I don’t, but @casusincorrabil should, and there is always edit history.
CHANGELOG 2
- Properly updated post to reflect UT change
- Lowered the Monaspa’s food cost to 45 food (down from 70)
I just saw this, and I agree. In that case, should I give them Halberdiers? Because otherwise, they’d be totally generic Pikemen with no advantages whatsoever.
I missed the applicability of the UT on my first run. Even so, I’d probably knock it down to 80 or so. Also yeah, I guess the UT is a lot like Farimba. I might split up some of the damage between different unit types even (e.g. Cav +1 attack, +2 vs. pikemen and archers. Just spitballin)
On a lot of civs free redemption might be OP, on this one I kind of think its fine since they don’t really have much going for them early game and this would help them counter siege pushes.
Eh, while I’m all about creativity, there’s only so much you can do before there is some kind of overlap with another civ. A weaker/more limited version of another civ’s bonus is generally not ideal, but in rare cases I think it can make sense. I understand the rationale of wanting to have some of the bonus infantry HP applied earlier, because for most of the game your swordsman line is generic and overpriced, then there’s this massive +40-50% HP spike in Imp, which IMO is a potentially greater design flaw than the smoother (but overlapping) pre-Imp buffs. Even a fully identical civ bonus copied from one civ to another could play out very differently depending on tech tree, UUs, and synergy with other bonuses (I’m not saying do this, just making a point.) That said, just applying it to swordsmen would probably be fine.
Decent for feudal, kind of weak thereafter. I like the idea of the tower attack speed also applying to TC, which hasn’t been done yet.
Yes
You’re a bit too late. I already replaced it.
I already removed it, but you do have good points. However, it was pointed out to me that they have good options in the Castle Age with their towers, Monks, and CAs, so they really don’t need spectacular infantry then.
CHANGELOG 3
- Removed Atonement and Fervor
- Added Halberdier
- Aznauri now only affects the Swordsman line
Yeah its not OP, just very strong
I think +18% rof for BBT is nothing lo laugh at tho. Although maybe the TC and keep aspect would be too weak
It can make sense only if one is a civ bonus and the other is an UT. Just like Teutons bonus melee armor to Infantry and Bulgarians UT. And some other examples.
Obviously the Vikings bonus is more elegant and versatile to use. But you simply cannot copy paste a bonus like that, that’s not the future of AOE, I’d rather have less civs if this is what it takes.
Besides that I’m sure we have plenty of ideas left to implement before we ran out and just copy paste.
Besides all that, the attempt to make Longsword relevant is nonsense, Militia-line will always be naturally viable only at the Dark Age / Early Feudal AND the very latter stages of the game where gold efficiency is a key.
There is absolute zero potential for a mid-game Infantry play, UNLESS you Eaglize/Huskarlize (movement speed + PA) the unit. So all these utopian thoughts of a fully balanced RPS (rock paper scissors) mid-game warfare belong to a different game, in AOE II there is no such mechanism, it’s much more complicated than this simplistic urge.
Once we accept this unique yet asymmetrical role of the Militia-line, we can wisely address it when we design/balance the game/civ.
I think that’s still too restrictive. For example, Malians’ longer lasting gold (vs. all res for Mayans), or Berbers and Magyars both getting a discount on scout line. It’s true that there are other things to differentiate these bonuses (amounts and units affected), but that’s what I have in mind when I say overlapping bonuses. These should be few and far between, but they can and do exist.
Hmm, I didn’t think about BBT. TBH I’m not convinced that would be OP, but there’s a chance, especially if BBTs get a projectile buff. But yeah, BBT and keeps/TC/Castle function differently enough that there should be a different multiplier. +18% ranges from fine to potentially too strong for BBTs, but is basically Stronghold for towers/castles, which is a very weak effect.
It’s a different bonus… One if focused on Gold the other is global yet lower amount. In fact Mayans bonus practically makes their hunt last much longer which is huge.
Again, same as before.
With that being said, Magyars and Berbers designs are a little problematic in their own way.
That’s why I said it should be applied ONLY on the Militia-line rather than both, in order to make it different. Plus only one of them should be scaling through the ages, the other must stay flat, and again, more conviniently an Unique Tech.
I’m sure we can do better than copying.
My bonus doesn’t apply to Bombard Towers. The bonus against siege thanks to their unique tech DOES apply to them though.
Yeah I know. My problem with the bonus is that its too close to Celts since its the same increase to towers
But one is a UT and the other is a bonus. There’s always been overlap between the two in different civilizations, so there’s no problem.
The Georgians basically get the Celt UT for free and earlier. Sounds like a bonus to me. I can increase the numbers if you want, though, to differentiate them.
I would. Something closer to what I or @AllergicTable49 suggested. Even if you made towers fire 100% faster (don’t) they’d have 2/3 the DPS of Japanese towers vs. non-siege. Obviously you’d want to make it weaker since it applies to Castles/TCs also, but I think 15/30/45 or 20/30/40 would be reasonable.
Hardly the most iconic aspect of the Celt civ, and probably the first thing to be changed if Celts get even a minor rebalance. Apart from that, yeah, we don’t want bonuses to resemble each other more than necessary.
1 Like
I will just quote what I said earlier:
Like, on itself the bonus isnt bad even, but I just think it could be less overlap-ey by being less powerful
The civ has BBTs and those benefit from the bonus
Isn’t it less powerful? I thought for sure it was.
@AllergicTable49, what do you think of my new team bonus and unique tech?
Should clarify its non-application to BBT in the OP
I’m still undecided, but I don’t think it should apply, since Bombard Towers are already quite strong, and they do get the bonus against siege that comes with Svan Towers. I’ll specify in the bonus description.
That’s nice +3 vs. Siege is mostly relevant against rams, I’d make it a little bit more elegant:
Buildings have bonus damage against Siege.
This is a better version of Persians old UT. (Boiling Oil)
I’d hide the numbers, since it’s a bonus damage, it doesn’t always have to be written, especially if it’s a complex of numbers, I’m saying complex because it should have different numbers against Rams and against the rest of the Siege:
+3 vs. Siege Type Armor
+5 vs. Ram Type Armor
Persians had +9 for reference (Castles only, which was really lame)
I’d make the Tower/Outpost bonus either a Team Bonus or a passive civ bonus.
After you have a Castle up, you’re not struggling with this low amount of pop space.
This is nice actually, though it must be 3. 2 means no impact at all once enemy has Light Cav tech, which is the most basic Build Order on Arena.
I made that more of a historical reference justifying the name, since Svan Towers were regular houses that were taller than usual and used for defense. The population space was originally going to be the only function, but I figured that was WAY too weak and took another user’s suggestion and gave them a bonus against siege.
I was not aware of that.