And yet, they’re still not viable yet.
In 1v1 Arabia sure (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byJKunTTrR8) but in team games that’s another story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq4a_R95TzM)
2 Likes
I also had this game https://imgur.com/r/aoe2/bWVY5cw in ming but can’t find an actual recording 11
2 Likes
You may be right. Perhaps Elephant archers are just a team game unit.
But, in that case, it may be good to buff Indians in a way that improves their 1v1 game.
But also nerf their shore fish bonus. At the moment Indians are okayish in 1v1 on most maps but on shore fish heavy maps they just become OP.
I think one key to whether a civ needs some sort of nerf is whether you end up with pro mirrors on certain maps. e.g. the fact that Mongols mirrors happened too often on maps with lots of hunt demonstrated that their hunt bonus needed a nerf and the fact that Indians mirrors happen too often on shore fish heavy maps demonstrated that their shore fish bonus needs needs a nerf and the fact that Spanish and Mayan mirrors happened a lot on some map types where it’s easy for those civs to get to their OP UU … demonstated that conqs and plumes needed a nerf (I know the plumes’ cost got nerfed but I don’t remember if conqs were nerfed? I don’t think Spanish are as OP as they were in Castle but maybe it’s because other civs around them got buffed? Buffing other civs but not buffing the civ that is already strong is one indirect way to nerf a civ.).
However, civs that are weak on most maps but are OP on particular map types to the degree that you just end up with mirrors in high level games on those maps … means that ALTHOUGH such civs should have that particular bonus nerfed but they should ALSO have buffs that make them a bit better on most maps.
TL; DR: What you want is civs that are stronger on particular map types but not to the degree that at a high level you just end up with a bunch of mirrors.
3 Likes
I guess what happened is that there were no shore fish heavy maps at the time they had to think of a new eco bonus for Indians. Of course with all the people who will complain about losing to Indians on Alpine lakes hopefully the devs will react.
They now take bonus damage from anti-cav archer units, so they are weaker against elite skirms now.
You’re probably also right in your conclusion. After all Mayan and Chinese were auto-pick on Nomads, and that’s gone. Mongols are still going to be auto-pick on hunt maps because 40% on top of the already faster collection rate from hunting is still lot, but it does look like the devs are following the same reasoning as yours.
2 Likes
Yes, I’m extremely happy with DE and it’s only going to get even better, IMO.
I’d be playing the game constantly if I hadn’t been playing it off and on since 2001, lol.
I think that the Mongols’ hunt bonus needs to be reduced further, as 40% is still huge compared to most civs’ gather rate bonuses. And I think that the Cumans’ Steppe Lancers need to be buffed a bit and the Tartars’ Steppe Lancers need to be buffed A LOT (without quite making them OP).
I wonder how much the devs appreciate my suggestions and analyses 
I love that BBQTurkman is voicing some of the official AoE YouTube updates
1 Like
It’s like you don’t read any post but rather picking up random individual sentences. Your reading comprehension is the problem, that’s why you think nothing makes sense.
-
Making Rattan vs LC + Onagers? That would be the best counter right there. +1 intelligence.
-
All I said was Rattan wouldn’t make a difference in fighting LC + Onagers + Mangudai.Never said Arbs are faster than Rattan, never even mentioned Heavy Cav Archer, that was all in your head. Reading comprehension +999
-
I said LC is the most cost effective against Rattans because LC is the most cost effective options Mongol can have compare to other cavs options. You replied wood doesn’t matter much in late game setting, you bring up the wood cost out of nowhere.
Here is reality for you: Arb is both more pop efficient and cost efficient than Rattan when fighting LC because arb has higher HP (and of course cheaper as well).
They do get 1 hit quite more often than Viet Arbs. Try scenario editor and see.
“OR” Cavalier. I love how you try to split hair.
This is true, but the thing to keep in mind is there’s typically a lot more travel time between huntables and other resources (except for lured boars and pushed deer). Hunt is also the the 2nd most limited resource on most maps, after berries, so the bonus needs to be strong to make up for the short window in which it can be used. The other gather rate bonuses, while smaller percentage increases, pertain to resources that last much longer than the hunt, and generally have less travel time (e.g. gold). For those 2 civs that get berry related bonuses, they also have eco bonuses later in the game (Franks free farm upgrades, Britons cheaper TCs), while the Mongols do not. So while I think the Mongol nerf to 40% is reasonable given that they get the Steppe Lancer, I think going any further than that is unnecessary and could potentially ruin Mongols for more normal maps. Rather than nerfing anything that might be “too good” in some situations, why not buff other civs to make them more competitive?
1 Like
Not only are you being very rude, you keep twisting thw argument to win it.
Cactus mentions wood being irrelevant BECAUSE YOU SAID ARBS ARE MORE COST EFFICIENT. And then you call him dumb? If wood is irrelevant, then obviously ARBS are not more cost efficient.
You also keep comparing models in a vacuum to either over power or under power them. The rattan is faster so more likely to catch the kiting mangudai, the rattan has the PA to tank hits from the mangudai(or what were the mangudai doing in this battle of LC vs arbs? Idling?), while at the same time being a slither of a margin weaker than arbs vs LC due to hp, but they can more likely kite the LC, beating the arb at literally everything else. Rattan are more likely to dodge onager shots completely. You take 100% less damage from the shots you avoid. 
And then you ridicule cactus for preempting counter arguments when he brings up alternatives. And you call him dumb?
2 Likes
Back on topic. While i think they could slightly nerf the bonus damage of pikes, they should simultaneously either nerf the ele or buff all the other ele counters. Im generally quite happy when i catch my opponent massing eles as i burst the baloon animals with a pointy stick, convert them in batches or annihilate them with korean/african onagers. But I’ve seen so many players get wiped by ele spam there’s definitely something wrong there.
This issue with the elephants is prevalent in most RTS games that have a powerful but expensive unit. (it’s taken like 6 years for COH2 to get late game tanks like the king tiger right)
In 1v1 said units will almost always be left out due to the inability to mass them due to cost (or tech requirements)
As opposed to team games where its tremendously easier to get said unit, and the more players the easier this is done.
If they make any changes to those units it will negatively affect either 1v1 or team games. It becomes increasingly difficult to perfectly balance those types of units.
1 Like
There were lots of LC from Hera as well. Arbs will survive longer vs LCs and that’s a fact. Rattan’s speed is pretty much useless against highly mobile Mongol army, plus they have lower HP.
I hate to say this but it seemed your reading has problem at well. I never mentioned that in the earlier post he replied to. Please find and quote this if you can. All I said was LC is very cost efficient against Rattan. Full stop. Period.
Also I never called him dumb, it was your interpretation. Smart people can have reading comprehension some time too. I commented on his reading ability because I find it very annoying that people discuss without actually reading stuffs and thus made false claims like this.
It’ what you kept defending in the Viet balance thread, and aat no moment you changed opinion.
I read it all. For instance
You’ve completely swept under the rug the fact they resist better to arrows. They literally take 3 more arrows to the face before dying. Isn’t that an obvious difference?
Welp, now I can answer with tests. Quizz: what happens if you pit 12 arbs vs 7 Mongol Hussars? 12 rattans in the same situation:
Hmm, it almost looks like Arbs are a waste of gold.
You can forgive him for thinking that way I guess
It would be better than Arbs, since Rattans dodge better (because you know, I prefer relying on micro rather than the Viet’s arb +3 HP) and they kill SO faster
1 Like
Take a sarcasm pill dude.
This test is so invalid. We’re talking about cost effectiveness arent we? 12 arbs don’t cost the same as 12 rattans? 7 Mongol LCs = 560 res vs 12 Rattan = 1140 res? In order to achieve cost effectiveness you also have to reach a critical mass as well. It means once LCs reach critical mass it can kill Rattan more effectively than Arbs.
Yes but what if the Mongol army composition has LC + Onagers and Mangudai would just kite away? Point is I agreed with Viper’s army composition.
It’s wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood, not gold. What makes you think that wasting gold with dead albs is ok, while losing a bit of wood with living rattans is a huge downside?
Welp, you see, I can just post screenshots. So I need to find the sweetspot where 1 side dies and the other one doesn’t or else it’s harder to illustrate the argument. An actual critic is that anyway no one uses their archers like that. So let’s just do maths.
A mongol hussar inflicts 11-3 = 8 dmg per hit to both archers. So that’s 40 damage in 5 hit (not enough to kill either) and 48 damage in 6 hits (enough to kill both)
The other way around, Viet arbs deal 10-4 = 6 dmg per shot to the Mongol Hussar, which means to do more than 117 of dmg they need 20 shots. Rattan deal 1 more damage, which allow them to get the job done in 17 shots.
Rattan are better at dodging and it’s not 3 more HP that will save a meaningful amount of arbs to make up for the fact Rattans are better at everything else.
Welp, Rattans force your opponent to kite much more. Also, if kiting is that much of a problem, then again: why people don’t make cav archers, since they can catch up and aren’t going to be more of a waste of money than a unit that can’t catch up? Why people keep bothering to build foot archers at all vs Mangudai?
1 Like
There is a critical point between dead and alive. It’s a difference between getting 1 shot and survive to return fire. The point is a surviving unit with 3HP is better than dead unit and 3 extra HP does mean a lot in certain situations. Against Siege Onagers and LC it certainly does make a difference.
Anyway we should get back to the topic of Elephants.
= SEVENTY-FIVE attack. The only moments the +3hp will matter is if you bunch up your archers as closely as possible and never try to dodge anything. Then maybe you will save 1 or 2 arbs once in a while. There is also a critical threshold between losing everything because of being careless and losing nothing at all because you micro. And the Rattan is better in the second situation that is much more desirable.
Plz just focus. I literally made the maths to show it doesn’t matter vs LC
Welp, even a slight speed buff can have big consequences. For instance, in AoC, 2 Franks Halbs (no squires back then) would never catch up to a War elephant because they would keep bumping in each other, just because of the introduction of Mahout. And we have no idea of how good is DE’s pathing (besides the fact it’s better than 2 patches ago)
Welp, if the strategy can both be countered and allow to win, to me it’s fine.
1 Like
Similar to the issue of teutons having needed a minor buff, i dont think the ele issue is a big one, but from the number of complaints from both sides (and the number of times I’ve seen players in team games collapse from ele spam attacks) i reckon they could do with a little more work
And im done responding to highping. I think you have immense patience for responding to his insults for so long. He has made up his mind and no amount of reasoning/facts is gonna change it. Clearly he knows best
Arbs are better than rattan
1 Like