Another thing is that Flemish Militia is much weaker now but cheaper as well: 60 HP, 11 Atk, 1/0 armor, 50 f 15 g cost
Now elite Shotels are trained in 4 s.
2 Likes
Devs didnāt put āViking Ageā in the puzzle for nothing.
No change to Teutons or Murder Holes?
Apparently not (20 chars)
Enter the following code in the second section of your screenshot: AwySkFVrXAWrCUukjjnfxjFN
2 Likes
Thanks a lot.
20 characters.
really needed change.
why? they got nerfed last patch.
good change
Doesnāt address civ weakness to cavalry. Forum had so many suggestions. yet Devs came with this harebrained idea. Wonāt be helpful on closed maps either.
Canāt understand how the mechanic would work. Is carry capacity higher? or food just increases after dropped to 115%. But might be OP since all food sources might be faster.
1 Like
The Gambesons tech is now concerning me because is making a lot of infantry UUs obsolete (esp Jaguar Warriors, Samurai, Teutonic Knights and Berserks).
8 Likes
I edited it. It is 15% more gold not food. The gold mine loses 10 gold 800 ā 790 but the villager carries 12 gold to the drop off building.
Supplies is a prerequisite for Gamerson tech.
Get access to supplies and Gamerson.
Dang, this patch is making the civ bonuses of some of my brainstormed civs completely redundant. Guess Iāll have to rethink them. (In particular, my Alans and Polynesians civs are now redundant with the Lithuanians and Malay, respectively.)
LOL, this one is funny because when I devised a Chinese civilization for my concept for an AoE game set in the modern day, I simply carried over that bonus from AoK. Now the source game it came from changed the bonus significantly. I think Iāll leave it though; many of the bonuses I came up with for my concept are incredibly broken already, so it fits.
This Inca bonus is also pretty funny for me. Itās similar to a team bonus I came up with for the Tibetans, except that it was one yak instead of one llama. I was planning on changing it because it was too similar to the Inca bonus, but also because I felt it would simply be too strong. Wonder if Iāll be right all along.
I mentioned this before, but I came up with this exact bonus for an Alans civilization. Guess Iāll have to change that.
I came up with this for a Polynesians civ. I figured that it would be used someday, but not by a preexisting civ. Iāll have to change this one too.
Conclusion: Either someone at Forgotten Empires is reading my posts elsewhere covertly, or I just think like an AoE2 dev.
Do Goths lose their previous hunt bonus? If yes, this would make them less of a troll/laming civ an more normal. Might even see them in high level games more often.
I think this is broken for Incas. Their only problem was that they are not as strong as the other eagle civs. They donāt need a big food discount on all military units. How much do Inca champs cost now? Donāt they have supplies already?
Pointless nerf for Poles. I donāt think this affects them at all.
Nice changes for Sicillians, but I still think serjeants need to be stronger to justify its cost. The new Gambesons makes them less unique relative to generic champs.
Sounds like it is halfway between their old gold bonus and their new gold bonus. I think this is good. Ever since Bohemians were introduced, Malians feel a bit too slow.
Horrible changes for Vikings. New Imp UT is fine, but why was Chieftains changed instead of just making it cheaper? What do Vikings do against cav now? Infantry cannot catch trade units. Monks are useless by the time Vikings can get a castle to research this tech. Also, Monks will also convert Infantry before Infantry can kill the monk, so Vikings player will probably be net negative on gold. So that leaves only Villagers. Overall, this new patch goes in the wrong direction for Vikings by buffing their archers and nerfing their Infantry.
How does this work? Do Shotels and camels get more melee armor? Getting cav armor makes no sense since cav donāt have bonus damage against them anyway.
I agree this is a nice buff for Ethiopians.
Does this affect Rathasā melee mode?
Long Swordsman upgrade time decreased from 45 s ā 40 s
Two-handed swordsman upgrade time decreased from 75 s ā 60 s
Champion upgrade time decreased from 100 s ā 85 s
Total upgrade time decreased 35 s (from 275 s iirc)
No, itās added on. Kinda gross, tbh.
The Incas lost access to Supplies to balance this out. Which is good.
No one knows how it works specifically, but cavalry units specifically deal 3 less damage to those units. Itās not armor, and it probably applies to bonus damage.
Yes it does. Thatās probably the main reason it was added.
2 Likes
Oh man, I hate this change. It sets a horrible precedent for completely removing ES-added content, which I think is a terrible idea that shows a lack of respect for the original game. Up until now, the devs didnāt majorly touch ES unique techs, but now one has been completely replaced, which I hate. I see this as the start of the game being completely overhauled over time, until it is entirely different from the game that ES made and becomes its own thing entirely, which is a terrible idea set by this frankly dangerous precedent. Oh well.
3 Likes
What an apocalyptic vision you have 11
For some its already too different from the OG ĀÆ_(ć)_/ĀÆ
Age 3 changed a lot in DE, so you might not be wrong. Though I think it was for better
2 Likes
1
Supplies is removed from their tech tree. Although Iād like to see a flat -15% and supply back. Kamauyk and slinger cost may revert.
It is for Nomad I guess. All civs are being generic in Nomad in terms of villagers vs villagers fighting.
1
Absolutely. Or just cost reduction. 55f/30g.
Hmm. I made a thread to give small amount of that UT as a generic tech. Is this on the line in the future?
I think devs now differentiated between infantry attack and cavalry attack. As well as foot archer attack and CA attack.
Not enough imo. And technically it is increased by Gamerson.
Modern AoE2 is very different from the original, but itās not completely different. There are still many aspects of the original ES vision shining through. But the Berserkergang removal could change that. It signals an attitude that the new devs know better than the original devs, which comes across to me as incredibly arrogant. No one knows the devsā original vision except the original devs themselves. The new devs should not try to upstage them by coming up with flashier and gimmickier, but ultimately less intuitive and more complicated, ideas that seem cool on the surface level, but just add more unnecessary complexity to a game that started out simple.
3 Likes