Yeah people do this intentionally, longbows are no joke
Cannons are the “valuable” targets, its usually the key piece of a push into a defensive position. Like what other valueable targets are there?
And using longbows into high HP or high range resist units means you are less likely to waste your firepower since you are not wasting time retargeting
Yeah but muskets cant do that with 26 range
Like if the opponent has 5 cannons then ofcourse equal pop of longbows aint going to cut it
But in a musket cannon push where there is usually 15-20 musk + 2 cannons (30 pop) then 30 ish longbows can just snipe the cannons and then the musks are helpless
Well, if you play without the first expansion but with the second one enabled… how many serious players would you encounter? How many at all even? Not many I would guess.
You might not know it, but back in my days (sounding like a grandpa) before steam, the expansions TAD and warchiefs were on CD and seperately purchasable. I sometimes played TAD, almost never WC, and ranked only with the vanilla Civs (it was one server back then, and you could decide if you wanted to play a game including expansion).
Also, “if they ever make aoe4 fun”? Dude. Aoe4 has way more players than all versions of aoe3 combined. Your opinion loses against facts.
I had TAD enabled, but i could select to play “vanilla only games” for ranked. There was no thing as “only vanilla and TAD” player pool.
You might not know it, but back in my days (sounding like a grandpa) before steam, the expansions TAD and warchiefs were on CD and seperately purchasable. I sometimes played TAD, almost never WC, and ranked only with the vanilla Civs (it was one server back then, and you could decide if you wanted to play a game including expansion).
I’m aware of how it works, I only had up to war chiefs on disk initially. You’re 1% of the vanilla which was a pretty small player pool.
It’s a very new game that’s being heavily promoted by Microsoft versus a decades old game that was abandoned for many years and still not at all promoted. Even then, AoE3 is 50-60% the size of the AoE4 playerbase. And every update to AoE4 has made it more and more like AoE3.
I wanted to be less extreme but now I believe more and more that ranked pvp has ruined a lot of games.
The purpose of having ranked games is to put you against equally leveled players so that you are comfortable. Not for you to arduously climb it. This is not your standardized test score.
If there are people who enjoy repeating the same few gameplay every day just to grind a score that pays you nothing, there should be a separate game mode or mod for them. Use small trees. Use restricted rules and ban lists. AOE1 has much fewer options and there were match rules that only allow a few civs and chariots only (no rush allowed before bronze), and it has thrived for long by itself. Give most causal players as many toys as they can play with and the competitive crowd will figure out their way for competing. Not the other way round.
But most developers are lazy enough to force everyone else to follow the latter.
well, there’s plenty of RTS games that bombed due to forgetting the main audience of players for either complete outsiders and more so 1v1 competitive tryhards, i agree the ranked kinda lost meaning, i never felt like climbing it, i can improve my play ofc, but thats not playing just to get higher elo, which also causes smurfing due to the players not wanting to lose elo on their main
as for failed RTS examples, DOW III, grey goo, aoe4 (no matter how you spin it, the focus is blantanly obviously in wrong areas from the get go), iron harvest (since redirected its focus to singleplayer, so this hardly counts anymore) STOP Catering to a MINORITY of Players! | AoE4 (Reaction Video to GGG) - YouTube for example, even die hard defenders do in fact see the problem (incog is a former aoe3 player, still plays it sometimes, you can see that in his hotkey layout (basically aoe3 legacy binds))
It depends on the case, that you need micro I don’t question it very rightly, the falconets and the lbs have the same range but it depends on the mass and micro of both players, you could open the formation of the lbs and divide it into 2 or 3 groups you would have less losses but if it’s 10 falconets well I would avoid, if you have 30lbs against 3 falconets and you do everything right you win with lbs
I didnt mean the English longbows. I think it was some native unit that just looked like a Longbow. Very long range, and apparently for some reason countering cannons.
It was just one example. The point I wanted to make: It is just too much. Feels like, and might actually be, 200 different units.
And that has been there since 2006.
You first played without TWC. Then entered a game with TWC civs, then complain about TWC civs being there.
What else do you expect?
Just a perfect demonstration of the ladder of “too complicated!”:
Here is a post complaining the new update of DE is too complicated compared to previous versions of DE.
Then there comes someone who thinks TWC is too complicated, which everyone else here is kinda using as a benchmark of the “simple and accessible” golden pastoral era of the game.
Back in 2005 people coming from AOE2 were complaining about too many unique units and mechanics.
Oh, sorry, speaking of AOE2, there are people who complain the 40 civs now are too complicated as well.
So which was the perfectly simple and accessible stage of the game dare I ask?
I find it unlikely that a “top 1% player” would not know what an Aztec arrow knight that counters artillery is. I agree that adding too many new cards and units could lead to over complications that could scare away new players, but as long as all new unit are still classified in the same groups, light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry etc… It shouldn’t be a problem. Also for all the players that only play single player all the new stuff is just more things to try. It’s more of a problem for multiplayer.
Each update had tons of content lifted from AoE3 such as Rus getting militias or the earlier artillery rework. All stuff that was proven by AoE3 and should have been included from day one. I guarantee they’ll eventually figure out how to balance around population efficiency and make Knights cost 2 pop.
Jaja da lo por hecho colega, de hecho se nota que aoe 4 dijo “rayos muchos jugadores consideran el juego repetitivo creo que tendre que hacer algo (mira al aoe 3) excelente! podre tomar ideas de alli! y como no es el más popular ni se darán cuenta”
Pero dejando las bromas de lado yo a las 100 horas de juego (osea mucho tiempo xd) pude identificar las unidades no es algo tan dificil
La caballeria, esta tiene 2 etiquetas (+1 pseudo etiqueta si contamos a la infanteria de choque) Caballeria pesada que se muestra como una herradura con una Espada y caballeria ligera la cual muestra el dibujo de una herradura con una flecha. (El arcabucero es una unidad de caballeria mercenaria que rompe esta regla ya que es una caballeria pesada a distancia, pero aun asi es contrarestado por la caballeria ligera, la infanteria montada de la casa de habsburgo tambíen es caballeria pesada a distancia, y el jinete camello bereber es la unica unidad (por ahora) de caballeria ligera cuerpo a cuerpo)
La infanteria tambien tiene 2 etiquetas Pesada y ligera (y la pesada tiene 2 sub etiquetas que son infanteria pesada a distancia con el dibujo de un mosquetero y hay otra etiqueta que tiene el dibujo de alguien con una lanza que representa la infanteria pesada cuerpo a cuerpo, pero curiosamente cuando quieren representar a ambas infanteria terminan usando el dibujo del mosquetero (con chaqueta roja) XD) y la infanteria ligera se representa con el dibujo de alguien con un rifle y con chaqueta verde