AoE:DE Build 46777 rating and future


after what feels like an eternity I finally managed to play a few games of AoE on the latest patch.

I will first come to my evaluation of the patch changes, before I explain my desired changes for the future.
I had already mentioned my ideas for this future several times in longer posts, but since the devs said to keep making suggestions, I’ll do so again. Whether these were read at all by the devs or still will, one will probably never know. The impression is rather that unfortunately great changes or innovations will never be added to the game and the huge potential will forever fall by the wayside.

First about the patch:
In general, I’m positive about the patch.
I already had the impression that the wayfinding is a tad smoother (really putting it gently). Also, I couldn’t notice any units getting stuck in each other. However, I mainly played Chosons and Minoans, so I can’t say anything about elephants. But with legions or mounted archers I had no problems there, in contrast to before.
The nerve of the legions I felt as not so bad. Yes, you notice it a bit, of course, but I think it’s okay. The increase in the price of the technologies of longsword fighters and legions is also okay. I think the developers wanted to put the dominance of the academy units more in the foreground here and take some wind out of the sails of blunt spamming. That doesn’t mean that longsword fighters/legions are bad now.
In the course of this, the unlocks of armor technologies for Babylonians make sense. Babylonians are very inflexible when it comes to offensive warfare anyway. It would have been helpful even before if they were equipped to the maximum in their core units, i.e. the barracks units.
Shang now also have ballistics. I think every civ should have this technology.

Let’s get to the negative, from my point of view.
I don’t know about you guys, but I found Helepolis op before this patch.
In itself, I think it’s fine that the simple ballista got a buff. Because it was really bad. But it should have been adjusted so that the Helepolis in the shooting rate afterwards comes back to the old value. That was high enough in my opinion. Note that the damage was also increased.
“Attention! Attention! To all the players who like to spam Helepolis (and I count myself among them) - this is your time. To make it easier for you, we’ve also lowered the development cost.” :wink:
Even as a fan of Helepolis, this is too strong for me.
The question is why they did that. My guess:
"Age of Empires" is still “Age of Elephants”.

On the positive side, the costs have finally been raised at least a bit (for the elephant shooters). Because still the status quo, especially online, is simply as fast as possible in the last time, the main thing is food, food, food and then the elephants are spammed out until there is no more tomorrow. Developments are felt secondary, the main thing you manage to spam faster and more elephants than the opponents. The HP alone is high enough. I think a telenovela offers more variety and sophistication.
However, for the increased cost, the damage is increased, which I personally consider total nonsense. As I said - the elephant shooters were already strong enough before. Especially since this is also hard to understand in the development logic that the game offers. For the composite archer, who now even has one attack point less, you have to develop 2 technologies and for the elephant archer nothing. With which bow sits such a shooter then on the elephant?
So my personal opinion for elephant archers is as follows:
As a preliminary stage, you have to develop the composite bow. This would have to be much more expensive, because then more civs would have the composite archer available.
The damage is again 5.
In addition, the HP of all elephants is reduced to 400 (550 for Carthaginians) and the cost is increased to 170F, 70G. This would still be strong enough in my opinion, but reduced some impact.
Look at AoE2. Even though it’s moronic that there are elephants there at all, they are much better balanced.

What’s not moronic in the 2nd part is being able to buy and sell globally. It is not really clear to me why this function was still not integrated. Starting from bronze age it would be nevertheless perfectly in order. Just as a market cart, which, analogous to the merchant ship, can trade gold. Then you wouldn’t have such a big problem with civs that don’t have chariots available.

A flare function - already mentioned a thousand times, still not there.

If you (MS) want players from the second part to also play the first, these things are absolutely crucial.
Also that with the unit formations. Let’s be clear - I personally don’t care about the formations at all. I even think it has its own flair when troops are messed up in battle. Partly I also find it too lame in part 2, when horsemen, for example, operate strictly in formation on the battlefield. There it goes off nevertheless already substantially more here.
In addition, it looks quite strange if clubbers would run in formation.
But 99% of the players want that and assume it for a modern game. And that should not be ignored.
@SlenderBadger98 ad the excellent idea that formations but the Bronze Age are available with the construction of the government building. > Should devs implement unit formations since Bronze Age? (POLL)
I can only subscribe to that.
I build the government building and then have the choice of “no formation” and all formations from part 2.
Another tiresome topic is gates. Also for me - I don’t need it, but almost everyone wants them.
However, both things should be mentioned - as long as path finding is as miserable as it is now, it’s questionable whether gates and formations would work at all.

Also, it would generally be nice to have a replay function like in the 2nd part and be able to save games in multiplayer.


Stone throwers/catapults/heavy catapults now have the following range: 9/11/12. For comparison: A normal Catapult-Trireme has only 9.

Composite Archers now have a standard damage of 6.
Why? These units cost gold. Wagon archers do not. Wagon shooters have more lives, are faster, more resistant to conversions and have the same range as composite shooters. One less point of attack. Why should I build composite archers? With 2 more damage compared to wagon archer, I think the gold is justified.

Triremes now cost 140W/25G.

Catapult ships/heavy warships now cost 140W/50G.

Technology “technics” is too cheap in my eyes. It should cost 300F/100G.


Even though I wrote above that in my opinion there is no need for new units, I have 2 suggestions.
The first problem has in my opinion civs, who can’t build chariots. That means - no gold = lost. That’s why I propose an elite axe fighter, which can be developed from the Iron Age on, does not cost gold, but costs more food than the normal axe fighter (100?) and is about as strong as a broadsword fighter. In addition, it deals 20 percent more damage against mounted units.

Then I think there should be an elite camel rider.


The axeman should be developed immediately in the Tool Age.

The harbour building should be as large as a village centre.


Seleukiden, Parther, Celts.

I think that’s enough text. Thanks to everyone who read it :slight_smile:


what I forgot - it would be super nice to have an explorer in the Tool Age, like in the 2nd part. Not on a horse, of course. But it could be someone who can see further, run faster and is not attacked by wild animals.

Many greetings.


Axeman having bonus vs cavalry doesn’t make any sense. Axe is not really good weapons vs cavalry especially if you don’t have a shield. Cavalry can just run you over. I would suggest that Heavy Axeman would have more speed than swordsman line since they are light infantry.

If Trimeres will cost gold then what about Scout ship and War Galley? Does Trimere become separate line and not a part of scout/war galley line?

Composite archers should receive instead Iron Age upgrade which could have range 8 and damage 6 or 7 and HP 50.

After all, it’s about damage and not tankyness. :slightly_smiling_face:
It’s just a matter of not having absolutely no chance against scythe chariots.
And of course, they can then have a shield.

Did a new patch get released or something?

No he is talking about the one we got some time ago.


Then why are you talking about this now?

Why not? I didn’t have time for it before. Do I have to justify myself for posts in a game forum now?
Sorry for that.
Will not write such things in the future. I thought I’d try to continue participating in the community. My bad.


I think that Helepolis requiring 1200 food does make it easier to spam them, but it also encourages players to counter with Catapults, making the game more exciting.

In team games that reach late stage, teams with “Gold Civs” (civs that cannot produce Chariot Archer or Scythe Chariots) can find themselves at a disadvantage if they lack gold to continue to produce good units. I think a good solution would be to provide these civs with an Iron Age tech that allows Bowman to more effectively counter Chariot Archers and Scythe Chariots.

1 Like

no, please keep doing that, it is atleast a sign that aoe 1 de heart is still beating.


The best way would be simply if raw materials could be bought/ sold like in the 2nd part.


that would be awesome

I didn’t mean to offend you or anything, it’s just why talk about such an old patch? I didn’t even own AoE: DE back when the old build you were talking about was released, and I don’t think it’s worth talking about now.

You don’t have to apologise for that.

If I am not wrong, the patch 46777 is not considered “old” as it is the latest. So we are good to talk about it any time.

This topic was about patch 27674 before he changed the title.

1 Like

I don’t agree with most of your proposal. I’ll explain why for some of them.

Elephant is WEAK in random map. They are slow, expensive, hard to massive and easy to counter.
Your enemy always has enough time to counter them if you are in the same level. They are usually not the best choice of your iron army unless they are your only choice

for armored ele, centurion and helepolis massacre them; HHA beats them in a few micros; all of the 3 are easier to mass and cost effective;
for archer ele, they are good late game choice, but still easily countered by wall or tower.

When facing a priest civ, how dare you make elephants? Your rival will definitely try to wololo your clumsy creature.

And they can rarely help you if cataphracts / HHA raiding your or your teams’ economy.

They are good enough and the best unit of bronze, cheap, easy to massive and high DPS.

maybe u are not aware that composite’s rate of fire is 1.4, slightly better than normal archers’ 1.5; and all mounted archers have slightly higher attack point (animation) while footed not.

No. they are supposed to outrange ANYTHING ANYTIME. In fact, they are expected to be buffed especially in bronze (e.g. range 10 → 11, or cost 180W → 160W), as they are not cost effective (200W + 180W80G) and takes longest time to train, therefore it favors turtle strategy A LOT.

bad idea.

they are supposed to be cheaper or tougher as nobody actually uses them. Buff their cost / training time / range (9/10 → 10/11 to make them a decent choice over Triremes, or there is no point to waste time to research all the tech required.


Okay, that in itself is true. But I actually changed directly 🤷.
Then I didn’t say anything.

Many greetings.

That’s why I made the connection between the Helepolis buff and the elephant spamming. I always find it critical to overpower something to keep something else in check instead of simply attaching a small nerve.

I consider it completely unsuitable in multiplayer for the masses we are talking about here.

All of what I wrote here are the experiences I had in multiplayer. I’m not talking about 1v1, but from 2v2 to 4v4. It was also quite uninteresting whether towers were built. Because it almost didn’t matter how many elephants died. Because the costs are manageable in relation to the masses.

Maybe so. Still doesn’t make sense to me in terms of development logic. :slightly_smiling_face:

Why not?

First of all, you are fully entitled to comment and share, that’s what the forum is about. In addition to keeping the game alive. :+1:

That being said, I don’t agree with the changes you recommend.

Comparing the Composite Bowman, with the Elephant Archer does not make sense. The Composite is a Bronze unit that you can mass quite quickly and at little cost.
The elephant is an Iron age unit, slower and very expensive, you can train 4 composites with the cost of an elephant.
Its cost has already gone up in the last patch. It shouldn’t be nerfed.

Trireme cannot cost gold because it is the direct upgrade from War Galley and Scout Ship. The only thing you could do is increase the cost of the upgrade, and cost gold instead of food, but why would you? I don’t think there are any problems with Triremes.

Among your suggestions for the future you mentioned the possibility of buying gold in the market, as in AOE2, and I think it would not be a good idea. The game is designed so that resources run out, and the villagers flee to rebuild the city at another point on the map. The change in the market can cause eternal games.
On the other hand, speaking of new content, I do agree with a merchant by land, but that works like ships changing resources, not free gold as in AOE2.
There is no sedentary lifestyle or turtle defense in this game because it involves controlling all resources before they run out.

1 Like

Thank you. :slightly_smiling_face:

I am already aware of that. That’s why I suggested increasing the cost of composite archer technology.It’s just a suggestion. Also, aside from all the balancing stuff, I’ve always found it strange that you never develop any bow and then all of a sudden you have a archer with the same range and the same damage. Especially when the bow technology is still offered to you.

Apart from that, one elephant is probably stronger than 4 composite archers.
Also stronger than 6. :wink:

I am already aware of that. But I find the normal warships too cheap, at the latest from the Iron Age. It was just a suggestion.

I think it’s the other way around. This “problem” exists in the 2nd part just as well. Through the construction of castles and gates even more. But just by the “unlimited” availability (nothing is unlimited) of gold, especially related to the gold civs, this strategy of turtling, which you probably mean, is much more difficult in this case.
I’m convinced players would adapt to it very quickly.

Apart from that, it also makes sense historically. Even in ancient times, peoples bought and sold raw materials.

That’s exactly what I meant. :+1:

Catapult triremes aren’t a replacement for triremes, they are meant to take out docks and other buildings not ships.