+1
I don’t see it being a balance issue either considering Melee Elephants are incredibly situational or rely on Civ bonuses to be efficient traders.
I would pay for you to be able to pay for it 
I could play any high-end RTS but I come back to AoE2 for the balance and a developer/maintenance team that shrewdly strives to make the civs/gameplay even more balanced every month. Anything that allows for customization or creation while AoE4 is being worked on will help strengthen our community. I’m thoroughly onboard even if it means redirecting a bit of attention from current software development efforts.
If you make scenarios with a DLC people without it cant play them.would everyone buy a dlc with just scenario objects?
People who care about Mutiplayer can ignore the DLC. Number of civs doesn’t matter to them as long as they have some competitive civs available to them. They can ignore the new civs and campaigns, why should it matter to them? No need to buy the DLC.
People who like Singleplayer will always appreciate new contents. So they will buy the DLC for scenario objects.
Why stop a DLC development if you can’t afford it?
4 Likes
It will definitely matter for them because their viewers will want to see them play any new civ.
1 Like
Not everyone is a youtuber.
1 Like
Not everyone, but still quite a lot. And those who don’t have a twitch/youtube channel still enjoy watching others. 5 million people watching HC3 also meant quite a lot of million of complaints about the low civ diversity 11 EDIT: obviously it isn’t 5 million but 50 000. I’m dumb 11 (still means thousands of complaints)
The game is made for players not Youtubers.
1 Like
Most of which watch videos and stream, and won’t be happy if a civ isn’t used a lot competitively.
2 Likes
Again, the core assumption in al arguments against giving BE to Indians is that “Indians will definetly become OP”.
Is there anyone who can give me a logical explanation to them actually becoming OP other than “Indians winrate already >50% for 1600+ so giving even regular BE is only going to make them even stronger”.
And BTW, Indians winrate in <1600 ELO(vast majority of players) is thoroughly below 50%.
Plus their fish bonus is now nerfed.
1 Like
i think a lot of UU need to be remade cous they are bad or feel like a generic unit with some weird buff
1 Like
That is exactly how most UUs are supposed to be.
They are not “must build, best option” units. They are supposed to be situational.
Only a few are supposed to be core units, to cover for huge civ weaknesses.
yeah i agree that is why i think if that situation makes a civ not have someting that they should have its bad. like italians with theyr UU and no halbs etc. maybe just make thoes situations really good so i really dont need the halb
having thoes weird opitons for counter shoul make the other guy think ok i cant do that or i have to make some additional unit to counter what that UU can provide
1 Like
Genoese Crossbows are already much better than Halberdiers, by virtue of being Ranged (they can more easily stack damage on a target, since they do not need to navigate around it).
Italians are already in a great spot, GCs have to be much harder to mass than Halberdiers, in the same proportion that they are a much better counter-Cavalry unit.
Not to mention that GCs can even kill non-Cavalry units much more effectively than Halbs ever could, with the exception of Rams.
yeah thats why i picked italinas cous they are properly balanec with the UU 
bad ones are Turks becous they have a great counter to infantry and UU doesnt make that different becous infanty already die to hand cannon maybe UU killing archers better would be good (more pierc armor maybe)?
1 Like
The Turks UU is actually great in the Castle Age. 5 Janissaries can 1-shot a Mangonel from a greater Range, and they can even out-skirmish Archers and Skirmishers with Bodkin Arrow.
Turks UU is one of teh strongest, if you have great micro, you can possibly delete 50 unit armies with 15 Jans and 2 Mangonels. You just have to babysit them a lot.
yes they are good but not really any different you its not like you cant do that with hand cannon any worst maybe better cous they can acualy hit someting 50% hit reat at range is really playing dice if you lose you army or get destroyed
1 Like
Jans are better than HCs because you get them a full Age earlier. They also deal better with Cavalry and Archers, than HCs do.
If you are in Imp, make HCs, if you are in Castle, make Jans.
Turks have one of the strongest Castle Age UUs in the game.
Just check some Turks pro matches on Youtube, and you will see the broken potential of Jans + Mango in Castle Age. They can literally end the game right there.
you wrote that like i whant to buff jans? i whant units to feel Unique becous they are Unique units. Take away hand cannon and give them halbs so now they have a strong UNIQUE unit
But the civ becomes less unique itself.
Having the worst Trash in the game is also historically accurate to the Turks, since most of their armies was a lot of poorly equipped young men with nothing to lose, and an elite core fighting force on horseback.
Turks need no better Trash, and if they were to have it, I would rather give it to them via a Bonus, like +15HP to Skirmishers and Spearmen in Imperial Age.