Title. I’ve had enough games of the unscrupulous masses laming my deer, my boars, walling every gap around my tc, walling my dock vills, all while the treaty is up and I can do nothing to stop it.
Not to mention, without the treaty, the obnoxious box around everyone’s tcs will disappear, which basically alerts the entire map to where every TC is on the map, defeating the entire purpose of nomad. Can this idiotic change be reversed? Nomad was played just fine, without a treaty, for 20 years. It’s really not necessary.
I do agree that Nomad is more fun when there’s a ton of chaos at the start. I would play Koreans on Nomad in the HD days and get in a ton of villager fights. Now that everyone has essentially the same start, there’s no reason to have a treaty.
1 Like
the reason we have the treaty is that if there’s a tc fight it’s really shifting to one side very fast and the games are over before they really begun.
I think it’s better with the treaty even if it affects the game beyond the intentional degree.
(And there are some civs which have unfair advantages in these tc fights, they would be spammed all over again if it wasn’t for the treaty)
7 Likes
Change the treaty time from “Until the fast TC is built” to fixed “180 in game seconds”.
In Cossacks 1 & 3, treaties include a generated border which severely limits what other players may do in foreign territory until the treaty runs out. Maybe this could become an option in AOE2, with further options such as not being able to gather or build for example depending on what players want.
Or enable to have both options as a standard map
The only annoying thing is this, though the role of that box is useful. Also, nobody wants unnecessary villager fights that may lead to 1st minute defeats, like before the implementation of the treaty.
Regarding the huntables, they aren’t actually “yours”, and you can always go for the next spawn place, if one ended up being contested.
1 Like