoE 4, why was the unit so cheap anyways, shouldn’t chariots take more wood than any other unit? Were they drunk when they thought this was a good idea.