Make the siege weapons hit the infantry for 20-30% hitting persetage as the target is too small to hit. (maybe hit the cavalry for 60-70% as they move quite fast)
so that even the cheap infantry is still useful to charge the siege weapons at the late game.
1 Like
Siege is supposed to be effective against mass infantry. Reducing siege speed will fix the issue. Also infantry is very cheap.
4 Likes
Reduce siege Movespeed and make it take a LOT more damage from melee attacks, especially cavalry.
1 Like
Am I crazy or do bombards wipe out infantry as well as mangonels? Are they hitting more than one unit? If so, are these iron balls or bombs being shot out?
Why should Infantry / cavalry work well against siege?
Only thing they should do is address the torch animation so it wont stop infantry movement this way they can easily catch up with siege.
Only when they’re massed and it probably just feels like that because they one shot everything and 20 bombards = 20 infantry dead
If it’s Chinese bombards they reload at supersonic speed and your entire army is wiped pretty quickly
Unpopular opinion:
I actually feel like bombard and cannons should get aoe damage, but hit the ground where the unit last was not track the unit.
Area damage for cannons was in age 3 and I enjoyed seeing cannon balls bounce through lines of infantry
But cannons were also SUPER weak to infantry and cavalry melee, which is where I believe the problem is with bombards here, a bombard feels like trying to torch a barracks or a building, I should be able to kill a bombard with two or three infantry, like you can in age of empires 3, this would solve the whole “impossible to counter late game mass siege” issue, in my opinion, and encourage people to build infantry and cav to protect siege.
Currently people just make 10 mangonels and 20 bombards and it’s gg
2 Likes
Because historically this is accurate.
When a hussar kills the guy loading the cannon, it slows down the loading, when a group of infantry rushes an artillery emplacement, they quickly killed the artillery personnel.
Obviously this all isn’t animated (wish it was) but my point is artillery is by nature weak to anything in melee range able to disrupt it’s firing.
Artillery crews generally weren’t that great at combat, as their training focused on well, artillery.
1 Like
No they dont do AOE, but high damage make them 1s1k.
Very poor excuse. Historically accurate would also mean that cannons deal splash dmg and would have much more range.
Top of that this is video game and not to be balanced around how things may have worked in history. To begin with cannons wouldn’t cost wood and gold to make. I can continue list of things that are not historically accurate but its completely irrelevant because this is A GAME.
And when horseman’s horse gets hit they fall to ground and suffer from fall dmg. Your point? Plus no armored unit would continue fighting normally like nothing happened when hit by sword, mace, lance etc.
And they would’ve personal defending the cannon and ppl who are loading the cannon would fight back. Top of that you wouldn’t have so short distance to travel with your infantry / cavalry to reach the cannons yet alone the fact that cannons were always behind enemy lines and not in front.
Never heard in any game where ppl are so hang up with argument “but because in history it went this way and this is not accurate change the game”
I actually suggested this in another post
This was also done quite successfully in age of empires 3
By the words of the producers and developers of the game, this is supposed to be a historically accurate and educational experience, as other age series games have been.
Cool idea actually, unless of course they were an armored knight I would actually suggest we implement a stun or dismount feature for horsemen.
Yes and they would’ve gotten slaughtered due to inadequate training/equipment, idk if you’ve ever played total war Napoleon but it does a good job of displaying this.
And yes they’d take casualties but a horse charge is a standard counter to artillery in history and other age series games.
Also, not sure if you’ve ever played other age series games, but this is because that is the expectation we had for this series, all other games, age 1,2,3 (idk about online and mythology was well, mythology (still accurate to mythology however)
Age of empires 3 is age of empires 3 and not age of empires 4. Different games. There is no reason to always do the same thing as older version.
And which may be the case for campaign but now we’re on topic of PvP version of game. This doesn’t have to follow same rules as campaign. Campaign is there to tell a story. Which is completely fine but moment you start mixing campaign ideologies to PvP then it becomes mess.
I actually agree on that they could have double HP and if horse is killed the unit becomes infantry, but again this is video game and its not practical for PvP games. They could design whole thing around it but it creates new set of problems and issues
Yeah I played AOE 1-3 long time ago and never cared about history on those game nor in AOE4. I play video game and play it for multiplayer experience. If I want to learn about history which is quite interesting itself I go to youtube and watch different videos and other stuff.
Idm campaign telling a story and ppl enjoying it but things shouldn’t be applied in multiplayer environment.
It’s the same franchise and I feel like they should keep and improve upon the systems and features they develop instead of going completely reverse on them, next you’re gonna start defending the symmetry of the civilizations?
I completely disagree, you’re entitle to your opinion but I feel a game that claims historical accuracy should be historical throughout.
Yeah I agree here, maybe a new topic for this one?
Its more about the atmosphere for me, I play these games to be immersed in the age and what it would’ve been like to be a commander during these times.
Yes I play multiplayer a lot but I’m not “competitive” as you might say, I play for my personal enjoyment and I just so happen to be decent.
I used to play age 3 and feel like I was colonizing the new world, even in multiplayer, because everything was right the units were accurate, the maps and loading screens made me feel like I was where it claimed, the atmosphere was there, and it’s just not here for age 4 in my opinion
Again you’re entitled to your own opinion and if you prefer multiplayer to be purely meatgrinding units and playing at the highest level and advantage no matter what without any regard for what’s fun, sure, but don’t you do things that put you at a disadvantage just for the hell of it, like playing Abbasid? (Lol)
My point is, anyone can make a multiplayer game where you throw units into a battle and red wins and blue sucks bc he didn’t micro enough, but is that really age of empires?
If it is, it’s lost me.
Same franchise doesn’t mean that each of them needs to be same. You think that all different nike shoes are same? No they’re not. Each individual line carries something over and gets something new. Same applies to games. Not every sequal needs to be identical to prequels
The went for different direction while maintaining some elements from older games and so far which is not wrong way to do things because time changes. Just like WoW has changed over the decades. I prefer TBC WoW over anything afterwards, because they changed the game in direction I didn’t like. Same applies here. They have done changes and had different direction. If you don’t like it then its your own taste, but it doesn’t mean that others may not like it or that old way is only right way to do things.
You’re free to do so, but the fact is that things that would be historically accurate will not work with MP. There needs to be compromises and changes to game feel fluid and fun experience for those who play MP. With campaign developers can have much more freedom to do things and many things that would work in campaign / single player wouldn’t work in MP.
I play for experience and for me single players have not been good experience outside of few games like they’re billions, riftbreaker and so on. AI games just don’t offer any form of challenge and everything is just way too boring and easy.
I don’t play abbasid. I play only one civ for my own weird reasons, but balance is something thats is and always will be ongoing thing. No matter which MP game I play there will always be different balance issues and no matter which studio does the things there will alway be inbalances and players will always whine and complain about them.
RTS games are always about micro and macro. IF you think otherwise then sry but you’re wrong.
Both micro and macro are representations of players skill and how well they’re able to multitask and pay attention to things. You can be genius thinking of ways to defeat your opponent but all that is wasted effort if you can utilize the tools you got in hand.
Sorry mate but I disagree with just about everything you’re saying.
Not even sure how you can defend this game in it’s state.
Like you said. Im entitled to have my own opinion. I find AOE4 fun to play and so does many more. Sure it has its own issues and hopefully they fix them in next patch
I really like the idea of any melee attack stopping firing and slowing down movement on siege. That alone may fix the entire problem
I believe the devs intentionally shifted away from the normal Age mix of infantry, ranged, cav, and siege towards some sort of over reliance on late game siege.
I don’t get it and am not sure what the thought process was. But I don’t expect it to change in this game. I’m optimistic future games will return to normal.
Yes you’re allowed to have your own opinion.
But the Age franchise is different from other RTS games and loads of people enjoy it for things other than the Red vs Blue experience in Multiplayer.
It has always been a franchise more about history than anything else. Maybe you competitive players might just want to focus on gameplay, but that isnt really it. There are other aspects of the franchise, where history, culture are important, notably in areas of civ design.
If you’ve not played other age games as much and play only one civ in this game, you’re not really playing Age of Empires, you’re playing “just some RTS”. That is fine.
But just because it works for you doesn’t mean it is Age of Empires. I’ve played AoE, AoE2 and AoE3 for over 20 years and I have never even wanted to climb the ladder, but it has kept to glued nonetheless, because AoE teaches me things and I learn more about the civs, the units etc the more I explore.
This AoE4 is such a step back from other AoE games. The game design, particularly around siege makes me feel like someone who designs world War 2 games accidentally got the job of designing medieval siege weapons.
It could work for you mate, but veteran AoE people who aren’t here for the competitive MP don’t really like that.
1 Like
I think infantry overall is quite fine and not on the top of the list. I’d like a change for them in for example 4on4 as their limited movement speed is just very detrimental to their utility. Unlike cavalry you can’t just swap direction and help an ally. It is do or die. Caught of guard in an open field, need to help an ally? Tough luck. Map is huge, no chance.
For 1on1 they have their utility. Of course they are more limited than other units, but they also come at a lower cost and earlier, more rapid, production. Typically I’d not argue they are to weak here. Just that their counterparts are to strong. Some cavalry but mainly siege is just way to dominant.