I am not the only one who thinks it becomes more and more annoying the longer the game goes. It has nothing to do with easier or harder civs. Annoying things are annoying and not fun. And again… The all army command seems to be something you like to ignore. But it’s actually very useful. However, it is very annoying to use for the HRE. That has nothing to do with difficulty.
DeMuslim considers it to be annoying as well.
What are you doing here in a forum that is called discussion, while the devs explicitly said many times in their streams that they want input? What do you want to discuss? Do you decide what is discuss worthy and what is not? I am not telling anybody anything, I am suggesting. And I make no secret out of the fact that I am not happy with the HRE design in general. If you don’t like what I post, you can say so. I just wonder why you keep coming back then… You don’t have to watch this thread. If you don’t like it or what I do, do not attend. It’s not like it changes anything and it also won’t make me stop. So what’s the point of you discussing with me, if all I do is telling the devs what they are supposed to do? Sometimes…
It can work. But 2TC is good for French, Chinese, Abbasids, Rus, Mongols, while the English in general get it with the age up. it’s not “good” for the HRE if you compare it to the other civs. Which is my point. If you don’t compare it, you cannot evaluate it. I agree that it can work for the HRE, but relatively speaking it is not good.
It’s a lame and very situational bonus that can also cost you the relic. It helps you defend, it is a means to store relics early without having to build a monastery, yes. But it still is counter intuitive and does not at all play into the HRE strength and personality. There is no incentive to build a monastery. It is actually the worst place for the HRE to put relics in. But it’s where the special techs are. That’s what I mean when I call this civ lacking synergies and coherence. What kind of identity is that for arguably the most Religion oriented civ to have barely any incentive to build a freaking monastery? It’s a patch work civ with patch work boni that do not form a complete picture, but a scrappy one. I am not saying “remove this bonus”, but give the HRE something more interesting. More than half of this civ’s boni are worthless if you do not have a relic. In other words: I want the HRE to want to build a monastery and it annoys me that there are more reasons to not build one than to build one.
Excuse my sarcasm, but I actually want this civ to represent the HRE and I feel like I am astonishingly misunderstood here. Who in the history of the world has ever put relics into outposts? Germany is full of churches, monasteries, chapels… It’s ridiculous. But in this game you are better off to not build a monastery as the Holy Roman Empire. You don’t wanna put relics into it and you don’t really need the techs out of it, because they are just not that good. You get them, if you can, but you do not aim for them at all…
And again: If you don’t like me talking about civ design and identiy, why are you attending?
Yeah, you just don’t want the game, civs or specifically the HRE to be discussed. I should just take my critique elsewhere and leave the game as it is, because the game is just perfect and nobody should suggest anything. And if anybody doesn’t like something, they should just gtfo and play a different game. This might be a surprise for you, but the RTS possibilities are very limited. Most good games are old news. Very old news. And again you are telling me what I “should” do. The frick is wrong with you?
That’s funny coming from a guy whose sole argument against my ideas is me wanting to overhaul too much? Thanks a lot. You argue that everything is fine and doesn’t need (much) changing. I think differently. But I haven’t heard a single reason from you, why specifically my ideas are not good. You just don’t like them. And you are probably not interested in history as much as I am. Which is fine. Just don’t worry about my ingenuity, mate.
It’s not about knowing, Sherlock. It’s about preventing it from happening over the course of the whole game. You consider it to be easy, which is why it’s fine in your book that 100 gold Landsknechte can die in a single volley. You gotta be a god tier player, since you somewhat mocked me by saying “They shouldn’t take manganels or bees shots in the face in fact…” Great advice. I have to derive from your advice that you always manage to follow it yourself. Now, however, you are telling me that you are not on the level of The Viper etc, but you still have had the audacity to tell me that these units should not get hit by this kind of siege. How am I supposed to not react sarcastically to that?
You fail to interpret numbers and statistics. Winrate and pickrate show huge differences between the civs. But since math is not your strongsuit, let me help you:
French pickrate: 20%.
English pickrate: 25% (actually 26%, but I want nicer numbers)
Chance for a player to be French/English = 45%
Chance for a player to play any other of the 8 civs: 100% - 45% = 55%
In order to find out if both players are French/English, you multiply 0.45 with 0.45. 0.45 * 0.45 = 0.2025 * 100 = 20.25%. There is a 20.25% chance that both players in a 1v1 are either English or French.
Now what are the chances that one player is French/English and the other player is not? That would be 0.45 * 0.55 = 0.2475 * 2 = 0.495. The chance for that is 49.5%.
Last but not least we need the chance for the possibility that nobody plays French or English. That’s just 0.55 * 0.55 = 0.3025. So the chance for that is 30.25%.
That means that in 69.75% of the gold and platinum games in Age of Empires 4 you can find at least one English or French player.
And now you are telling me that science tells me that everything is fine? Or can you show me the math that explains why a winrate variation of 45% to 55% between all civs is a proof for immaculate balance? Because I am not convinced, but I am curious.