Then balance it, dont remove it.
Maybe with a new building they could train the unique banner armies from the HC, to give them more variety.
1 Like
Maybe, but I no longer believe balancing around it is the right decision. If an Asian civ rework actually happens, I think them changing that system is a real possibility. Imo it’s mainly a competitive problem, so to me, how the mechanics actually function, matters far more than keeping a flawed system just for the sake of it’s uniqueness.
Obviously I play AoE3 for its asymmetric civs, and I dont want just carbon copies like in AoE2, but at some point, it should be fine to acknowledge if a design just goes too far.
Also, I’m currently thinking of a unique mechanic that could replace the Banner system if one is even needed.
Okay, since most of you are so against removing that mechanic, I think they are atleast two ways to fix it. No matter what though, China has to get a second military building which in both cases should be a stable where you produce your cav units individually like it is with Russia, and the Meteor Hammer should just get deleted while the other 3 cav units get adjusted.
Option 1) would be simply cutting down the melee units in the banner army from 3 → 2. So if you produce the Old Han army you dont get 3xbow+3pike but just 3xbow+2pike, same for the current Territorial Army.
There’s a problem with this one tho, as you get the option to produce cav individually so must their prices change. And if that happens then the prices of the banner army where they’re in also would need to be adjusted.
Or you’re just able to produce Infantry Banners and your cav individually, but then you’d only have two banners in your barracks - which admittedly would be weird. I think you get the gist of it tho.
Option 2) Is basically taking the Russian route. You produce a single type of unit as a batch, and your cav units individually. You’d have 4 unit batches in your baracks and 3 cav units in your stable
War Academy
- Chu Ko Nu (batch of 5?);
- Qiang Pikeman (batch of 5 or 4?);
- Changdao (batch of 4),
- Ying Marksmen (batch of 4 or 5?)
Stable
- Steppe Rider (enabled at age II); stay a siege/raid cavalry that is cheap, but adjusted stats so there’s no need for a mega buff card like Old Dynasty Reforms, same for the new Manchu
- Manchu (either at Age II or III available); should be 2 pop bow rider, and get his stats and cost adjusted to fit that
- Iron Flail (available at age III); should be more like a Cuirassier, remove it’s infantry multiplier thing, and give it appropiate HP and Attack dmg for being a historically heavy shock cavalry.
Propably a slight rework of their artillery would also be needed, at least the handmortars need a slight change or give china a different anti building and also anti artillery unit if these changes were to happen.
1 Like
I have no problem with banner armies per se..It’s just that you end up with wierd ratios of units in the end…Like too many chu ko nu’s and not enough steppe riders…or Changdao.
Banner Armies would be great if they were a package deal that made units cheaper if you got them in mixed batches as opposed to individually.
Why try to salvage that unit? Just remove it like M1kazuki suggested.
From what I can tell it was a martial arts thing and not a weapon meant for war (and also not a flail like represented in-game), so the unit doesn’t belong to begin with.
And apparently, Chinese cavalry at the time wasn’t armed with whips or flails:
So the Iron Flail would have to go as well.
1 Like
Yes that is the main problem, it’s a cool concept but somewhere you’d have to pay less because it’s a package and not normal unit batch. Meaning you get something you not really need as much.
I think the russian like alternative would be good enough, because your normal way to build troops cannot accidentally also build other troops, that’s just not good in any way.
The meteor hammer was more a martial arts weapon, the Iron Flail however was actually used by the Chinese cavalry in the qing dynasty
I’m struggling to find that exact weapon on Wikipedia though - not that it matters much I suppose
I see.
I wonder if it’d be hard to replace the Meteor Hammer with something with the same stats (so TAD purists don’t cry too much) but actually historically grounded.
Hm perhaps, but the problem is one, china should have at least two regular military buildings. And two, cavalry shouldn’t be build in batches as they should be expensive-compared to infantry. So following these two, do you really need a fourth cavalry unit if the fourth one is not only incorrect in every way, but also a balance problem the whole time?
Like the meteor hammer used to have even more range, a lower coin cost, and a way higher multiplayer against artillery. Just fix the other 3, effectively eliminating the need for a fourth one.
Good point, not that I’m familiar with their balance history.
They could maybe become a home city shipment unit that you pay food for? They would not ride a horse, but be some kind of infantry unit that does well against heavy inf or skirmisher?
Right. That’s why I simply pointed out that I found these photos of the “Meteor Hammer” name online; however, I agree with you that the unit should be replaced with another one. Do you have any ideas for which cavalry unit we could swap it with?
As cavalry units shouldn’t be produced in fixed batches that also reduces the amount of cav units china needs. So if you have a stable you just need 3 different cav units. Readjust the stats of the stepperider, Manchu, and iron flail and there is no need for a fourth one.
Also guys do you think the Manchu should have melee armor like normal cav archer or ranged armor like the Japanese yabusame rider?
I think that double faced armor should give then all three Chinese cav units +5 ranged armor. So depending on what armor the Manchu has it could have two armor types
Surely it could just be a Qing lance-armed cav instead?
I always thought having two visually flail-esque Chinese cav was poor design the first time around.
Hm im not sure if that would be balanced, if china had a unit similar to raider / cav archer / 1aoe heavy cav /
And to top it all off also a lancer unit that probably works similar to the Spanish one, and please no active abilities type stuff like with chinacos
The so-called core mechanic is the banner army mechanic, not just training a fixed number of units in once.
You are actually still trying to remove it. However, the entire balance of the civ is based on this mechanic so you cannot remove it or the civ would need a complete rework on stats.
And, you are stealing the identity of the Russian civ.
If there is a second building, all the four age III banner armies must be moved into there.
Building A: Old Han, Standard, Ming, Mongolian. → age II armies
Building B: Territorial, Forbidden, Imperial, Black Flag. → age III armies
Then, the Castle would purely only be in charge of siege units like those of the other civs, and the Summer Palace could have access to all 8 regular banner armies.
For more, allow the special banner armies from the cards to also be choosable in the Summer Palace after the cards are sent.
At least the banner army mechanic has to be remained as the default. If there is a age IV card, maybe the Western Reforms, to make those two buildings can train the units in batches of single type, it might be acceptable when the card cost very high (like 2000 coin/export or more) and each type of the units has to cost higher.
While the banner armies are cheap.
Well, the pros and cons of the Chinese civs, exactly making the civ unique and special.
Anyway, you can just send those units that you want to abandon to the front and use them as meat shell.
How about a Handcannon Cavalry, a heavy cavalry unit that wields a handcannon like a mace in melee, and charges for bombarding in a close range so that they can have a range attack like the current Meteor Hammer.
When arquebuses/muskets were adapted and adopted in the south China, handcannons were still popular in the north. Cavalrymen would use them like maces in melee, and they could bombard enemy with it in a close range.
As people may miss that cool weapon, there can also have a foot unit, maybe a new ranged shock infantry unit for shaolin, to use a meteor hammer. That would make the things more accurate.
4 Likes
Yes I’m still trying to remove it, I’m still of the same opinion that it’s a flawed system. Copying the russian system is admittedly not perfect.
But you’re literally saying “if you want to abandon those units you can use them as meat shields”, please this can perhaps be a strategy when you have infinite resources in the later stages of the game.
But how do you ever want that to be balanced and function when a player doesn’t have 100 settlers, and is fighting against someone with similar eco. This is not like russian strelets which trade cost efficient against other infantry.
No you’re saying oh you don’t need that unit you sadly payed for in your build because it was forced upon you, well just use them to tank. It’s the exact reason why china is so weak right now. Because China was too efficient so they nerfed and nerfed them till they are not anymore and realistically it only took 3 nerfs. Nerfing arquebusier damage -1, taking the 10% attack dmg on repelling volley, and nerfing double faced armor from 41% RR to 35% RR. And I still think these nerfs are somewhat deserved.
As long as this banner system sticks, it will walk around itself being too efficient or not efficient enough.
I do agree though if it stays the age III units should move to a second baracks. However making a card in age 4 that then allows more controlled batches is just redundant, as this mechanic is especially needed when you don’t have as much eco. I genuinely despise every system that needs giant gatekeeped crutches just to function (i.e. the current keshiks and the card old dynasty reforms), this is just bad design in my opinion.
Thanks for responding to my post tho, even if we’re not of the same opinion.
Btw I don’t think a heavy ranged cannon cavalry is the way to go, but perhaps I’m wrong on this too
Apparently the Chinese is a difficult civ, but also it seems partly because the civ design is just simply not your style. If I remember correctly, you had said you just don’t like hand infantry units and feel them useless, and I had told you at the time that high ranking players know how to use them well.
No matter what, the banner army mechanic is the core identity of the Chinese. There are pros and cons for it, but it makes the civ unique. Even if there are changes, it must still be the default at least. If you remove it and make a single unit be trained in a fixed number, then the civ will be too similar to the Russians as that is the core identity of the Russians.
Just like I don’t like and sometimes feels annoying when playing the Germans. The War Wagons are hard to control, and they send extra cavalry that require population spaces whenever I send a card, but I clearly know that that is the identity of the civ. I might try to improve it, like cards should still be able to be sent even if there is no population space while the extra cavalry would not be spawned until there are spaces for them. I won’t say the mechanic should be removed, otherwise the civ would have uniqueness less.
Maybe just move on it.
Well, I think a Handcannon Cavalry is a heavy melee cavalry unit. It just wields the weapon in melee as usual, and it just has an ability or a mode to fire a gun shot within a range.
As a replacement for the current Meteor Hammer, the unit needs to be heavy cavalry with a range to target artillery, making it easier to counter.
The range of a hand cannon can’t possibly be shorter than that of a meteor hammer. Therefore, if it’s an ability it requires cooldown, and if it’s a mode it also takes a long reload time.
6 Likes
Damn man, I like china, and I like melee units, especially as covermode is a very powerful tool. But that all doesn’t take away from the points I mentioned over and over again.
Also yea sure melee units can be useless, simply because the era this game plays in, but snaring is a thing so it’s alright.
And although I get your points, I think we both now that there is a clear difference between being able to clearly control what units you build and getting a fixed unit with a fixed amount from every card. And yea ww are clunky, I agree, but that’s partially due to their size.
I believe all china needs is a certain way to build units that still uphold that you easily mass units, but in a more controlled way, that’s why I proposed to do it similar to Russia. The banner system as it is, simply should not be the future, ask all the pro players what they think and I reckon you’ll get a similar sentiment.
Edit: about the cannon cavalry, what made the meteor hammer so lethal against artillery was dealing melee dmg while having very high attack range and also having multiplier against it. Making it effectively impossible in earlier iterations to defend against it.
I think the cannon cavalry either would need a very high multiplier against artillery or do melee dmg/siege dmg while doing the ranged attack thing.
If not, if china had functionally working light cav, then they could also perform that role.
Besides their identity, the Chinese also need to be relatively weak in the early game, since their strong economy and cheap units give them a solid late game. The banner army mechanic could serve as a natural and relatively mild limitation on their early-game strength.
If anything, adding an infinite card for each Chinese regular unit would be helpful for ranked games, I think.
It seems like you don’t really care about the core identities of either the Chinese or the Russians, do you?
As I stated, their ranged attacks are “bombarding” at close range. That means their shots deal siege damage, which can bypass artillery’s high resistance to ranged attacks.
If you don’t like that approach, they still could simply have a damage multiplier against artillery for their ranged attacks instead of dealing siege damage.
While light cavalry die on skirmishers’ shots.
The current Meteor Hammer is heavy cavalry, so having its replacement also be heavy cavalry would preserve its existing strengths and weaknesses against other unit types.
1 Like