And yes, I’m not a fan of how the Feitoria works either.
My Ox Cart suggestion was either for Scenario Editor only or something you have to enable in the lobby.
The toggle is for all Trade Cogs. If you need both Wood and Gold you would have to constantly switch between both, which is pretty micro intensive, plus there is a delay because the Trade Cogs have to move all the way to the enemy dock and back first.
It would require a lot of resource monitoring and constant adjustments if you couldn’t set a ratio.
Better. Can be experimented as a new civ/team bonus. If not game breaking and actually positive we can make it a new generic tech.
Time consuming. The button is universal. You can’t have a 50:50 for one trade cog and 100:0 for another. So you need to manually toggle between 100:0 and 0:100. 50:50 removes that micro management.
Same. Infinite Castle and BBT will only stall the game when this game is by its nature slower than other RTS games.
I agree that that’s part of the problem, and I particularly dislike features that don’t make physical sense, e.g. the fire archer’s arrows that travel further when he shoots at a building. But I don’t think it’s the only reason they don’t fit. As for this:
This would be a very different game! I don’t think there’s any “should” about it – the original AoE2 devs chose not to include these kinds of mechanics because of they didn’t want to make it that type of game. I like the type of game they chose, and I’m frustrated that the current devs evidently don’t agree with that choice.
Yes: I’ve played several RTS games with invincibility cheats, and I find it more fun to play them without those cheats enabled. What does this have to do with stun mechanics?
You are evaluating a mechanics on the basis of how you feel while losing which isn’t a fair evaluation at all. Its identital to how when armour ignoring Leitis first arrived, people cried foul just because they can’t tolerate losing as their favourite Teutonic Knights.
Who would it really give an advantage to?
When this feature is introduced, both sides’ trade units would have access to it, so it wouldn’t favor either team specifically.
If you meant it makes trade units more advantageous compared to farmers, then I think that would only really apply once you already have a large number of trade units — and even then, their main purpose would still be to generate gold. Creating that many just for food wouldn’t be cost-effective, especially food is usually cheaper and cheaper.
Don’t forget we could even introduce an exchange loss, so that food trading may have less efficient than farming in a long term. In that case, the only real benefit would be the flexibility to quickly obtain food in emergency shortages, rather than it being a major advantage overall.
This should i used there was if we were being realistic. I hate when they add a certain mechanic that makes no difference if they just increased certain stats.
Well I also am not a huge fan of ignoring armour but gameplay wise it changes some units that are good against them. And its not about Teutonic knights, but still because its another mechanic that should be introduced to more units (at least partially). Or what I would prefer is a charge attack for all lanced cavalry and that would make lanced/spear cavalry be used different than it is now. That charge attack is also very high in damage it’s close to ignoring armor anyway, so leitis could have actual charge attack that ignores armor in full as their special attack and overall lower damage, so would be great at sniping teutonic knights . Its more logical to me. And pikemen could have a charge-attack protection.
Farms take more space than other resource gathering that 3x3 tile per villager. You need gain significant portion of map control to protect large farmland. However, trade routes can be,more often, concentrate in the edges of map. It means you can generate resources infinitely from trade when you only secure small part of map. I think game should reward players gain map control and secure resources, large portion of map for farm. Trade for one resource type is fine but should not allow to gain everything from trade.
Trade cog wood generation is fine because at least there are limitation on where to build docks. But you can build market basically everywhere and it gives too much flexibility if it can generate more than one type of resource.
I think trade generate tickle of food or wood can be good for civ bonus for Italians, Saracens, Tatars etc. (I guess Bengalis already does) Not for giving all civs.
While farms do take up plenty of space, it’s easier to secure farmland than it is to secure a trade route. Reason being that farms tend to be placed inside your base (and thus behind walls, under TCs, and/or in a place that’s already secured) while trade routes require a wide area for maximum effectiveness (requiring a full map wall to prevent raiding and obligating you to secure land outside your base). Also, if raiders get into farmland, they only deny the part(s) that they get into, while raiders in a trade route effectively hit the whole trade route (even if they only get into a small portion of it). The fact that you can build markets anywhere is mitigated by the fact that longer trade routes produce more gold (but still slower than gold miners) - which leads to long trade routes. Generally, if you’ve secured a land trade route, then you’ve secured your farmland as well.
Trade cogs are usually even harder to secure, since you generally can’t wall them off (or place other static defenses) for safety and have to rely solely on water control (and may also need to secure the docks against land attack as well). The wood portion of trade cogs is something that can already be experimented with in antiquity mode (or Chronicles), so that portion isn’t new - just a new UI that is applied more generally.
I’ll also note that trade tends not to be all that viable until after the value of food/wood drops below the value of gold. This is due to the long payback time for trade units, combined with the way gold runs out while being needed for the more powerful units (and food becomes more abundant as the game goes on). Contrast with fish booming which pays back quicker (and provides food which is scarcer early on), despite needing 175 wood for each fish trap/ship instead of 150 res for each trade unit.
That said, wood running out is sometimes what ends a game (especially on naval maps)
I disagree. This isn’t about who’s winning or losing, since the player whose units get stunned isn’t necessarily losing. It’s about taking control away from the player. Player control is the defining feature of games that sets them apart from other media – one has to be very careful about whether, when and how to take it away. Personally I don’t see a way of implementing something like that in the context of AoE2 without it being (in the words of Sandy Petersen) monstrously unfun.
How does it take away player control that other game mechanics do not?
You are blocked from attacking villager behind repairing rams with your castle. It has been original feature in the game since a long time. Do you consider it more player control?
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re asking. I can’t even tell if it’s a genuine question, or another attempt at a disingenuous gotcha, like your earlier quip about my units being killed.
If a unit is stunned, you can’t control it while it’s stunned, it’s as simple as that. In your example, you can still control the castle in the same way that you always can. Player control is not the same as player omnipotence – it always operates within the constraints of the game rules.
I don’t really understand why you’re being so insistent about this – you evidently don’t have a consistent argument in favour of stun mechanics, since you change your reasoning with every post. But it’s pretty clear that we’re going to have to agree to disagree about this.
I get your stun view but slow seems not that harsh, what about trapping enemy units with instant gates and buildings? It is even harder CC as it affects alot of units, makes 0 sense, is in the game since the start and is really powerfull… (that is another topic what i would change about the game. (walkable foundations till 50% built))
Only difference is hulks with hooks make sense to slow and alot of other stuff does not or should be core game mechanic not 1unit gimmick for no visual or logical reason. (also some old units have problems like mangudai: why siege?)
Add architectural features to fishing boats, such as building "watchtowers” that can float on the sea,gaining visibility, building bridges, and allowing land troops to pass through (perhaps there are also good new tactics emerging?)
Fishing boats can repair ships, similar to the effect of villagers repairing buildings.
Add reconnaissance ships ? which only provide slightly higher movement speed and a wide field of view, and have no attacking power
When the first dock is built in each round, you will receive a free reconnaissance ship,
The sea walls and sea gates in the editor can be added to multiplayer games, which can enrich the attack and defense strategies at sea.
Transport ships need to balance by carrying more units and moving slower, with higher risks and higher returns（which may be influenced by the bonus of maritime technology in universities）
Yeah, I agree this isn’t a good feature. Thankfully it’s only really an issue at a pro level (or at least a higher level than I play at) but I do think it should be addressed somehow. Personally I found it kind of impressive the first time I saw a pro do it, but it got old quickly.
Theoretically, but I’m not sure this is true in practice. I don’t think internet/LAN connections were fast enough for this back in 1999 – unit micro in general has become more viable as connection speeds have improved.
That would do it, but what would happen to units standing on a foundation when it reaches 50%? (Maybe this thread isn’t really the place to answer this.)
Yes, I agree that it’s better for unusual mechanics to be widely available – e.g. it’s fine for monks to be able to convert units because every civ gets them, but it would be much worse if, say, conversion was only available to one unique unit. On the other hand, if out-of-place mechanics are limited to niche unique units, it’s easier to ignore them.
But my general position is that the game was originally designed with a limited range of different mechanics, and there was a deliberate decision made not to include things like auras, buffs, debuffs, etc., that is part of why I preferred AoE2 to other RTS games, and I would like ti to have stayed that way. But unfortunately I have to use the past tense here, because now it has all sorts of mechanics, added in a very piecemeal fashion that doesn’t feel at all cohesive to me.
Having the dock simplified to a single page is needed, it has been for years, and while overall I like the new layout, I also think removing demos from civs just because of a UI limitation rather than a balance decision is wrong. This can be solved if the demos are upgraded with the general upgrade as well.
The demo ship nerf is a bit too much.
The Hulk is not countered severly by the Galley line, so that balance is still off. Hulks should have 0 or even negative pierce armor for that balance to work.
Overall not liking the new fire ship upgrades, those feel gimicky.
Change the icons of Careening and Dry Dock since those no longer increase transport ship space :v .
I agree with all you said. But i still think hulks could slow.
Builders could stand on top of foundations till 50% then game would trigger the same thing as it triggers now when you start building: “everyone off unless it’s enemy”. Enemy would prevent building to continue and could fight foundation standing on top, preventing further building. Its logical you can’t build while others are fighting you. But once construction passes 50% it would take space like it does now. This would also make you unable to prevent wolf attacks with buildings which is great.
How about making Hulk like Philadelphia “Drake” campaign boarding ship (low hp but high speed, stop enemy command when boarded) but instead of convert, making it do DOT damage while it attach to enemy ship. Fire ship that have short range low continuous attack would have issue in dealing against it while demo ship and Galley that have range could destroy it before get boarded.
They look heavily armoured so they shouldn’t have 0 or even less then 0 armour, that makes no sense and is completely intuitive.
But you know what armour doesn’t help against? Fire! Why is a melee ship supposed to be strong against Fire Ships? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Fire Ships can even explode now, casing guaranteed damage to nearby units, which is obviously good against any melee unit.
And Fire Ships, why are they resistent against arrows? Nothing indicates that. If implemented as planned it will cause a lot of confusion and will lead to frustrated players.
I hate when they add a certain mechanic that makes no difference if they just increased certain stats.
. Its more logical to me. And pikemen could have a charge-attack protection.