Fixing ambiguity

I would love to see the wide range of ambiguity fixed, they’re almost always simple word clarifications. But for example does the Tatar team bonus, apply to elephant archers? Or any other type: cavalry archer? Or does it apply specifically to the unit “Cavalry archer”?

image

Why does Silk armour say Light Cav, but applies to scouts? Whereas mongols mention the scouts?

image
image

Why do ethiopians, britons, and italians all use different wording to talk about roughly the same thing, except when they suddenly dont apply to the same thing, even though the wording implies otherwise?

image

applies to archer line and LB

image

applies to archer line, LB AND suddenly skirms?

image

actually applies to archer line only

image

ONLY applies to archer line and GC. doesnt apply to any other archer, including UU archers even if you start with them (like from editor)

image

doesnt include skirms

image

why does husbandry refer to them as cavalry when BL calls them mounted units? because cavalry is also the classification of melee ONLY cavalry. why not simply change the wording in husbandry.

the guys doing the wiki were clever enough to reword this stuff, why cant the devs? its a very “simple” fix

15 Likes

I completely agree with you. I don’t think the developers will move a finger to change this, even though it is a fairly simple fix. However, there is a mod that gives much more helpful descriptions of all units, bonuses and technologies. I don’t remember the name right now, but it’s something like “Improved Extended Tooltips”.

4 Likes

I think the devs should rework mounted as follows:
Making 3 destinct main classes: Cavalry, Camel and War Eles (plus the unique classes + cavalry archers).
None of the mounted units has 2 or more different mounted unit classes anymore.
Call things that applies to all type of mounted units “mounted units”, not cavalry so there isn’t any confusion anymore.

Similar things can maybe even made to all infantry and even archery unit classes, but there it isn’t as important cause of the limited different classes and units that deal bonus damage to them.

It’s just so much easier to have an overview if units don’t have like 5 different classes and also bonusses to 5 different. It’s just unnecessarily confusing.

2 Likes

In the case of Britons, it does explicitly state not skirmishers for the range bonus.

However true, rest of the examples are inconsistent. Perhaps now that we’ve got a more unified way of showing percentages, they can also fix the wording to be clearer. I guess it just is worded after their unit classes, but the problem is the unit classes are somewhat unclear in game and you’d have to open the aoe2 wiki pages to see them more clearly.

I think the tech tree in general could use more information for everything, even tooltips. (Unit receives upgrades from the Blacksmith - which upgrades!!! Come on!!)

2 Likes

It’s a great mod, but the issue is giving this mod to the players that actually need it.

For example even people that know the game well and have looked at the wiki don’t know that the pavise doesn’t apply to any archer except the archer line and GC.

While many players think the Ethiopian bonus applies to all archers. Like the wording says. And these are people that go on forums so are more likely to be informed.

So the mod is a stop gap for a shortfall, we could argue the same for the grid(wasn’t that a mod initially?)

It’s more of an issue for me since the resolution is much simpler than many other issues we have in game.

For example Ethiopian civ bonus could change to “archer line”

But that’s exactly my point. Why is Ethiopian and Italian so incredibly ambiguous then?
It’s literally word for word but has different meanings

Similarly eth and Mayan use the exact same words for different things

Like if Britons were not so explicit it would actually make the ambiguity more understandable, but because a precedent has been set, inference leads to Ethiopian skirmishers should fire faster. Mayan skirms should be cheaper.

1 Like

I agree. I would really like to have some more consistency in the bonus listing.

I also want clearer “labels” for what the civilizations focus on. For example, the Teutons have not been a pure infantry civ for a while now, and they’re a very defensive civ, like how the Byzantines & Koreans have the “Defensive” civilization label.
Why are Britons called a “Foot archer” civilization when other “foot” archer civs, such as Viets, Mayans, Ethiopians etc simply labelled “Archer” civs?
Are Malians not an “Infantry and cavalry” civilization like the Bulgars?
…and so on and so forth.

1 Like