These days you can queue the commands to build that castle and then garrison inside it.
Fighting with villagers should be hard because villagers aren’t supposed to fight.
They already deal 3 damage where a militia deals 4 neither of them have armor, comparitively that’s crazy strong.
The lack building foundation would also help when a tr has already started, new towers can be brought down more easily. The point is not to remove towers from the game. It’s especially useful against turtling, where it should remain useful.
Supremacy would have to be nerfed if villagers could attack normally.
1 Like
- Villagers CAN fight, not being made for it doesn’t mean they can’t fight when the situation demands it
- Militias can be upgraded later on, and compared to villagers they deal 33% more damage, idk how that makes villager stronger with a disadvantage like that. And militias have 1 pierce armor by nature, while villagers need to be upgraded to have the same hp as militias. Also militias are a bit more than 10% faster than villagers.
- Lack of armor on building foundation won’t matter if you can’t even damage the foundation to begin with. (also I never said anything abt removing towers)
- Idk how a “champion” that only does 50% damage, has not as much armor, not as much bonus against buildings and no bonus against eagle warriors are broken to the point of needing a nerf (quick reminder that supplies are now a thing)
Also just the fact that you’re fighting with a villager already means you’re hurting your economy, I can’t see anything wrong with giving the player a break and letting him focus his attention to do other things than babysit dumb villagers that don’t know how to fight.
1 Like
Of course militia’s are stronger than villagers, but only a little bit and they cost 80 resources, which is 60% more.
With loom villagers get the same amount of hp as militia and better armor.
So at that point you’d pay less for a tougher unit, only a bit slower.
Villagers have melee attack damage in order to attack buildings, not other units.
It makes no sense that simple villagers know how to fight and maybe even better than trained militia.
Once you see the first tower going up you’ll be scouting around for others.
Then you can rush down new towers with vills, wasting the opponents resources.
In order to remain useful every tower would have to be build within range of the previous.
And even then the defending player might be able to cancel newly build towers.
Which is currently almost impossible.
When units are set to rally some where they should rally to that point as if given an attack move command.
Currently when units spawn to a rally point they just walk to their deaths if anything is around them. This leads to very snow-bally game play where if ranged units get on top of your buildings spawning units, the units will spawn then immediately get killed as they walk past enemies to get to the rally point. This is exacerbated because if the enemy are blocking their path they will try to take another route to get to the rally point.
This might be a bug with pathing but regardless it would be good to make the units leaving a unit spawning building more aggressive if this is working as intended.
5 Likes
I am not sure if it has been brought up but maybe just the Inca’s after getting a single blacksmith upgrade and Spanish after they research Supremacy should get the actions that military units get on their villagers?
It feels like a good trade off considering Supremacy is a late game technology and is very hard to use currently. In most cases Supremacy just makes you hard to raid, as opposed to actually making your villagers a fighting force.
The Inca villager is the hard case in my opinion. I feel like there would need to be some balance changes here just from seeing the trushes that can be pulled off with their villagers getting blacksmith upgrades. I have no suggestions for how to balance that since I am pretty bad at this game but given what I have seen in some competitive replays I assume something would have to change. From my perspective it seems the only resource to performing a Inca villager trush is how micro intensive it is and this would be heavily offset if villagers were given the same kind of abilities as military units.
Regardless of balance villagers getting military commands opens up a whole slew of questions that would need to be answered about behavior. For example what would hold position while building do if you got hit? I outlined the scenarios I could think of below. I tried format this like a decision tree where we always start with the villager being attacked while building, while maintaining hold position.
- The villager’s hold position stance is toggled on
- The villager starts building a house
- The hold position stance is replaced with another stance that allows building
-
The hold position stance is maintained
-
The villager is attacked
-
The villager moves and stops building
- The hold position stance is
- The villager does not return to building
- The hold position stance is maintained
- The villager holds position at its new location
- The hold position stance is maintained
- The villager attempts to return to building
- The hold position stance is removed
- The hold position stance is replaced with another stance that would allow the minimum amount of movement to flee from the target damaging it
- The hold position stance is
-
The villager does not move and stops building
- The hold position stance is maintained
- The villager attempts to keep building but pauses on each hit for the time it would spend fleeing
- The hold position stance is maintained
- The villager keeps building while being attacked with no pauses
- The hold position stance is removed
- The villager attempts to return to building
- The hold position stance is maintained
-
The villager moves and stops building
-
The villager is attacked
- The villager starts building a house
I am sure I forgot a few cases, but this gets quite complex just considering how a villager should act in this relatively contained scenario. Also, for the record, I don’t like most of the options for behavior here I was just trying to illustrate the various scenarios that would need to be considered.
The horde formation would be awesome, the amount of time it takes to wheel a formation is some cases is life or death. Having this formation would be handy, the immediate scenario I think of is when you select everything and accidentally select a slow siege unit and tell them to move. Now everyone forms up into nice neat ranks but at a snails pace while the siege unit gets into position. With this formation everyone would move at their own pace to get to the destination and wouldn’t try to form ranks.
2 Likes
Villagers absolutely shouldn’t have a combat stance as they are not combat units and should not behave like them. Other features already exist more or less. You can already have your default stance as defensive in the option menu (but not for specific buildings rather for all units being produced) and groups are also visible.
I would love it if they put an autoqueue button like they have in age of mythology. It would be so helpful to autoqueue units in your production buildings, especially in those long trashwars at post-imp where you have to make sure theres 8 different archery ranges producing skirmishers at all times. It would also be very helpful to autoqueue villagers at dark age and when booming.
Supremacy+aggressive villagers = OP. It’s not hard to get (after all it’s cheaper than Forced levy) and unlike swordsmen there is no unit that deals bonus damage vs villagers. And while statistically 2H swordsmen remain better, Spanish already are the only civ to have the 3 FU trash units, they don’t need more.
then the game will sell less…
Welp, since there is no objective reason that AoE3 would be less suited to younger audiences than the other AoE games, they can’t. And anyway, 1-they will fix the chat filter, it’s definitely a bug 2-there is blood inAoEDE and AoE2DE
Trust me, if a lot of players are adult today it’s because they either:
were adult at the time
were super young at the time but grew up because you know 20 years have elapsed
A handful of players, including myself, have first touched an Age game while they were 5 years old.
Trying to keep your community civilized=casualization?
For me an adult isn’t someone who feel like slur words are so important you should let some people freely spit them until it harms someone.
Thanks for the thoughts, CactusSteak2171. Sorry for the confusion; my casualization thought early in my post was more regarding games that try to appeal to everyone, in general… not the chat filters of AoE2:DE, specifically. Though, it all came around to things like the chat filter, eventually.
Regarding swear words, you aren’t present in everyone’s gaming conversation, so you maybe don’t know how bad, or overly strict, the filters currently are. You, as one person, aren’t able to type an entire dictionary of words and phrases to know what all is and has been encountered.
- Sometimes you try to say the absolute tamest of ‘swear’ words and it still blocks the whole sentence.
- Sometimes the filter makes a swear word out of two completely innocent non-swear words that randomly happen to be next to each other in a completely innocent sentence and then blocks the whole sentence.
I won’t provide examples here, but it is a very strict and unrealistic filter. And two grown adults in a private, Steam friends-only match, with no spectators allowed, should not be subject to some overbearing filter meant more for Nintendo games or Club Penguin.
1 Like
Oh, I’m aware right now the filter is a mess, but of course that is going to be fixed. There is no way it’s a permanent addition.
Welp, that’s a situation where no one is going to try and harm the other. But for instance in a ranked game, nothing guarantees who play against who. I don’t think children risk much there since they play SP mainly, but some people might play the game to relieve stress from a … tense situation, just imagine how bad of an experience it could be for such persons to at last have some fun today and they get randomly flamed.
Maybe there should be hotkeys for muting individual or all players, if that doesn’t already exist?.. for convenience and lightning quick solution.
And maybe have a toggle in main Options menu to mute all chat so you never have to worry about it for any match ever again, if that’s not already possible. In some Battlefield game for Playstation, I hated having to mute all players’ VoIP chat every single match.
The suggested ideas are pretty standard and should not have been omitted from the definitive edition. Development could really step up their game and start implementing these quality of life changes.
There are options in diplomacy or chat screen for muting players there is a horn that you can click to mute players if you dont want to see thier chat
I know you can/have to do that stuff in each match; that’s why my entire post was about adding hotkeys to be able to toggle that stuff easily on-the-fly, and also adding a global setting so you never have to toggle that stuff in-match ever again if you don’t want.
Some players hate profanity. Some players hate chatty players. Some players hate getting told what to do and what not to do by other players. Some players are kids. Etc. A global setting would be nice for those players… and include a parental lock, if needed, so kids can’t re-enable it. Actually, a parental lock on the global chat setting should be standard, instead of a filter for all the adults who play.