Changes I would like to see in the future

First AOE2 is a great game and doesn’t need many “big” changes. Nevertheless there are some things I want to discuss about, as for me it looks the meta becomes increasingly more stale cause some strategies are just generally superior to others. Especially at higher levels of play many strategic options are just not viable anymore as the counter mechanics are comparably easy to execute and elaborated so well basically everybody knows them.
It also turned out that the economic side very well synergizes with the meta options, meaning when you attempt something off-meta you will often run into trouble with your economic setup, floating res because you need to put vills on them earlier which you don’t need at that stage. The meta is set up in a way it synergizes super well with a “balanced” eco which then also allows for smooth transitions.

First I want to propose a quality of life feature:

Overhaul of the hotkeys

They are badly organized atm. But that’s not all, you often need several key presses and/or have to let go from your current selection of units to perform basic stuff like “Queueing vill form all your TC” or “Building a Farm/House/Wall”. And ompletely unnecessary. These basic actions done like 200x in a game could be bound to a simple hotkey. Especially the building menu hotkey for Vills is actually totally unnecesary when there are hotkeys set for specific buildings, as vills have very few other actions.
And then I would like to have a “simplified” hotkey menu like eg I only use one key all the time for “select all”. When I eg have the barracks at “a” I eg press “ctr + a” to select all Barracks. The same is for stables and so on. And I would like to have a better structure in the hotkey menuy that shows all the hotkeys avaialable when in one specific selection. The “base hotkeys” when you don’t have only villagers or a building selected in one sheet, the villager hotkeys in one sheet, the hotkeys when you selected a specific building. That would it make way easier to ensure to have no overlap with the hotkeys. And also a function that tells you when you have overlaps. This shouldn’t be too hard to implement. I possibly could even make a basic layout of the hotkeys and the structure. Also some hotkeys are imo completely unnecesary as they are basically never used anyways. Like most tech hotkeys are absolutely unnecsary, they may safe you like 1 second in a game, but they “block” space for potentially general quality of life features like access to the market to balance your eco for that tech you want without needing to jump to the market first. The 6 market options could be available whenever you are in a produciton building menu when we just get rid of the kinda useless single tech hotkeys.
Ofc there are techs that are very nice to have on hotkeys. But these are verylimited and mostly actually only the economic upgrades which build up on another, so you benefit several times in a game on having them. It’s also completely routine and therefore justified to be bound to a hotkey.
Stuff like supplies, arson, squires, bloodlines, husbandry, thumb ring, conscription… completely unnecessary to bind them to hotkeys if you only make them once. When we get rid of that stuff theres more space for stuff that’s actually useful like the easy market access.

Bring back “Expansion” as competitive strategic option, at least in open Maps

That’s a big one. And it comes down to 2 main problems in the current meta:
A) Knights are just too strong and with abuse of their mobility they can idle expanded eco way too good with basically no counterplay. Only condensed “anti-raid” bases can defend, but that turns arabia basically to a closed map, making lategame castle drop + treb pushes way too strong as there is no expansion you can run to. It’s just not that arabia we had some time ago where a lot of different strategies were viable. It’s heavily restricted now cause Knights lead to way too condensed bases which then can be sieged down too easily like the bases we have on Arena. And there’s basically no counterplay.Both players try the same which leads to “snowball” games. Ironically the anti-raid bases are even stronger against CA and Archers as it turned out, cause a single dive costs you way more with these units than it costs with Knights.
B) You don’t lose much eco when making these super condesned bases. You have basically every res and enough of it to get through the midgame. And there is almost no increase in efficiency when expanding. There would only be the long-term benefit of when you safe a bit of your starting res you get more to use later. But to get that advantage you would need to take these res, which becomes increasingly difficult when it boils down to a cat and mouse game: Knights run in to raid your expansion, you garrison, Knights run away. You ungarrisone. Knights run in. And the Knight just hands-down win this cause they cause a lot of idle time and lose almost nothing.
This makes expansion these days actually less efficient than the condensed eco, as with condensed eco the Knights can effectively only run in the peripheric stuff. Way easier to control.
There can be many ways to adress that issue, I list a few here:
A) Add a new tool that can be used against Knight raids. Something more interactive, something that gives small value each time when executed well, but what sums up over time.
B) Buff the existing anti-raid options, esepcially in the way that it makes them more viable to get a positive value when outnumbered. Possibly weaken these against other stuff like skirmishers or siege.
One thing that comes to mind here are actually monks. When monks become a bit easier to handle, they can be effective agains Knights even in low numbers. They even can jump in TCs when the Knights decide to dive. But I currently have o idea how to make the monks (in low numbers) easier to handle without making them no-brainers (auto-conversion). But in theory monks would fit the concept of “having a fwe of them with each of your expanded TCS to defend against Knight raids”. And it would be interactive.
C) Improve vision. That’s probably a “weaker” adjustment than the others, but it can help a lot when defending against Knights. When you are able to track the Knights before they actually arrive you can prepare some form of defence. like you can try to wall-off, move pikes in that direction or even preemptively garrison your most exposed vills. You still need to pay attention, but at least when you do you get rewarded. Doesn’t help against the cat and mouse game though. This can achieved by either directly increasing building LOS or making outposts more affordable and also a bit more durable, so the opponent at least loses a bit more time when killing them. We even could think of more sophistcated methods of getting vision like trainable hawks or something like this which can be used for that purpose.
D) Give direct benefits for expanding the Eco. Make it more revarding. This can either be achieved by “force”: moving out extra ressoruces more away from players so they HAVE to expand. Potnetnially even reducing the amount of Gold in the primary Gold Or by “encouragement”. Increasing the economic efficiency of an expanded eco. Like for each Gold pile you mine at a time you get a slow gold trickle “for free”, revarding when you put your 20 Gold mines on 20 different piles instead of 10. The benefitiary effect would be 2: A small increase in efficiency but also a small boost in the overall amount of Gold you can harvest by not oversaturating your piles. (This would also passively reduce the effectiveness of market abuse ecos)

Reduve the “Boomyness” on maps like Arabia.

TCs just give too much value for their cost atm. This leads to heavy usage of them even on maps which should be more focussed on miltary. Like Arabia. The main reason for that is imo that TCs have a very high Garrison capacity for their cost. Especially stone cost. So they are currently the best protection for your eco. Cause when you can’t really kill the opponent radiing forces, you at least can protect your vills.
The other options are Towers which offer way less garrison space and Castles which are super expensive.
And then TCs also give the option to make vills in addtion. And I say option, cause there comes up more and more a tendency of “overbuilding” TCs that you actually can’t supply with food or don’t want to. They are mainly for protection, not actually contributing much to the boom. This is ofc exaggerated. Most of the time the TCs are still contributing to the boom. But there’s this tendency of overmatking then. And when you already have them, why not using them to make more vills?
Long sentence, short takeaway: TCs give too much value for their cost atm. Other defences not. I would like TCs stone cost increased. Maybe to 200 (yes this is a lot). But increase the garrison capacity of Towers. It’s potetnially enough to double it to 10. That would be enough to protect woodlines, gold or stone that are a bit more away from your TCs. Potentially even farming space. This should lead to a necessary decision for the players whether they want to invest in the exoensive TCs. And whith that high investment they need to use them mainly for the boom or if they only look for better protection for their eco they can just make a few towers which are more affordable. I even think that the watch towers could get +1 attack in Castle age, just so they are useful against castle age units even without the need for a university and researching guard towers.
Summarized: TCs more expensive, to reflect their booming capabilities. Towers better for the protection of the eco with more garrison space. This should lead to more military focussed games on the maps that are supposed to be that.

Make Archers more “forgiving”

We see more and more tendency of players opting for the “easier” Knight line Which is totally understandable when everybody knows that. The issue with that is that it makes the community toxic. When players chose lines because there is that huge skill requirement discrepancy to “enable” the lines, the easier line they chose becomes the defendant. They chose it cause they wanted easier wins with them and they can’t stand it when they actually get beaten by the other options. We need to get rid of that. All power lines have to be basically equally strong at the entry level. So the choice is made by personal preference and curiosity. And it allows then also learning the other for curiosity as you don’t have to fear a heavy dropoff in your elo when switching from the “easier” Knights to the “harder” Archers. The main power units need to be basically evenly strong at all levels.
Otherwise we will witness what currently happens all the time.Whenever the Archers “overperform”, meaning they just do a little bit better than they used to, theres an immediate outburet in the community, demanding nerfs. Whilst the Knigths can’t be touched as too many Players would be completely outraged for “nerfing them to the ground”. It’s not a basis on which healthy discussions can emerge.
I have elaborated a few factors on which archers (and also CA) currently feel too “squishy” for entry players to use effectively. First, their damage to HP ratio. They have a disadvatagous one. They just die too quicly. But also they can dish out way too much damage for the investment when you actually keep them alive. I would just slightly increase the cost, but greatly increase the HP. This should already make them way more usable for beginners whilst actually even slightly nerfing them at higher levels.
Then we have the interaction with SIege. And as much people may like to see “Badabooms” in streams, it’s actually on of the main issues with Archers at lower levels. Cause microing archers vs Mangnels is a really tough task. But the main issue for beginners is the requirement to have a look on your archers at all time. Which they just can’t. It’s impossible without having like hundreds of games and built up routines that allow for that. I would like to see the raw damage output of mangonels against units reduced. Instead they could have bigger blast radii and higher HP, so the interaction is more “consistamt”. It would still be a huge difference maker to have good micro there. But it would at least take away the “completely wiped out army in a snap” effect we currently have. This would help beginners to get more into that line.
And for all of the “Badaboom” lovers I have that message: When you love badabooms, then we should add badabooms against cavalry too, no? Like what about mass converstion monks? MUAHAHA
Badabooms are always funny if it’s not you who is the victim… But doesn’t mean it’s good for the game to satisfy reactionary malignants who only want to see others suffer against imbalanced mechanics. Only because the very top guys can somehow avoid being badaboomed in many situations doesn’t mean the mechanic is balanced at other elo ranges. Even britons have Issues ant they actually have higher range and theoretucally could outplay this (effecively rarely).

Add a new utility to a new Infatnry unit

We have Arhcers with range, Cavalry with mobility. Cav Archers even have both. But Infatnry has no special utiltiy that can be used to get an advantage. In order to make Infantry an “interesting” option it needs to have something comparable. Doesn’t need to be that abstract, potettially more something mechanical. But it needs something. For that kind of power unit to feel “revarding” there must be somthing that can be used to improve. And there is currently nothing. The only options for infantry you currently have is the assessmsent of where they are potentially best used, cause in an actual combat istuation there’s very little you can do to increase the performance. They are slow, so you can’t run away when it’s disadvantageus and you also can’t use them for skirmishing or pressuring from outside, forcing the opponent to engage.
I don’t like when units like this (also like elephants) are just bluntly buffed by stat increases to become more “viable”. Cause it needs to be fun and interesting to play with and against them. When they are turned into stat monsters without any utility that can be used to get an advantage we have these “on/off” effects where the unit is either completely useless or totally busted in certain situations like when one side has already a nice economic advantage or even elos or maps, where the intended counters don’t function in the way they are intended to.
Like we now see with the Gambesons change. On low elo the game is now dominated by the strong infantry civs. And the archer civs fall of even heavier as without micro they now just get overwhealmed by Gambesons. What’s the goal? To make the militia line the default option for everybody below 1k elo cause everything else is just too complicated to handle effectively? And we still won’t see much use of them on pro level other than countering eagles and snowballing a lead to a win in the very lategame.
No, Infnatry needs something that scales with skill like the Archers and Knights. That’s what the goal should be. And just buffing random stats doesn’t make this. We need to thinkk about what this abiltiy can be. And if we don’t find a good one: IT’S BETTER TO DON’T CHANGE THE CURRENT INFANTRY MORE THAN NECESSARY!
Gambesons is imo the best example of what not to do to make Infantry more “viable” just for the sake of it. Viability should come from utility and fun to play with it, not by force.
Same is also for other units like Elephants. Yes you can make them “viable” by giving them more speed. But then they just become stronger Knights. Basically a reskin of an already existing strong unit.

These are for me the dreams to incrementally improve the game. Some of them are in very basic spots of the game we haven’t touched for a while. But I think we need to adress at least some of the initial design flaws that now lead to a very stale meta and also a division of the community, which is in my opintion heavily driven by the dominance of cavalry on all maps that aren’t super closed and as a reaction to that “anti-raid” bases as the intended counters don’t work anymore with an expanded eco. Leading to this mentioned divison of the playerbase into “arabia” and “arena” players and very little in between where the differnt playstiles can clash and compete with each other.
And I also think that every change that is intended to change gameplay should be explained first on “why”, then “what’s the goarl” and finally explaining how the interactions change so the goal is achieved. Allowing for the community to check if they agree with the “issue”, if the changes actually achieve what they supposed to. And potentially even open up a discussion wether the interactions that are observed and changed are actually the determining factors of that issue. Cause sometimes it might actually be completely different things.
For me I would be very interested to hear why devs decided to add that “Gambesons” tech. I’m not convinced this makes anything better. Right the opposite actually. Yes you made Infantry better against archers. But first, why? Aren’t archers not nerfed enough? And second, they don’t get better in anything useful. Like they are still terrible raiding units. They just become more annoying to deal with instead of giving them an actual purpose and incentive to go for them.
I like how the devs communicatred the organ gun overhaul. It’s even not necessary that they actually perform perfectly fitting with the narrated “supposed to be”. But when they perform similar enough it’s exactly what I which from the devs for bigger overhauls, so it’s understandable for the community. And if it doesn’t work it can just be reverted.

Wait, did you actually make any suggestions, or just write a huge piece of text? You really need to work on your TL:DRs, because a lot of this type of stuff is simply too long to hold reader interest particularly long.


So best option really a give pike micro ability lay spikes that only really effect Calvary. Or make building that traps Calvary but not infantry

I tried to make it as short as possible, but the reasons behind what I suggest are not in the common narrative language we have when describing the game. It’s a lot about soft factors that lead the game being atm very strategically restrictive and having a very stale meta in a lot of maps.

In different threads I talked about practical ideas I had to make the changes actually happen. But here I decided to stay more amgiguative to explain more what I would like to see chnged in effect, not HOW it is actually achieved. There are multiple ways to Rome.

I think when well elaborated this could be a nice function, something that can be used against incoming raids. One idea could be that these “traps” or how you would call it could expire over time, so you can’t just spam them like crazy.
Imo it would be enough if they had big chunk of bonus vs cavalry, but I can see it’s probably easier to balance when it only affects them.

I was thinking caltrops that crippled horses but did very little to infantry.

1 Like

I would like for the full map screenshot come back. The Cap Age screenshots are not high quality unless I’m doing it wrong.

The hotkeys on all these games are a mess. I’ve no idea what they were thinking when they came up with this layout.


I am not in favor of the game force you to expand and harder to raid cavalry.

  • I can accept to buff outpost hp and allow 5 vils garmison
  • ideally I would want a tower, but I dont like tower rushes, so I dont want a tower buff
  • I think at higher level it is not profitable to expand and put 3 pikes and a monk per expansion, and even then the knights will group and attack a single expansion.
  • Putting resources just a little farther away wont help much because people will often just wall more or put TC and boom.
  • You once talked about resources tiles (gold, stone, trees) being gathered slower after the first villager. That might be a good solution if not too complicated.


Having a TC cost 150s or 200s sounds fine and will affect the boomy meta a lot. You go 2 TCs instead of 3, and Bulgarians in particular would suddently become very interesting.

I think it is fine if turtling at home is a fine strategy until imperial. Many people play like that, and I have no problem with that. AoE2 doesnt have to be a game to apply military genious tactical battles, it is mostly fine as it is.

For me, the problem of boomin on Arabia is also a problem of other maps. Arabia can (and for me should) stay roughly the same as now. But it would be nice if eg. Runestones add fewer resources in your base and more on the sides. Like, more than half of your starting resources packed together at 3 or 4 different positions, where you would want to put your TC. Such a map may become very popular as well on the ladder. And if it doesnt, well many players do not like expansioms as much, nothing wrong with that either.

Units Balance

For me the current meta is focussed xbows or knights early to mid game, and paladins or siege or cavarchers in the late game.

Mangonel line and the weakness of arbalesters in late game (compared to Cav archers, paladins, and siege) is the reason why I feel archers are well balanced: they are designed around earlier power spikes. I am fine with their current design. I do not mind tgem being a little too strong at pro level and too weak at low and mid levels. It is intended by design as pro mainly play (excluding rage forest type of tournaments) around early to mid game power spikes, not around late game power units

On the other hand, LS design is all over the place:

  • They are supposed to counter trash units but are not that great against hussars
  • They cost mostly food, which hints at being more of a late game unit, but are countered by mass ranged units
  • They could be a flood unit but are very expensive and long to upgrade so it is hard to get them rolling. Costing gold is also a big drawback wen you want to flood
  • They could be a supportive unit, but cavalry rather take ranged options against halberdiers, and siege rather take halberdiers because they are only afraid of cavalry.

Making the champion line better against archer isnt the way to go for me. I would rather settle on one of the following:

  • making them a good supporting unit along with scorpions/siege, by giving them bonus damage against cavalry, or buffing scorpions/skirms against archers (bonus damage), and/or making the LS line get reduced damage from friendly fire (or mangonels in general) and/or furtger increase their damage against buildings
  • making them a late game flood unit only (accepting further not seeing them much in castle age), by buffing them against trash units, eg. give Champion also +2/+0 armor, and/or giving the eagle tag to the scout line (maybe with 5 eagle armor)
  • Making them a very good counter to cavarly on head on fights (like tanky well rounded pikes): significatly increase the damage against cavalry AND replace a big part of the food cost by a gold cost AND buff ranged units and buildings (especially skirms) damage against them. I am not so much into this, but if we want a “triangle archers/knights/longswords”, this propably has to come to ta high gold cost and some kind of trash counter.

I dont want a new infantry unit, or a new crossbiw unit. These units would for me just mean that archer and champion lines should be redesigned.

1 Like

It’s an interesting idea. When the outposts still fire some weak arrows like TCs when garrisoned.
What happens when the garrison doesn’t fires arrows we see with khmer. It allows the pressure to stay there, continueing to idle the the vills.

Yeah, Tower rushes are still a “noob basher” strat. But If we only increase the garrison space of the towers but not the maximum amount of arrows that can be added, it doesn’t make Trushes any stronger. Cause you don’'t get any offensive benefit from garrisoning more vills.

I’m fine with any strat people try. On Arabia turtling to imp always was a kinda weak strat choice. I don’t think this idea will change that much. It has downsides (more expensive TCs) but also upsides (towers have more garrison space and the opponent has to pay more for his TCs in return).

Maybe it’s indeed now time for a new map to come up and replace Arabia. As it looks Arabia is so heavily pushed into full Knight meta. The only issue I have is that there is that narrative of Arabia being the “default” map choice and a lot of people just play it not refelcting wether their strategic choice is actually good on that map. And ofc the people which playstyles perfectly fit that map have no incentive to try another map unless there are no opponents who chose weakter stats anymore. In this circumstance it will be very hard for any new map to challenge this state. Unless we see in a big tournament another map way more attractive games with high strategic variety than in KOTD and people get their eyes opened.
And ofc such a map needs to be developed. In theory a map that features some kind of free ressources for expansions like with the aftemath trade workshops. This could give us the intended encouragement to expand at these spots. It’s only important that they aren’t too snowbally, especially in the early game but instead mostly give value for that expansion. This could be achieved with having extra ressources (especially food/gold) nearby and reducing the ressource generation, especially in the early stages of the game.

I do mind. I think the main power lines should perform very similar at the different skillevels. Otherwise we tend into a separated pro scene that play games completely different to what the majority of playerbase can practcally play competitively. Especially for the ########## of the gampeplay we currently see on most maps clear tendecies, especially on Arabia. And I already see the missing in encouragement for lower ranked players to even try using Archers there. Like when they see sotl’s video where he states that still Britons would be the best Archer civ to learn, but it actually already has a below 50 % winrate. Ofc we could argue that atm it looks like Ethiopians are better civ to get started with archers. But imo this is also misleading, as Ethiopians with their free pikeman upgrade naturally have an advantage over other archer civs in a heavy cavalry dominated meta. So Ethiopians perform better on this kind of maps, but not because of their archersbut instead the free ressources and that free upgrade. Usually Ethiopians fall a bit behind in Maps that are more Balanced or even dominated by Ranged units.
In conclusion I think it’s generally not good for the game when the demand of skill to get the first good experiences of main lines is too big, cause this leads for the “easier” to learn one having a much bigger fanbase and therefore also dominating the discussions. Making it increasingly awkward for the other lines to even get a foot back in the meta when they are creeped out of it with every little patch.
Ofc we just had a small buff to pikemen, but at the same time Infantry got Gambesons which is directly reducing the efficiency of Archers against the militia line
It’s ok if there are units that are “hard to master”. But imo these shouldn’t be the main “power unit” lines. These are so basic they should be viable from the beginning so people don’t get stuck on one of them as the skillgap would be way too high once they got used to it to learn the others. Imo the sheer fact that we already see the tendency of “knight vs XBows” in the Forums means that people have decided to love the one and despise the other.
And instead we should have people just preferring one as it just fits their playstyle better but actually can play the others to a degree they don’t feel “outskilled” by players which prefer them. And don’t feel uncomfortable with the other lines cause they don’t play them regulary.

Agree, that could have made more sense, when they EG increased the melee armor of the line, pushing them more into that “trash couter” speciality.

I think if the Gold ratio was higher this would indeed allow for way more flexibility in designing the line. Atm they are just too “cheap” on gold for becoming a “power unit” like archers or knights. Cause when they are competitive in the midgame they would be basically unbeatable later on as the other power units would burn through the gold so much faster.

Yeah, they have this “jack of all traits” design which means they don’t excel in any specific role. But that’s exactly what you would look for when searching for a suitable “support” unit. In Feudal they at least have their anti-building utiltiy which allows them to be paired with archers fairly well. But in Castle Age we have access to Mangonels which do that job just so much better.

IDK. We already have pikemen for that. I would actually like too see it the other way around: Make them good against Pik/Siege combos. I don’t even think we need that line to be good against Cavalry, actually. Cause skilled cavalry players wouldn’t engage in disfavorable fights anyways. A lot of civs struggle vs Pike/Siege currently and they could greately benefit when the Militias would solve that issue for them. I’m speaking here about “even” games, not griefing. And the melee character of the Miltia would mean that they will have issues stopping well executed pushes if the opponent is already heavily ahead (and therefore can easily just add an anti-infantry option like HCs). Addtionally the anti-building role could even be improved a bit, so the militia line wouldn’t need much siege support to pressure enemy bases that aren’t super well defended.

Not a fan of this. And we are currently kinda close to that TBH, as with that extra Pierce Armor rhey aren’t even dieing to archery type units anymore. They even take only 3 Damage from TCs in Imp, which is really pitiful, as that means that TCs at this stage don’t give much protection against that unit type anymore.

That’s your valid opinion. Adding new lines is ofc a heavy infraction to a game that didn’t see as a big change for 20 or so years. And even those who were added were usually regional. The last line that was added was the Steppe Lancer which only is available to 3 civs. And it is in it’s utilization very similar to Knights and Light Cav. It feels basically just like a Cavalry UU and no completely new type of unit that changes anything fundamental.
But I see the issue that the Archer line was used to fill 2 roles at once: Infantry counter AND Powe Unit (same for CA btw). And especially the combination with the Power Unit makes it super hard for Infantry to be ever something more than just a “support” unit (at least in the midgame). And I also think that every unit that is supposed to be contestant with the other power units should have a trash counter aswell. This kind of design has be proven to produce exciting games. And weirdly enough Gambesons has actually brought us a bit closer to this kind of solution, as I forsee that Archer civs will have Issues against good Infantry civs in the very lategame.
And imo the Militia line is just too cheap on the Gold side to become a power unit as described above.

But I think with some creativity there could be added some utiltiy to Infnatry that would make them more viable in the early and midgame.
As I mentioned earlier, ther would always be the option to give one Infantry line the ability to somehow collect or generate ressoruces. Or they could have special abilities that can be used in combat situations, like building some kind of bostacles for the opponent. There could be some kind of blockades which also absorb like 50 % of arrow damage similar to the hussite wagon effect, hindering the opponent moving and/or even giving melee fighting bonus.
I also made a specific thread for that, trying to collect and bring out as many creative ideas as posisble for that:

So there are a lot of ways to make Infantry more viable in a creative way and not stat-buffing them even further.
The only thing I haven’t found (yet) is some simple speciality like the archers range or the cavalry speed that can be used to gain an advantage and be revarded for becomming better with utilizationof that speciality.

1 Like

Can we please get a TLDR in here. This essay level stuff isn’t helping.

There’s some hard disagrees, and I am not going to spend 15min reading why I shouldn’t disagree on whatever your archer buff is going to be.

Just going by ludicrous stuff like 200 stone on TCs makes me think the rest is just as bad.

1 Like

Maybe we should focus on indivitual aspects instead of going flat over all the different points.
Ofc the intiial thread covers a lot of different stuff. That doesn’t mean we have to cover all of that in each post.

So we can discuss that.
First I don’t like that you just call that “ludicrous”. Cause when we do that we can’t get about why I actually want to speak about changes to TCs.

As I explained there we currently have the meta of overmaking TCs for protection of the eco. And not expanded, but instead very closeley placed so that the radii of them almost overlap.

And this is for me a clear indicator that they give too much value for their cost. They are mostly an economic building, giving the ability to add Villagers. But if you can get away with adding more of them for a better protection of their eco, it shows they are still kinda “too cheap” for what they offer.
But the main point is actully that these base layouts lead to very limited strategic diversity as they basically cut out entire strategic options, like mentioned basically completel absence of CA play in the current meta. CA need to run through the opponent base and idle vills constantly without taking a lot of damage. But with these densely placed TCs they just can’t, as they take way too much damage from the TC fire.

For booming an increasment of the Stone cost acutally doesn’t make that big of a difference as to maintain Vill production you need to add a lot of Farms aswell. Ofc it would also affect booming, but the increased stone cost is mainly to make it more costly to spam TCs without having the eco to sustain the production.

And i think we should step away from phrase like that which are just dismissive without even trying to understand the reasoning behind proposals.
Maybe there are better ways to address that instead of increasing the Stone cost. But for me it looks like the easiest adjustment to adress the issue.

So we aren’t going to get a TLDR? You just expect people to either A. Agree with you and B. Spend all that time reading? Because you are unwilling to give even a basic breakdown?

Good luck. I warned you. :turtle:

Ill join the others and just ignore this thread instead

1 Like

I tend to write a lot, too, and figure most of my posts get glossed over. But I do usually try to format them in a way that could help anyone who wants to try and read them. Sometimes time-constraints make it impossible to format how I like, though

I admit (sorry to say) that I glossed over the OP because there wasn’t enough formatting for my tastes, to break things up into more digestible chunks.

Formatting attempts were made which is nice and not always common (bold sections, A), B) C), etc.), but I think more could help, like bulletpoints (use an asterisk *) and nested bulletpoints (put two spaces before an asterisk, I think), numbered lists if needed, and things like that which indent things here and there. It’s too bad the A) B) C) didn’t auto-indent as some forums do at least with lowercase ones.

I admit, though, I need to write less. Not always easy when there’s so much to say :confused: :smiley: I will try.

The forum, itself, doesn’t always help with making things more readable. Quote blocks are definitely one thing that the forum should auto-indent, imo, like the old site used to do:

1 Like