'Caravanserai' Should Belong to Persia, Saracens, Turks, Not India!

[Abbadaggus]

@Erasmus11585

I would be in favor of correcting these inconsistencies immediately, as long as it is technically possible and makes sense

Erasmus is very clear-minded and reasonable. It’s a challenge to disagree or counter-argue his strong point.

Regarding basic, essential facts. Franks pick rate 9%, Britons 5-6% for twenty years, while Saracens and Turks still 1% in a symmetric civ system… makes anyone speechless. @TechYolk

Such a brutal, enormous, inexplicable unbalance… even if you gave Sar and Tk Caravanserai from age 2, the overall galactic unbalance would barely BUDGE!

Game balance is yet one more reason, among a thousand reasons, to give Caravanserai back to their rightful owners… Persia, Saracens, Turks!

[Nheltarion]

It’s funny because it almost looks like the same person with two accounts 11

[TwerDefender]

yes, Franks have high pickrates on Arabia
Portoguese have high rates on Islands
and Turks have one of the highest pickrates on Arena, should they also be nerfed?

different maps have different civ preferences, over time Arabia has become the most popular map, that doesnt mean we should suddenly make every civ an Arabia specialist

also pickrate doesn’t necessarily mean a civ is unbalanced

[RealMatrim2]

@TwerDefender

removing all of these things would mean age of empires becoming unrecognizable.

Totally wrong. The changes mentioned would only affect the civilizations described. age of empires 2 would still be the same game. There can be no question of ignorance, on the contrary, it would make the game more authentic.

@TwerDefender

some of us have been playing this game for 20 years, we dont want it to be changed.

There are players who have been playing the game for 20 years, some for 10 years, and others for 5 years. since the game is still in constant development, The developers seem willing to make changes. They do not have to suit them. but accept that newer vintage players may want changes.

@TwerDefender

if you want to play as the ottoman empire play aoe3, if you want to have more historical accuracy play aoe4, etc

Some players want one or both of these in Age of Empires 2 as well. Apart from that, Age of Empires 4 is not really historically correct, the units and buildings are anything but successful in terms of appearance and gameplay.

@TwerDefender

what i dont want:

Accept that there are players, who do not want, what you want.

@TwerDefender

complete overhauls of game mechanics or civs

A meaningful overhaul of the game mechanics and civilizations always makes sense if it makes things better. To be against this, is to be oldfashioned and not contemporary.

@TwerDefender

cosmetic changes which damage the readability of the game (unless it can be switched off)

Cosmetic changes will not affect the game’s readability in any way. This argument is untenable and simply wrong.

@TwerDefender

Turks and Persians have some of the strongest late game units (BBC and BBT with extra range, War Elephants respectively) giving them caravanserai would not help them where they need it, ie the early game, and make them extremely opressive in post imp.

Bring evidence, but you do not have that. You would have to compare values, to show us that this is the case, otherwise your argument is out of thin air. A number of other civs have also strong lategame units, but I would never be as presumptuous as you, simply claiming that only the turks and persians are the strongest lategame civs without bringing any relevant evidence.

@TwerDefender

But making changes exclusively for ‘historical accuracy’ reasons is not the right reason, since this opens the door to so many drastic changes.

Making cosmetic changes does not interfere with game mechanics, so it’s not really a major change. You are confusing apples with oranges.

[MatCauthon3]

@Abbadaggus

Erasmus is very clear-minded and reasonable. It’s a challenge to disagree or counter-argue his strong point

Not really.
Age 2 put gameplay and readability over accuracy and is one of the most beloved and best selling rts games of all time.
Age 3 and age 4 put accuracy first and do not hold up to age 2 at all.

Thats a clear counter argument.

@Erasmus11585

Totally wrong. The changes mentioned would only affect the civilizations described. age of empires 2 would still be the same game. There can be no question of ignorance, on the contrary, it would make the game more authentic

Except the inconsistencies that affect all civs. Like archers never running out of arrows; no disease or injuries; villagers working without break; gold just laying out in the open; units never eating, etc

N2m what they would have to do just to make meso civs even viable without steel, xbows, siege, etc and still maintaining realism…

@Erasmus11585

Some players want one or both of these in Age of Empires 2 as well

Good news. The ottomans exist in age 2. Turks have a plethora of gunpowder bonuses and a gunpowder uu. Hard to get more ottoman then that.

@Erasmus11585

A meaningful overhaul of the game mechanics and civilizations always makes sense if it makes things better. To be against this, is to be oldfashioned and not contemporary

Can you guarantee it will make it better? Age 4 isnt better then age 2, so id rather it be left alone

@Erasmus11585

Cosmetic changes will not affect the game’s readability in any way. This argument is untenable and simply wrong.

Having 6 diffretent knights isnt going to impact readability? Age 4 would show otherwise so yout argument is false.

@Erasmus11585

A number of other civs have also strong lategame units, but I would never be as presumptuous as you, simply claiming that only the turks and persians are the strongest lategame civs without bringing any relevant evidence

He difnt say rhey have the strongest late game. He said some of. And thats a fact. In team games units like bbc and war elephants are insanely strong. Making that even stronger would have an impact on balance.

@Erasmus11585

Making cosmetic changes does not interfere with game mechanics, so it’s not really a major change. You are confusing apples with oranges

It interferes with readability. Im all for cosmetic skins thouhh.
Provided they are client side only and not baseline.

[MatCauthon3]

Question for you guys though. Since you value accuracy so highly, why dont you transition to age 4? Thst seems like it would cater highly to you.

[RealMatrim2]

@MatCauthon3

Not really.

I would say yes. Mostly you are against it again, as always, as practically the nearly one.

@MatCauthon3

Having 6 diffretent knights isnt going to impact readability?

The legibility of cosmetic tampering is not as profound a tampering as the tampering with game mechanics he said.

@MatCauthon3

Can you guarantee it will make it better?

Not guarantee it always depends on the developers whether they can do it better or worse.

@MatCauthon3

Age 4 isnt better then age 2, so id rather it be left alone

You are twisting facts again. I wrote not, that age of empires 4 are a good worked game. I wrote the opposite.

@MatCauthon3

Age 4 would show otherwise so yout argument is false.

Not no, my argument is correct. but you twist facts.

@MatCauthon3

He difnt say rhey have the strongest late game.

Sure he said so clearly. He said the turks and persians are among the strongest late game civilizations.

@MatCauthon3

He said some of. And thats a fact. In team games units like bbc and war elephants are insanely strong.

I wrote that too. I did not write, that they are the only two late game civilizations.

[MatCauthon3]

@Erasmus11585

You are twisting facts again. I wrote not, that age of empires 4 are a good worked game. I wrote the opposite

Im not twisting facts. Merely pointing out that being accurate does not make a game better. And gave examples.

@Erasmus11585

Not no, my argument is correct. but you twist facts

So being accurate makes a game better. By your logic age 3 and 4 should be better then age 2.
But thats not the case

@Erasmus11585

Sure he said so clearly. He said the turks and persians are among the strongest late game civilizations

AMONG. IS THE KEY WORD.

@Erasmus11585

I wrote that too. I did not write, that they are the only two late game civilizations

So that leads to our point. How are you goinb to givs these civs caravanserai without breaking them in the late game?

[RealMatrim2]

@MatCauthon3

Question for you guys though. Since you value accuracy so highly, why dont you transition to age 4? Thst seems like it would cater highly to you.

Obviously we do not like it, otherwise we would have done this a long time ago. Me and the other players prefer, to try to make this game even better. Especially then, if we experience such stubborn, factually wrong resistance as here in the forum from certain people.

[MatCauthon3]

@Erasmus11585

Me and the other players prefer, to try to make this game even better

As you see it anyway. Problem is your idea of better is other peoples idea of worse.

@Erasmus11585

Especially then if we experience such stubborn resistance as here in the forum from certain people

Yeah we’re Resistant. We see what happens when age games cater to correctness over gameplay and readability. See age 3 and 4.
Meanwhile the game that has always put correctness in the background is beloved. Why would we mess with a clearly working formula?

@Erasmus11585

Obviously we do not like it, otherwise we would have done this a long time ago

So if catering to correctness is not necessarily a winning formula, even for those who want correctness, why should age 2 do so?

[Abbadaggus]

@TwerDefender

Turks and Persians have some of the strongest late game units (BBC and BBT with extra range, War Elephants respectively)

If they have “strong late game units” (? as you claim), why 9% pick Franks, 6% pick Britons, while only 1% pick Turks and Saracens???

You’re in effect saying people play AoE 2 to lose!

Even if this absurdity were true, Caravanserai would still 100% belong to Persia, Saracens, Turks.

[Abbadaggus]

It’s an extraordinary, memorable thing here on the official Age of Empires forum how 3 people ganged up on @Erasmus11585 yet couldn’t even scratch his rock-solid arguments…
Amazing and inspiring.

Obviously in spite of the limitless aggression and bullying, this topic resonates deeply, the discussion has been incredibly dynamic here!

[Mahazona]

Don’t waste time to respond to this topic,let it die a natural death.

[Kamandaran]

@PanCalvus

Why? Yeah, sure, in reality travellers went into the building to spend the night. But in reality, all travelers need to stop and rest at some point. Giving them a building to rest in makes travel safer and more comfortable, and lets the travelers start their next day better rested. On an economic scale these buildings improve and speed up trade. These buildings were not designed as refuge for traders in times of war, they were constructed to make travel safer and maybe a little faster.

I think its not just the accuracy thing, at least as far as I am concerned I think its also a balance thing as I believe if you are being raided then you should at least be punished by having your trade suspended temporarily until you take care of the raiding party. Having trade carts that you just cant catch up to even though you manage to get behind enemy lines and into their trade route seems way too OP. Also if you want to talk about the scale etc, you could easily also argue that raiding trade routes also made that trade slow down or evven stop, so having to remove your carts until your trade route becomes safe again does seem to fit better.

[RealMatrim2]

@Mahazona

Don’t waste time to respond to this topic,let it die a natural death.

Apparently the response to the topic is so great, that the topic creator may fortunately possibly be able to achieve the goal. We all thank him for that

[Byzantium888]

@Abbadaggus

and most long-lasting Empire in the world

That’s not true. This title belongs to the ones we call Byzantines.

[Abbadaggus]

Might be true yes. Depends on the point of view. Off-topic anyway.

[Zero17893]

In this case would be Persia. Who lasted from 550 a.c to 1980 as “Imperium”. They passed between a lot of changes, but the revolution on Iran didin’t come before Turkish and Byzantine’s empire fall.