The point of this thread is that IT DOES matter, that’s why ideas are drop here
If you don’t like it, that’s good, ignore the thread, but if the only thing you can add is the same purist mantra, go ahead and do your own “I don’t like anything new, nor other people’s suggestions” thread
There is no amount of whining that will stop the neverending changes in this game, the only logical thing is to at least provide something cohesive and logical, otherwise, we are gonna end up having another 3K civs, and uninspired civs like Tupi (I hate that they not have stronger pallisade walls)
I haven’t realized anything, this should be obvious, everything we write in this forum are just words unless some developer reads them and feels especially inspired by them. Then maybe these ideas can be tested, and then maybe they’ll work. I’m not forcing anyone or demanding anything. The other alternatives are that no one posts suggestions or that the devs never make changes… that’s not going to happen…
You don’t need a gameplay-related reason to post proposals in this forum. Maybe the Crossbowmen aren’t broken, but it doesn’t make historical sense for many civilizations to have crossbows (I clearly remember how strange the Crossbowmen seemed to me in the American civilizations’ campaigns, for example). This game is very Eurocentric when it could be a bit more diverse and better represent historical units. I’m just suggesting replacing the Crossbowmen line for certain civilizations with a similar Bowmen line; it’s not a big deal.
Honestly, after a fews days with the whiplash of the militia line being replaced for a few civs, I gotta agree that this kind of change for the sake of makimg the tech tree feel less “weird” is just unnecesary
Like, if the game was developed from the start to include crossbows I wouldnt see an issue. But adding a new crossbow line, even if it would maybe weaken the skirm meta, is just chamge for the sake of change
why should we ignore a thread that’s suggesting changes to the game that would be detrimental to the game if implemented. if nobody disagrees that gives the appearance that this is something everyone wants.
The adittion of the Steppe Lancer, was change for the sake of change?
The upgrade of Heavy Cavalry Archer, was change for the sake of change?
I dont think anyone that now is a “purist” would have liked those ideas if that same “purist” mindset was around back then
You know what makes things improve, change, it might do things bad at the beginning, but the continue process of change will eventually lead to improvement
And keeping things as they are…is just that, the same errors, the same mistakes, forever
So you are dead scare the devs might implement what’s on the forums, noted
HCA was in the game since launch in 1999. what are you on about?
to some extent, yes. Mongols didn’t need another option, they were already quite strong without them.
not really, but on the off chance that any dev actually reads this forum, i want the to know that splitting the archer line would be somewhere between pointless and awful, depending on implementation.
Parthian tactics had a very clear gameplay reason to be added: CA were very weak and not used much in aok.
This is what we are arguing in favour of: unit lines that don’t get used much or don’t get used as intended should get changes. Something like the archer line that’s functioning perfectly, should not.
I think plumed archers should be turned into a regional upgrade to the archer line, but that’s because I think it’s too generic to be an UU (and likely made up anyway), not because I think archers need a rework.
I honestly don’t see the devs doing that. Maybe a new shared technology/unit could be added for certain civs, as I suggested with Poison. But separating archers from crossbowmen for all civs, besides being radical, wouldn’t make sense from a historical accuracy standpoint, given the existence of the skirmisher as a distinct line (not to mention the issue of counters).
I mean: the ideal logical progression would be javelin → crossbow → firearm, since these weapons had the same role—easily taking down heavily armored units, with the downside of increasingly longer reload times and costs. Bows, on the other hand, weren’t really good at overcoming armor; a well-made combination of mail and gambeson could stop an arrow, let alone plate armor. Their role was to cause chaos among the enemy army by disrupting communication and denying ground to those approaching with a hail of arrows. In other words: less penetrating power than a javelin/crossbow/gunpowder, but faster attack speed and a much lower cost, plus the ability to counter unarmored units.
It would be cool to see this, but, as others have said, it would require a huge gameplay justification to change such a fundamental aspect, and besides being insufficient to make everything realistic, it would turn aoe2 into a different game altogether. I really like the historical flavor, but I’ve already accepted that certain aspects couldn’t and shouldn’t change. So adding (optional) cosmetics to improve immersion and changing techs that don’t work/don’t make sense or broken bonuses would be more reasonable suggestions than this.
No you don’t get it.
We lately had so many changes that were implemented because of people who have a strong ideology, believes and values they also can enounce well.
In order to stop this we now have to get ahead of them and implement random changes without ANY ideology behind it - and sophistically badly elaborated so it’s clear for them they will run into a brick wall trying to touch this.
I kinda get why you would say to make these units upgrade from each other, but visually it would be awkward
I understand its kinda like spear-pike-halberd, but those three at least look very similar, meamwhile upgrading javelin to crossbow would already be awkward even if the crossbowmen have a pavise, and then you would have the gunman dropping the shield entirely. Also, the use of shields with crossbows is a western european thing
Great, lets find it then, perhaps while following the high gold cost, low range, give it a small bonus damage against cavalry, that way a Lancer-Xbow situacion would be anti-cav combo
For the civs in southamerica, the slinger already has a anti-infantry bonus and the archer line (could be improve to heavy archer or something) should have a faster attack speed maintaining the bonus against spearman line
I don’t see what point you’re trying to make here. Obviously I don’t think you’re in a position to make changes to the game yourself. So what? I’m not allowed to disagree with your idea because you’re not one of the dev team?
Where exactly did I tell you you’re not allowed to post this suggestion on the forum?
I think this would be better solved with optional regional unit skins, something that has been suggested and discussed many times on this forum. For American civs specifically, in the past I’ve suggested plumed archers becoming a regional crossbow/arbalest replacement, with Mayans getting a new unique unit – although I’m not sold on it because it’s a gameplay change for which I don’t have a gameplay-based justification.
@Broscarmania, I’m not interested in talking to you because I know from past experience you just resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. You’ve already basically done that with this “purist” nonsense. If I was a purist, I’d be playing AoK or The Conquerors, not DE.
Going with my assumption of making them a precursor to Hand Cannoneers, I’d just make them weaker version of Hand Cannoneers, so higher pierce attack and smaller range than the Archer line.
Compared to the current Hand Cannoneers, I’d raise the cost slightly and in return raise accuracy to let’s say 85% (in comparison to the current 75% – Thumb Ring wouldn’t affect them). Or maybe keep the low accuracy but make them train faster.
That’s true, but I think it’s because we’re used to seeing skirmishers associated with javelins in the media, and because the evolution of the role of these weapons would be too abrupt; that is, we wouldn’t see the entire development from the gastraphetes to the cheiroballista to the crossbow because it predates the medieval period.
But firearms, being quite different because they use principles of chemistry in addition to physics, could remain a separate line. I forgot about this.
