In my opinion eagle warriors take down tcs much too fast. I do not think the unit is op or unbalanced, but in this one scenario I think they are too strong for their cost
I agree, EW might not be OP (100HP EEW arguably is though) per se, but they already have anti-cavalry, anti-monk and anti-siege bonuses , filled up to the brim with bonuses.
Adding an anti-building bonus just feels excessive considering they are functionally Cavarly not Infantry.
they kind of need those bonuses, seeing as they lack the cavalry to fill those roles as is.
(Here come the NCBWers…)
Of course they need them. Who said they don’t need them. I only said the EW should not also get anti-building bonuses.
and you’ve proposed nerfing el dorado even though mayans are literally not imbalanced in any way.
(Here comes the typical Ad Hominem line of attack…)
Yes I have, and pointing that out is not an argument.
the point is, that just because a unit has a lot of bonsues doesn’t mean they aren’t justified. eagles have those bonuses for a reason, as you admitted.
but let me ask you something.
are the meso civs overpowered? do they need nerfs?
if yes, okay let’s talk about what makes them op and what should be nerfed.
if no, then why are you nerfing them?
It was not a real nerf, just a check to the power of 166%HP Mayan EEW in late imperial. All my change did was reduce it to 150%HP Mayan EEW, i.e. still 90HP or as much as 50% extra over every other meso civ.
Now will you get back to the topic of discussion and stop trying to muddy the water in every balance change thread?
thats what i was talking about though. the topic is nerfing the eagles by removing arson.
my question is what justifies nerfing them? are the meso civs overpowered?
it is a nerf, it still removes 10 health from them, which makes them easier to kill. food for thought but the mayan winrate actually goes DOWN after the 40 minute mark, so you’re actually nerfing their weak point.
but back to the topic at hand.
why do the meso civs warrant a nerf?
Really? I would like to see the source, idk that
Anyway, it still holds that not having +2 vs buildings will not hurt meso civs in any significant way, it will make them use other units more often to take buildings/towers
if the change isn’t going to have an impact why bother then? the point of a change is to have an impact, not change just to change something.
got any guarantees on that? you already said it isn’t going to have a significant impact, if the impact isn’t significant, why would they be making other units?
the point of balance changes is to affect the balance of a game. if something isn’t out of balance, why does a balance change need to be made?
But look at the mayans and aztecs playrate, each above 6%, mayan at 9% almost, and considering there are 10+ civs below 1%, that’s just plain injustice
yes, which means they have been thoroughly tested more then other civs, which means those balance numbers are actually accurate. you have zero reason to adjust the meso civs.
if you want to get the other civs to higher playrates, ADJUST those civs to make them appeal more.
This is exactly what i propose in many of my threads
such as here,
support those(or similar) changes then
no. you support adjusting unique units in that thread, if people are not playing those civs, its not because of the unique unit alone. it is because of the civ in general. also, three of those units you propose buffing are on very popular civs (war elephants, TK, and Lancers).
Eagles are fine, stop trying to change the game just because you want change.
Mesos lack Knights and Scouts, so the really need their Eagles to raid, and those Eagles cost so much Gold, that they really need to be good.
ii believe that every civ should be buffed in unique ways so as to differentiate them in play
but that’s not the aoe2 gamestyle at all.
the aoe2 style since the beginning has been civs being mostly similar with a few small differences to make them different civs.
what sort of logic is it? what sort of logic is changing aoe2 to not be aoe2?
the point of the game is to be aoe2. it’s literally right in the name. just beause you want something different doesn’t mean anything. why would you buy aoe2 if not to play aoe2?
if you want a different game, with unique and diverse civs, they are out there. it sounds like from the devs of aoe4 that it will be exactly like that.
for example the british play similar to aoe2, but the mongols are nomadic.
why is it fair to everyone else who already bought aoe2 de because it was advertised as aoe2, if they change the game to be not aoe2?
and yet you provide no counterpoint. you offer NO argument as to why we should change the entire direction of the game at all. other then “this is what i think would be cool.”
i didn’t buy aoe2 DE because i wanted to reinvent the wheel. i bought aoe2 de because it was advertised as AoE2.
so go ahead and tell me Parthnan - why should the game all of a sudden change directions over 20 years after the initial release?