Yeah the more i played OotD, the more it felt like a disadvantage to have fewer unit, not an advantage.
And that’s basically all they have, so they have no advantage. Wish they add something else to the civ to make them a bit more interesting.
1 Like
They are just weak in every aspect of the game it feels like. They have so many issues. I just watched Beasty play vs Numudans Zhu Xi and it was terrible for OotD. The game lasted an hour and Beasty got all the golds in the middle, had 20k more gold than Numudan, who was starved but could constantly produce gold units thanks to 5 relics and insane taxes and a little trade.
The OotD eco sucks, there is nothing to lift it up. And the units suck, the 2 pop double res cost are not offset in the slightest by the unit stats. The melee inf is too slow, the units too weak, the gilded knights are a meme unit. It’s just pathetic tbh.
Game starts at 2:26 hours. Also watch Beasty’s recap. He is more going on about Zhu Xis taxes and passive gold generation in general, but the game also shows how weak OotD is. It’s strikingly weak. The recap goes on for a while. Beasty also states that he would have won this game with any other “weak” lategame civ due to 20+k gold gathered. OotD is NOT good enough.
Check MarineLord (OftD) vs Beasty (Japanese)
MarineLord destroyed him and i think that’s the way to play it.
He stayed in feudal on 1 tc for more than 20 min and kept being agressive.
Their eco suck because they don’t need a good eco since their units are so good (especially archer and horsemen). And also because you don’t need go castle, you don’t need a lot of production building and you don’t need lot of farms.
I think they can be good, but the issue i see is that some of their units are never used. Crossbow, MAA and Knight could be slightly improved or given new tech. So you gain a reason to go castle.
I don’t think the civ need be buffed, but it needs more versatility and make the weak landmark and weak units better so you have more options.
I’ve seen the match. And I already talked about it in here, if I remember correctly. ML outplayed Beasty, ML was on fire, Beasty made many mistakes and had a hard time. ML killed more than 100 villagers and lost barely any himself. And yet it took him a very long to finally beat Beasty.
If you are ML, sure OotD can look capable. But who is on ML’s level? Beasty is also one of the best players in AoE 4 and he beats Numudan, who is very formidable, pretty much every time. Especially with advantage. But in this game, he couldn’t do anything.
The game consists of more scenarios than feudal aggression and also has more game modes like teamgames and FFAs. If the OotD lategame is that bad, this civ will not be picked. If you have to kill 100 vils and don’t lose more than 20 yourself, then this is a very high threshold to make this civ work.
OotD does need buffs and they will get buffs. I just hope that these buffs will really adress the core flaws of the civ so they are neither op in feudal nor up in mid to late.
One of the biggest issues aside from the eco is that outmassing their units is way too effective.
Isn’t that the definition of buffing a civ?
1 Like
There’s different way to buff a civ. If you boost eco for example it will make all strategies better.
But if you buff weak units and weak landmark only (and don’t change the strong ones) it will open more strategies but will keep current strategies at same level.
I think with OotD yes you need be agressive and kill a lot of villagers but their units allow you to do that more easily. Opening to more valid strategies would let you try other things than only killing vills.
I agree with the way you say it should be buffed. I also think right now the extra cost/training time for the vills is overcompensating for how good they are.
Currently their units lose fighting on equal value with enemy units AND they have a worse eco than pretty much every civ. Basically their only way to win is to outplay their opponent/catch them in greed etc. If they fight at any point on equal footing, they lose.
Not entirely true. (that their units are weaker).
Horsemen can deal better with knights and MAA especially feudal ones. So they much better than regular ones.
Someone had tested 50 Guilded MAA vs 100 MAA and the guilded one win by a big Margin. Same thing with horsemen.
The problem comes when the opponent has crossbow, the guilded Maa are destroyed much faster and much more easily than regular ones.
Same thing with spear, guilded will win equal resources against other spear. But archer will kill them much mich faster because easy to snipe and no overkill.
Because of range vulnerability, you need to go mostly woth horsemen and archer because they don’t have range weakness.
Im pretty sure that 100 MAA beat 50 gilded MAA. It’s possible that in big enough numbers the gilded ones might win because pathing issues though.
Same thing with spears, 2 spears will be doing more damage than 1 gilded spear, however the total hp is the same. I could see the gilded ones win with focus fire, but it would be a close fight probably.
I’d have to actually test it to be sure how it plays out, but OOTD usually just get outmassed and lose engagements even at max pop.
1 Like
No it has been tested the guilded one win.
The guilded one are less affected by enemy armor and dont deal less damage below 50% hp.
They lose engagement at max pop because of the ranged vulnerability i explained in previous post
If it was tested against basic MAA then this test is not really valid as it ignores the many synergy effects that occur in a normal game and some civs are just more potent in that regard while also having a better eco.
A test like that is rather pointless, because in practice you will never have a situation in which mass maa engage half the mass of gilded ones. Tests like that tell you literally nothing.
It tells you they have better stats for the cost in melee.
Only in a save environment that has nothing to do with a real game situation. All the Age of Noob test videos suffer the same fate. They are pointless and nothing but a display of something that never happens in that manner. It’s just a-clicking somewhat equal resources.
i dont think its pointless. if im raiding and there are 8 maa and i have 4 guilded maa. I know i can take the engagement. (at equal tech).
The problem with guilded MAA is that they are extremely weak to crossbow because of less overkill. But when there aren’t any crossbow around they are better than regular MAA.
So with the test i know i can take good engagement with them as long as there are no crossbow.
1 Like
To be fair though, generic MAA aren’t really that popular. Most civs that use them either use unique MAA or have bonuses to them (English/HRE). I’m pretty sure OOTD MAA are worse than those.
1 Like
I would add new UUs to the HRE (Teutonic Knight like AoE 2, Hussite Wagon and Reiter) and to OoTD the gilded versions of these…
Reiter is the wrong era.
Teutonic order would work better as a variant civ than a unique unit as they were not really fighting for the hre.
I’d rather see something more original instead of just bringing units from other games. Maybe a tech that give halberd to spearmen.
1 Like
They fit but more so by the middle of the 16th century… otherwise they could put the Teutonic Ritterbruder…
Well the Teutonic Order comes out in the new campaign, so anything can be…
1 Like
I didn’t play OotD much so I couldn’t help much but here my 2 cents:
Prelate used to be core for HRE but for OotD, this unit’s value fall hard that almost no one build it.
My idea about prelate: give mass inspire like Ayyubid Dervish’s mass heal (or even replace normal inspire).
Make the AOE small (1-2 tile(s) radius) with 1-2 minutes cooldown.
This would make Prelate more likely to be use for OotD (Else only to heal and capture relic).
By the way, for Burgrave to be better in long game, it could be like French school of cavalry that would affect to all stables, make it affect to all barracks (might need to adjust the effect for balance).
1 Like