With all the buffs infantry have been getting and how cavalry are still overpowered i think we need to buff archers to compensate for this. My first proposal is to have archers be 100% accurate by default and making thumb ring only affect fire rate. This is how ranged units work in aoe3 by the way. Next were increasing swordsman spearman and all archer hp by 30% as this will nerf cavalry. Seriously a paladin has 2x or 3x as much hitpoints by default as infantry and 4x to 5x as much as archers 160 vs 70 60 40 and 35 hitpoints. The knight has 100 and the cavilier gets 120. Dont forget that in a recent patch britons italians and vietnamese were well within the bottom 10 while cav civs dominated the top third of the roster. Let me know what you think about this change.
so you want to buff Britons.
That would be horrendously broken.
AoE3 has its own problems; we shouldn’t introduce things from there into a much more balanced and polished game without considering the widespread effect those things might have.
So you want AoE2 to become AoE1? That’s not a good thing. AoE1 is imbalanced.
nothing wrong with buffing Briton tbh, their winrate isn’t impressive and they are slowly getting power creeped anyway. Tho I don’t think dev should buff their team bonus back. And yes, infantry still sucks after the last buff and cavalry still dominate everything.
I think OP means to buff the base accuracy to 100% against standing units. Not free ballistics. Archers has 80% and xbow has 85%. So the change does not really impact very much.
I prefer to buff archers of archer civs except britons or mayans by a new cheap generic tech.
Yeah and remind me the cost upgrade and units between all of them? Most of the top civ are in that position thank to a great eco or military bonus. I mean look at malian and incas new bonuses knowing they were really average before that.
from 80% to 100% wont improve them much. IF (and really IF) i would ask for a buff, then restaure their previous frame delay is enough (maybe too much.)
The hell, no. Finally we have an acceptable spot for them.
For range units even small change could go to something drastic due to their uniqueness - ability to hit one object at once (something very unrealistic and overpowered in bigger numbers).
Archers are good like they are now.
Also why would anyone pick Tatars? iI you want faster firing crossbow just go Ethiopians if you want faster firing CA with pick mongols.
Archers are ok IMO, they should no counter cavalry anyways but they are very usefull in the current meta, definetively the best feudal unit.
I would only buff the spear line a little bit… +5 hp to pikes (60hp total), +10 hp to halbs (70hp total) and would change supplies to reduce 10F and gameson to give +1/+1 to both milita and spears
These are certainly some of the opinions of all time.
How can you compare the cost of Paladin to the cost of Arbalester? That doesn’t make any sense, not to mention the cost of the actual unit! Another thing is if you buff archers too much, then the game will turn into Age of Archers 2 DE.
The only thing i would do is to buff Gambesons to 1/1 armor, that’s all. I think just 1 pierce is kinda meh.
That would cause some problems, like Halberdiers vs Skirmishers. Spearman line is okay.
I don’t think Archers are weak tho, they do just fine. Infantry on other hand are totally waste, but that should be no problem, since the only civs lacking Cavs are the ones with Eagle Warrior (which btw is a little too strong unit, weak only against other infantry, but since no one uses infantry…).
Very unlikely
First of all skirms are a soft counter and will lose against halbs is there is no other unit helping them
Second, if the extra hp is REALLY a problem against skirms, the elite version could have their bonus against spearmen from +3 to +4 and that wouldn’t change the current state of skirms vs halbs
That left the “gameson buff” for last. Gameson already is available for around half the civs, and militia isn’t viable for it, what makes you think that a unit with the same hp, less armor and recieve bonus damage from range units will be any better against them
Totally agree, this HP design is a huge issue in the game design.
Especially when we look at the interaction with Siege. Not only is cavalry much faster but also can take way more siege hits than the other units.
This general misdesign is one of the main issues for the current “push” for infantry, as regardless what you do, mass Infantry will always be hard-countered by siege and the only way you can somehow circumvent this is with coming from all sides like with the goth spam. Butfor obvious reasons this shouldn’t become the standard way to use infantry.
I know a lot of people love to watch the badabooms, but I want to raise 2 questions:
A) Are these really good for the game, especially for the balance in the mid elo range?
B) Why are the badabooms basically completely restricted to everythin but Cavalry? Why are there no Cavalry badabooms?
How about no?
Yes i get that aoe3 had issues in certain balance types like infinite food and gold generation from farms but even with the 100% base accuracy of ranged units and the ranged units having a cqc melee attack hand cavalry still dominate ranged units and even melee units designed to counter them i never said i wanted farms to work like they do in age 3 and a lot of the problems in age 3 i think are either due to a lot of its base source code to be copied from age of mythology or because they didnt expect people to play it even to this day when it was released in 2005 its also far easier to mod age 3 and i find aoe3de to have improved on scenario editor even compared to aoe2de due to how the inactive ai works with the triggers like army deploy and defend plan triggers