My impression is that, if you do not change the mechanics you will never see these units. The strongest UU (plumed archer) is exactly the opposite of EA. Cheap and mobile.
If, however, I can have in my army 4-5 strong elephants (EA or WE), I will add them as support to my main strategy. Since the problem is slow+expensive, we could try to make them slow+cheap and the only way to balance this is very large TT and possible limit on the amounts you can have in the same time.
Battle elephants are better, because the can be massed when the importance is pop efficiency (i.e., in TG). EA/WA cannot because they need castles and they are not mobile at all.
In the extreme case, assume one WE/BE costs 50f/50g and that takes the time of 10 knights to be created. Assume also that you can have no more than 5 in the same time. You will always try to make these 5 BE/WE, because their are extremely good for that price, but you cannot use them as core of your army, at all. Too large TT, no mobility and just 5 of them. It is basically a support role.
This reminds me some myth units in AoM. You add just a few as support role.
This is a great idea, make the unit super super cost efficient, but super super slow to train
Iād say make their price 100F 40G only (much like the another pointless unit(albeit less pointless than EA) Keshikās -40G change, and nobody cries about that)
and TRIPLE the training time! Like 80s triaining time! What do you guys feel?
First of all, which units have a limit number in AoM? I onestly canāt remember one, maybe it was AoE3.
Second, both the cost and TT act as a limit for training a unit, in different ways, in my opinion the TT blocks even more (look at the GC case).
Also, if you increase the TT, it means that between the 2 units, you have more time to gather resources, so the cost is even less than a problem.
Also, having less units, but unchanged from now, wouldnāt incourage anyone for training them, even when massed EA arenāt that strong now.
In my opinion we should find a way to improve their UU, improve their stats so that their high cost is justified, or decrease their cost and TT (or leave it as it is), so that they are easier to mass at least.
OK lets go for a simple -40 Gold, -10 Food reduction , dropping the price to 100F 40G, to justify the unit as is. Savvy? I am.
I donāt want their TT to be increased either, itās just guys like @JonOli12, @MatCauthon3 that wouldāve screamed OP to this suggestion , so I asked for 3x the TT
Donāt point fingers towards people who havenāt said anything just because until now you disagree with them.
I mean, everyone got their opinions, but letās try to be polite.
If you reduce the food cost, you donāt have to reduce a lot the gold too, also if they work with trash, itās more important that they cost less food.
Being a durable unit isnāt also bad if they have an high gold cost.
OK then reduce at least 30 food for every 10 gold you add to my suggestion, for obvious market reasons
You can end up with the following prices 70F 50G, 40F 60G or 130F 30G
Anything above that, and EAās are just as pointless as now, unworthy of the title of UU.
Unit with so beffy stats is expensive. This is not only AoE thing, this is universal thing. BTW, elephantos are not much more expensive than Knights, especialy in terms of Gold. Standard BE are even slightly less gold-intensive.
You wanna know how much EAs cost in AoE1? LESS GOLD than Horse Archers
180F 45G vs 70F 50G
and EAs there are faster and fire 2x as fast as EAs in AoE2 with 600 HP
So basically its a Indian EA with DOUBLE ARROWS and DOUBLE HP firing much, much farther
and yet it costs less gold than horse archer
100F 40G is a fitting price in my opinion, it has to be food intensive as it is an elephant, understand that.
Actually several ones. Even villagers. Atlantean villagers had a special mechanics limiting them to 25 (if I remember properly). In the Chinese expansion Immortals are limited to 7.
It depends on the cost. If they were free you would. If a WE cost 0, you would always start to train them as you get the castle up simply because it would be a sure gain.
What I am trying to say is that the game prefers mobility and cheapness. WE and EA are weak by design. No mobility, high cost.
Clearly, every unit can be made very good or even OP just by lowering the cost and/or boosting the stats. This is what you are trying to do. Since none pays the current cost for EA, I can either reduce the cost or make the EA worthier. If you tune in the proper way, you may see Indians building castles just to go EAs.
To be honest, mobility is very important in the game. Just think: if the cost of an EA were equal to the one of a CA, would you build the castle to go EAs over CAs? I think this is a nontrivial question.
What I am trying to propose is just a different mechanics for WE and EA.
However I will try to help also in your directions, since it is has the great advantage to be more classical and easier to implement
Yes but you canāt make EA for free, even if low, they have to cost something, and if they are both weak and in low numbers because of the TT people wonāt be encouraged to spend even few resources.
If you want to reduce the cost if fine, but it should be so that it becomes a spammable unit.
If you instead want to see a small number of them, you should massively buff their stats.
I think itās more correct to compare them to WW than CA.
LOL, onestly I donāt have a direction, any good buff to them Iām fine with it, either we make them spammable, we make them a powerhouse, or we give them a specific role, to me is fine.
So, since the new patch will probably come out next week (as always near the end of the month), what will be in your opinion the civ that most likely (not the one you think you need the most) will get a balance change:
