Why do you keep remaking this same civ like 20 times
1 Like
Because he’s more obsessed with the Romanians than I am with Georgia or Persona 5.
4 Likes
Anyway I suppose I will entertain this since it is a real issue worth discussing
The problem depends on if the code still only looks at the building rubble “unit” to determine if you get the resources or if it needs to be fully built and then destroyed
If its the unit alone then you can build a castle get it to 1% and delete for a bunch of stone.
If its a fully built one? Then even delete is not so good because you are sacrificing half the original cost and if from destruction you are likely losing if you have lost enough castles to build 4 more replacements even if it were a 50% refund.
This isnt as fun since buildings arent as spammable as say if this bonus was a refund on dead military unit. Sure you don’t want your swordsmen dead but they are far more readily and numerically replacable than castles are
3 Likes
Because I want the Romanians in AoE2, is that wrong?
It needs to be fully build and then destroyed. You will not get back the percentage of resources of it’s even 95% built.
The way I envisioned this is not that you destroy your own buildings, but that the enemy attacks you and destroys your buildings. If that happens, it probably means you are losing. This tech is giving you a chance to “catch” up and best case scenario turn the tide of the battle, worst case secnario at least be annoying for the enemy.
I don’t think real scorched earth can be implemented in AoE2 since supplies for the army in the traditional sense don’t exist. So I figured this is the next best thing.
If you’re losing and suddenly get resources from the buildings the enemy destroys, giving you the chance to put up a fight again, it’s quite thematic for Romanians who were more annoying for the Turks, that thing they cannot get rid of rather than an equal giant.
What about the overall balance, do you think this civ will be good vs archers and cavalry but bad vs infantry as intended?
The thematic idea, beside having a civ weak vs infantry but good vs cav and archers being cool, is that the Romanians would most often lose an 1-on-1 clash due to the enemy being numerically superior, so they had to resort to hit and run or ambushes in order to take the upper hand. IE try going around a massed infantry and see how you deal with it.
The topic was merged here:
1 Like
in a situation like that you usually want to stop the enemy from destoying your buildings instead. a bit like nomads for mongols, usually useless
I can’t find where you first suggested this, I think as a civ bonus it could work (but exclude stone structures), as a unique tech it’s probably not great
1 Like
Wanting the Romanians isn’t. Spamming the forum with the same concept over and over again with practically no changes is. Try to talk about other things. You sound like a broken record.
1 Like
True, you never want the enemy to destroy your own buildings, but if they do, you will gain a small benefit. Especially in late game, that 2 stone from walls, or even 10 stone from a gate is a nice thing, but gaining back 150 stone from a castle destroyed would be really useful. Not to mention the wood gained.
Stone structures only give you 25% stone, as opposed to 50% for the rest (wood). I figured giving back 50% stone would be broken.
I assume this would be more useful in team games rather than 1vs1 but it can also has its uses in 1vs1.
It’s here, post 135/148
There are changes.
Yes, the main theme is Romanians. Because as I said, I want the Romanians in AoE2. But every topic is different. It has the same theme, Romanians, over and over again. But it’s not the same concept over and over again. Every topic talks about different things or makes different civ concepts.
Just add on to the original post instead of making a new one.
Sometimes I’ll post the same civilization concept again, but that’s only after at least a year has passed, there are sufficient changes, or my format has changed enough to warrant a new perspective. You keep spamming different concepts for the same civ every few months, and people are tired of it. I’ve only posted the same civ concept a maximum of three times, with at least a year or two in between each post. You keep posting the same concept four or five times a year, and wonder why people don’t support your posts.
1 Like
This was already discussed here:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/romanian-vlach-civ-concept-inspired-by-the-slavs-civ-dlc-topic/241318/158
Last time I tried to do that the topic was closed for necro. But the mod said he won’t do that anymore, I’m just allowed to post there.
The people who are tired of it are surprisingly pro-Africa civs. Nothing wrong with that, but I would never go to a topic I don’t like to try to cancel it because it’s pro-Africa civs and I’m pro-Europe civs, I have this thing called standards. In all my topics, there were people I would discuss with, as well as people who liked the original post, so again, there’s no shortage of people who want Europe/Vlachs.
I mean, check out the last post on that topic:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/romanian-vlach-civ-concept-inspired-by-the-slavs-civ-dlc-topic/241318/165
Do you think this person wants Vlachs in the game? I would say yes.
Do you think this person would make as much of a fuss about it as pro-Africa players do? No.
And if this post is anything to go by: 40% of people on the forum want the next DLC to be in Europe.
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/should-the-next-dlc-be-slavs-rework-croats-serbs-romanians/242363
So I reject your premise that people don’t support my posts. People support my posts, it’s just that the pro-Africa civs players are more willing to take action about it, while pro-Europe players just want to discuss about it and have no interest in the drama/gatekeeping, myself included. I didn’t want to pick any fights with the pro-Africa players, they did.
Most people here are not opposed to the Vlachs being added. They’re just tired of you posting about them and nothing else.
2 Likes
There’s an easy fix for that, don’t go on my topics. If I see a chinese restaurant and I don’t like chinese food, what I would do is not go to the chinese restaurant. Seems much smarter than to go into the chinese restaurant and make a rant about how I don’t like chinese food. These people act like they are forced to read my topics but they are not, they can always skip over what they don’t like like any rational human being would do. But they don’t, because it affects them personally, because they want pro-Africa civs and a pro-Europe topic isn’t going to cut it.
I am just tired of seeing civ concepts in general. I think adding more civs to the game does more harm than good. If anything we should start consolidating or removing civs
1 Like
Heresy.
Word limit sucks.
since DE most new civs have had janky mechanics and it’s getting worse:
Lords of the west:
Burgundians: Flemish revolution and charge attacks:
Charge attacks make the game even more snowbally, I am not a fan, but on a unique unit I think this is ok. Flemish revolution is just awful
Sicilians: First crusade and resisting bonus damage
First crusade is just weird, lots of units spawning instantly doesn’t feel like aoe2. resisting bonus damage makes all counter units weaker and makes it hard to balance. Both could be worse though
Dawn of the Dukes:
probably the best civs added in DLC:
Poles feel a bit overtuned, they can do basically everything but the Obuchi has an interesting mechanic
Bohemians are fun with their houfnice, nothing atrocious in their bonuses/techs
Dynasties of India
probably the worst DLC:
Ratha mode switching is clunky and shouldn’t be in the game
Urumi swords men: the only thing worse than a charge attack is a charge splash attack. armor ignoring attacks are also garbage, they are acceptable on a UU (leicai), not a fan there either
Gurjaras might be an interesting civ, Shrivamsha riders alone make this DLC awful. I cannot express how much i despise this unit. Everything else about this civ feels ok.
Ghulam feels like a superior version of the Huskarl. Reducing that unit’s identity while being borderline OP
(I didn’t even mention that Thirissadai are about as historical as having elves in the game)
Return of Rome:
Auras are another garbage mechanic, especially if there is no visual indication for them. Add to that more bloody charge attacks to form another garbage DLC.
The Mountain Royals:
this is probably a step in the right direction (at least no charge attacks), but the Monaspa’s aura is just designed to be snowbally. This unit should be completely reworked.
Composite bowmen are just weird. I think armor ignoring is never fun, but on a UU it’s tolerable
I don’t see the point of mule carts, feel really awkward. Messed up my hotkeys. Being able to push your opponent off a gold or woodline in feudal should be a huge win, but for these civs it just doesn’t matter.
the last DLC was a slight up tick, but in general I think if we removed all the DLCs except for dawn of the dukes the game would be improved. I’d even prefer it if we just had vanilla aoe2:de over the current state
1 Like
As a civ designer who takes the concerns of all players to heart what kind of design philosophies do you want me to follow to design one that makes you happy?
Look I don’t want anyone here arguing to be in trouble or banished for being wrong so lets try to see if we can all resolve differences
2 Likes
I want mechanics that are interactable and gradual and just fun. I want upgrades to matter.
compare and constrast:
-against enemies with armor ignoring it doesn’t matter if my unit has lots of armor or not (not gradual), it doesn’t matter if research armor upgrades (not interactable). bad
-against units with armor ######### (obuch), starting armor still matters, armor upgrades still matter (and therefore so does the tech tree). bonus points: my monks can interact with stripped armor, enemy units that aren’t obuchs interact with the reduced armor. good
-worst offender: shrivamsha. the attack upgrades of units attacking it don’t matter (until the shield is down), the defense upgrades of the shrivamsha dont really matter. Some units (BBC, HC, Skirmishers) literally can’t interact with them, they will never land a shot, even if neither player micros. the only interaction is ‘shrivamsha kills this unit’
Besides, you already have the Dracula campaign in the game…you only need Serbs and Croats and a Turkish campaign…and huala, you already have Balkan DLC…
The issue is that they are running out of new ideas for the dlcs, so they take ideas from SWGB and AoM and you get what you get in the dlcs…
i know this won’t be popular, but in that case it’s time to stop making DLC
Yeah we know you think that
Either way I disagree with the idea that they are doong tgat because you cant do anymore stuff
They are making weird stuff because they like experimenting.
1 Like
Or maybe make dlcs for Return of Rome instead…so you would have news dlcs without need to break the balance and meta of AoE 2 DE…
1 Like