The big issue against range units in general is that pathing prevents all the horseman from getting their attacks, off, meanwhile all of the archers are constantly attacking them. That is why people prefer knights over horseman and in late game imperial/castle, no one uses horseman.
Maybe give them auto target range units ability or give them stun on charge ability?
Well, they should atleast have half the amount of longbowman? If you have like 10 longbowman vs horsemen, well, horsemen will lose, especially against zhuge nu.
Horsemen don’t need rework. In Reddit, the community gave you the reasons.
I think horsemen and their variants are some of the best units in the game.
Nop, horsemen are fine after the ranged armor update waaaaay long ago.
Maybe you right click at the enemy unit, and not a-move?
No, they don’t need a rework. They counter ranged units very well. You should not right clic an enemy ranged unit because they will behave very badly tryung to target that one unit. You just need to position them well, especially as far as possible from spearmen. Position them around ranged units then a move. But if ranged units move away and spearmen come to def them, you need to reposition. So a bit of micro is needed indeed. Otherwise, mangonels are excellent against any ranged units…
I also think that they underperform, i suggest that they can have a bonus damage against buildings and villagers so that at least in the late game they could function as a raiding unit
at the early stage of the game they overwhelmed by what they suppose to counter(longbow) so they need a +1 more ranged armor or more damage to ranged units(atleast their charge damage should deal a good damage against archers) in my opinion
I agreee that reworks need in some faction in form of a uu. some civs are fine with stock/generic one but requires a buffs and other units to make them viable vs mobile focus raiders.
If they just used the aoe3 damage reduction system, all of these problems would be solved.
Give knights for example 30% ranged resist, so they only take 70% damage and high melee resist %.
And horsemen could have low melee resist, but really high ranged resist, let’s say 50%.
easy peasy
Oh gosh no. That’s a way worse system.
It’s much harder to parse how much damage things will do and take.
Also, anything it accomplishes can also be done using the current armor system.
Its not hard if the player got half a brain.
In fact, it’s a lot easier and more transparent.
Your last point:
I STRONGLY disagree.
You have 8 dmg, enemy has 6 armor.
= 2 effective dmg.
+1 armor upgrade → 7 armor → 8dmg-7armor = 1 effective dmg.
Small upgrade= 50% dmg reduction???
And any further upgrade will be useless.
If you upgrade your damage +1, you’ll get 8->9dmg-6 armor = 3 dmg.
So you increase your damage by 50%.
In my opinion this system is massively flawed.
Aoe3 was WAY ahead of its time inventing the % based system.
It solved all the problems of the flat, outdated system of aoe2.
You’d know that your heavy melee cav for example would always reduce the incoming damage of archers and skirmishers of ANY kind, of ANY civilisation by this fixed %.
And it’s irrespective of the tier or upgrade level of each unit, so it scales cleanly.
Whereas in aoe4 stupid things like MAA tanking tc fire like it doesnt exist are coming out.
And knights being a million times better at raiding than horsemen and civs which can train heavy (cav) age2, dictate the game and limit the freedom of strategies.
A lot of players get annoyed about this, without understand that it’s the SYSTEM behind it, which brings the limitations, not the civ itself.
Long story short->
flat system = bullshit and narrow minded strategies only
% system = amazing
To give another good example:
You upgrade a unit to the next tier.
In aoe4, the unit suddenly could do 3 or 4 times the damage to another unit, or reduce the damage let’s say by 90%, even though the stats themselves only change for 20%.
This is extremely unbalanced and broken, it is the reason for Burgrave being op for example.
Whereas in aoe3, if you upgrade a unit from age2 to age3 (veteran), you’ll get a 20%hp increase for hp and dmg.
And you will do EXACTLY 20% more dmg to ANY enemy after that, not a random number based on the flat system.
The system is highly dynamic in this way.
This is so so so so so so much better than that flat gambling bullshit.
The AoE4 system is more intuitive and easy to read for any player and the balance is not bad in that sense, although some civs should be able to have more strategies (English players have several ways to play and do not have a knight).
What matters is the break points. How many attacks it takes from certain units to kill certain units.
Also, as I said anything the percentage system does could be accomplished with the current system. They could up all armor and health and attack values if they wanted and have these flat number increases be any percent.
Also as I said, the current system is OBVIOUSLY much easier to parse. There’s really not even room for debate on that particular aspect. Subtracting one number from another is easier and quicker than multiplying percentages which can even result in fractions of values.
Ha
No idea what that’s supposed to mean. There’s nothing random about it.
System in aoe3 is more simple but armor and weapon upgrades makes game more competitive so you need to remember to upgrade what is best for the situtation thats add more strategical depth i think.
You are right my friend, agee with you!
They should use the aoe3 damage system together with a mix of the aoe3 arsenal and the aoe4 blacksmith, but make it all % based.
For example you had the tech for 10% extra damage and some extra weapon range for light cavalry ## ### ######## in aoe3. These kinda things add a lot of strategic options to the game.
It would be quite simple to add all this together and balance it.
And all that without having the MAJOR turning points where your units go from killing the enemy unit in 5 seconds to 1 minute with one small tech.
Lol why is ars
enal censored???
Strong disagree.
When it’s about percentages, you dont have to calculate AT ALL.
You get the result in one number.
Enemy has 30% ranged resist and you attack with archers? Your damage is lowered by 30%, you do 70% damage.
Only someone who has never attended an elementary school or first years of highschool wouldn’t get along with this.
Come on… really?
It’s honestly the most intuitive and fastest way to understand the impact of it.
On top of that, in #### #### units had bonus damage or malus damage multipliers.
Skirmishers (who counter heavy infantry) had a 50% (as i remember) bonus against heavy infantry and a 30% (if i remember correctly) malus against heavy melee cavalry.
Archers had similar stats.
This is IMO a very very intuitive system which also makes it VERY easy to balance because you can adjust all values independendly without changing the whole picture.
Aoe4 system is kinda shitty honestly… It’s very outdated and limits the way of balancing it a LOT.
That’s why there is always a major turning point when let’s say MAA get an additional 1 or 2 armor, when they suddenly become kinda invincible.
Very flawed system…
Why not make them have let’s say a 30% ranged resist and with an upgrade they go to 40 or 50%?
Would still have a large impact but not make them COMPLETELY IGNORE arrows.
This way Burgrave would still be super strong, but at the same time, someone who builds another 1 or 2 tcs and ages up slowly, would still be able to hold if played well.
In aoe3 it’s only a huge problem if the enemy gets falconets, which is kinda a mix of a mangonel and cannon, when you are still age2. No regular units become UBER strong within the ageup.
At least in the early ages, such as Feudal and Castles, the Horsemen is a good counter to Archers and Crossbowmen, especially against the Archer Feudal Rush. That they have low HP is a compensation so that the spearmen can defend your own archers, following the game of scissors-rock and paper but with Spearman, Horsemen and Archers.
The problem I see with the Horsemen is that by the fourth age of Imperial (IV), even spearmen have more attack than him due to the “Advanced Tactics” technology, and men-at-arms even more HP. It could actually be considered increasing their attack in Imperial or even their bonus against archers in it, so that they continue to be useful. Otherwise, also for raiding, some bonus against villagers and merchants could be included.
In fact, there aren’t any units that have a bonus against villagers yet, so it’s kind of theoretical.
The HP increase and bonus against archers that the Sipahi and the Ghazi Raider have for season 5, seems to me the right option, making them destruction machines in Imperial. Let’s just see how much it is necessary to also increase the bonus of the light cavalry at least in imperial to make them useful.
Horsemen (S4) 100f 20w
Sipahi (S5) 120f 40w
Ghazi Rider (S5) 110f 30w
Rate of fire (Rof): 1.75
Did you see? The difference between 13 attack and 19 attack in Imperial is abysmal, too much just an increase in the cost of the unit, and without counting that the Sipahi has the special ability of it. So I recommend the following modification:
Horsemen (S5 - sugerencia)
I love AoE3 so much, but it’s not an example of a competitive and balanced game.
The smithy system is the most intuitive for most AoE players. I don’t understand what you mean about Burgrave. Currently the game is well balanced (Mali needs nerf, Rus a bit and some civ buffs) and there are no problems with those armors if it is balanced. The problem with this game is other.
You can do 2 TCs and defend against a Burgrave all in with many civs currently.
What is your nickname in the game?