The first wave of Tatars were pagans, the second wave was muslim. Horse archery became widespread among the commonwealth thereafter. Nobles were required to provide horse archers in battle.
By the way, the use of Tower Shields would make infantry slow moving, so is the movement speed bonus historical?
He means it’s based on having relics, which isn’t always the case.
How strong are the Lithuanians without their relic bonus? And why would a Lithuanian player ignore relics?
They wouldn’t ignore them, but at the same time, the enemy player has far more reason to focus on preventing them from getting them. So getting 3 is by no means guaranteed.
Honestly not sure how good they are, not played them much.
I have played a few times and getting relics asap is a given. But they feel a bit lackluster. Like Tatars before the last couple of patches. I was simply making suggestions to make them a bit more interesting.
Ah this is indeed what I forgot from my own suggestion, the extra pierce armor was supposed to be tied with the Elite version. I guess the speed could also be buffed on the upgrade.
This, sounded very incomprehensible to me too. It’s an infantry tech and is in no way associated with horses.
Gotta say I’m missing the boiling oil. It was a fun tech for me anyway. Now I can’t say if it was good for the byzantines or not, but would like to see it reintroduced to the game anyways, for some civ that it suits to.
Dude, I’ve seen you post this **** so many times already in this thread. News flash: yes, in this game civs are ALSO balanced for team games, unless you have somehow missed all the balance changes during these past few years? Mainly, firstly balance is focused on 1v1 and secondly on team games, but they still ARE balanced for team games. It is and has been taken into account. So stop with this bs already.
I think Khmer are good now, but not OP. Both Ornlu and Hera made a tier list and both agree that Khmer are about as strong as Mongols and Britons, while not being top-tier like Aztecs/Persian/Chinese. I don’t get why Khmer would need to be nerfed after being a good civ during 2 month while it’s one of the rare FE civs to see decent competitive representation.
They are not, taht is why Team Bonii stacking breaks team games easily.
Move squires to feudal age.
Aztecs: Atlatl only gives +1 Range, Azt lose access to sanctity.
Teutons: Teutonic Kts + 5% speed
Portuguese: Caravels +5% speed
Goths: Anarchy free, replaced with something else
Turks: Gold miners work 33% faster instead of 20%
Khmer: Farmers work 10% slower
Burmese: Eles have extra LOS.
no, infantry is perfectly balanced in feudal age
that’s like 0.73 speed? barely any change
Why’s everyone trying to nerf Khmer again?
is that going to help?
Well, I don’t think so. Often team bonuses are the weakest bonus of a civ (except Goths I guess) Some have better synergy than the others but ultimately there is no OP unstoppable combination.
People already rarely buy infantry armor upgrades, they won’t buy Squires in feudal
Well Skirms are definitely not what makes Aztec OP (especially without Ring archer armor) And Aztecs are a monk civ, why would you remove monch techs?
Changes nothing as well
Fun fact: Khmer farmers already work slower so that they aren’t the best farmers in the game.
If you think Turks are UP in some situations it’s not by focusing on what they already are good at that you’re gonna fix them (especially knowing that on say, Arena they would become OP)
I really can’t be bothered to try and go through all the patch notes from the past few years, but here’s one from African Kingdoms: Spanish trade bonus was nerfed from +33% down to +25%. Now, are you meaning to tell me, this balance change was done in some way towards 1v1 balance?
I never said the balance is perfect, nor should it even be “perfect” in the sense that all possible compositions should be equally good. But all you said was that there’s never balance around on team games and I was arguing against it. And I was right. So now just stop it.
Edit: and also another good mention, Turks. They are mostly **** in 1v1 games, but they shine on team games and that is probably why they’ve been allowed to be so bad for 1v1 for…ever.
What I mean is that teh game can never be balanced around Team games, to the same degree it will be balanced around 1v1, because Team games are unfair by nature, due to the nature of stacking Team Bonii.
Therefore, all civs are balanced for 1v1 first and foremost, and Team balance is an afterthought.
Well isn’t that basically what I said:
What I mean by this here, is that there is balance decisions being made also based upon team game performance, too. I wasn’t saying they are completely balanced.
So seems like we agree on that in the end.
Of course, team games will never be as competitive as duels, that’s a given.
That is why asking for balance on Team games, when it will hurt 1v1, is completely ridiculous.
Team games will never be balanced, that is because they cannot, as this is not a Team game.
All RTS is primarily 1v1.
Dude AoE2 IS a teamgame most of the biggest tournaments (if you exclude the past year) were team games and BoA2 will be happening in the next few months.
Also there are more players playing TGs than 1v1 on DE, so TG balance plays big role for players at all levels.
many people dont even play 1v1. i would guess that there are even much more players playing team games than 1v1, thoguht this is justa gut feeling and i dont have data for this.
Saying that this game should only or foremost be balanced for 1v1 and teamgames just a after thought seems very unjustified to the customer base and I find it “completely ridiculous” when you say “All RTS is primarily 1v1.”
Any player wants a good balanced experienc, and teamgames should be just as as important as 1v1 when deciding on balance changes, here is why:
Pro 1v1 Scene needs to be balanced, but euqally important low elo games, because if the game isnt balance for average bad players, then they wont enjoy it and then they will not watch pro games as much, which in the end also kills the pro scenes pricepools and the games sales.
Balancing Teamgames is much more difficult (you can call them unfair by natureif you wish) but to neglet this part of the game in order to achieve perfect balance for 1v1 doesnt make much sense to me.
Feel free to disagree, in the end it doesnt really matters what we think. It is up to the devs to find perfect balance between 1v1, teamgames, pros and casuals and hopefully DM#s aswell.
This is simply not true. 1v1 is the most played game mode by far.
All other RTS games are based on 1v1. Only MOBAs and Team Shooters are balanced on Team Composition, to my knowledge.
I get it that you prefer Team games, and so do I, but the most played mode will always be 1v1, as it is the basis of any Strategy game, specially RTS.
You can never balance for low ELO, as taht will just get some players to rise way above their rank, and then immediately get shot down by much better players who will be able to abuse balance in ways that are ridiculous.
Like it or not, taht games are balanced for top players, is for the benefit of everyonw, no matter their ELO.
It is not difficult. It is impossible under current circumstances. The only way to balance Team games, would be to first wipe out Team Bonii, and then force all Team games into Mirror Matches at all times.
Both would completely destroy Team games.
Do you have Data to support this?
Where is it written that RTS must balanced about 1v1. Where have you gotten your knowledge. And even then, if other games do it doesnt mean it must be the right thing to do foe aoe. It might be, but it is not proofen.
One can try. Noobs struggle with brits long range: In theory brits range could be nerfed and brits buffed in another way to compensate for pros. Not saying this shold be done, just an example that is possible if tried. Perfect solution cant be found but a compromise.
@JonOli12 you seem to view the world/game/balance often in black and white only, sorry for this personal attack but think about this: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”.