Feedback and thoughts on new patch

a lot of the usability changes are nice and needed.

improvements like resources per minute are good for the game and help give players more important information such as the income you are actually earning through different strategies and build orders. it removes guesswork and opacity and allows players to plan ahead and compare and improve themselves in a reproducible and verifiable manner. changes like this are what I expected out of de, and hope to see in aoe4.

the range indicator is also a great change, giving critical information directly to players without need for guess work and “feeling it”, and hopefully preludes work to the individual unit ai. there is no reason for cannons to prioritize buildings over units in range, and unit ai should have initial priority targeting of units in range if they currently have no targets with their preferred weapon mode and target, similar to StarCraft. that said attack move and pathing still need work.

being able to filter notifications of chat through the toggle is great, however page up/down functionality line by line still isn’t restored and opening chat often starts it at the very top of chat history. fixing these issues and making chat filter togglable would further put the game in the right track.

multiplayer social/personalization aspects are still lacking compared to legacy, there is progress but more work is still needed to reach parity. this is an area that I would have expected de to expand upon, not be behind. there should also be a return of medals/achievement pages and the ranked season system.

on some of the balance changes:

mansabder units costing the same pop space as their normal counterparts is a good change, and something I’ve wanted to suggest for a long time. imperial sepoy gaining an extra 10% stat increase isn’t though, I would rather have a boost to late game sepoys through an age 4 card rather than mess with age upgrade boosts. something as simple as adding it to battlefield construction and moving it to age 4 would give the same affect with respect to treaty without messing with the games constants.

on france changes, standardizing base stats to colonial is something that should happen to all regular units instead of this haphazard and inconsistent system we have now. why stop at cuirs? halberds, warwagons and jaguar knights should receive the same treatment. on the matter of cuirs in particular, increasing their base hp and reducing their siege damage should make them more appealing in fortress and less oppressive in imperial. directly increasing courier cost by 5-10 food and their train time by 3 seconds may also be a better solution than reducing their starting food by 50.

I dislike the aztec age up changes because they push the civ too hard into rushing/all ins. perhaps changing 2 skull knights into slingers would be a good way to reduce the bite of their rush. inca may need to have their rush toned down a bit as well through their age up choices.

the Dutch changes are good, increasing eco potential at cost of mil potential, but rather than adding 5 vill limit to the bank cards its better to directly add them to the base civ. increasing base settler cap to 60 would have the same effect while making it clear what their max eco should look like.

for the Lakota, siege ceremony should be removed fully and their units given a base siege increase, as well as access to siege weapons such as renegade mortars. civ wont be in a good place while it keeps its mobility and absurd siege damage combined.

on the bad side of things, there are way too many bugs and crashes recently, and its really hard to continue playing the game when things out of your control mess with you. I hope that you implement a test server and get these bugs sorted out, and the game gets to a stable state by the time of the fan preview event.


I like that they changed the Imperial upgrade, rather than introduce new cards to teh already card-heavy Indians.
If any civs need new cards, it is Lakota and Hauds, and only on Age 4, because tehy really do not many options once they hit Industrial.

I agree.

I disagree.
Otherwise French would have a really punished Boom, compared to other civs, and there is no sense in that.

I heavily disagree!
Aztecs are THE Rush civ, and they lack so many late game ptions, taht this is really the only way to go with them, by design.

No, making it dependant on cards makes more sense, and adds usage to the cards.

This would need a full Mercenary system, and not just card send ins.
I disagree with removing Siege Ceremony, as it is the distinctive aspect of playing Lakota in combat, that they lack Cannon.

I do, however, think they and the Aztecs should get a 3 Lil’ Bombard card, in Age 4.

1 Like

Civilization balance is completely wrong. All civilizations, even if limited, must be able to defeat opponents using a variety of strategies. However, Aztecs and Russia exist only for the early rush, and Japan, Sweden and Incas defend their weak early and then irritate their opponents in the overly powerful late game. I can’t think that this balance direction is having the right effect.


battlefield construction is already a card in the Indian deck commonly taken in treaty to build forward bases. its not introducing a new card, its adding the extra combat stats on it and expanding its scope, just like with other civs.

its more focused on supremacy than treaty, but yes the spillover may be too much.

the problem isn’t that they shouldn’t be able to rush, its that it can be overwhelming to an unhealthy degree currently. rather than remove it, it should be more reasonable. its so strong that it pushes out other strategies, and if those strategies are lacking then they should be buffed rather be forced to be a one trick civ.

the dutch economy is already unhealthily reliant on cards to keep up. reducing thier reliance on cards for their economy should be the goal, rather than doubling down on it. no other civ needs a card to increase their settler cap, and they shouldn’t either.

its a really bad aspect of the civ, and giving them access to mortars/light cannons would solve alot of problems with this civ currently.

Battlefield construction is in the Ottomans and Lakota card pools, and gives no buffs. Letting Sepoys build recruitment buildings, is already the biggest buff they could ever get.
You also have Shivaji’s Tactics and other Sepoy cards, that overcharge the already great unit.

yes civilizations should have multiple ways to play the game, rather than be forced into one optimal build order every time. I think a lot of the changes are currently going down that path, so there is a lot of hope for the future.

the devs felt that sepoys needed an extra 10% in imperial for treaty purposes. whether its really needed or not idk, I’m simply suggesting that it be added into a card commonly taken in treaty rather than the base imperial upgrade. it doesn’t have to be battlefield construction, can be any other card.

Well, I can’t agree on that part. Somehow, developers are only interested in the problems in front of them without deep consideration.

First of all, in order to convince them that they are adjusting the balance in more depth, they need to disclose the win rate and select rate of the civilization in the ranking game now.


more transparency in stats would be a big win for players, I agree. the sooner we can view win rates in certain maps and matchups, the clearer view we have on where civs actually lay rather than guessing in the dark.


What balance is being considered now,
We let boom civs are able to defend rush civs rush, but no matter how rush civs boom without army, they still lose much much eco to boom civs with army.

The meta favors booming because holding off rushes is an acquired skill. The better you are at the game, the easier it is to defend rushes. This happens in any RTS. The solution is simple: boom yourself. All civs (maybe except Russia)can boom in their own way. This isn’t a balance problem. It is the natural way to things. Warfare in reality works the same way. We are at a stage where all we do is boom.