January PUP Feedback 2023

No I agree, taken literally such phrases are quite overdramatic. Theatrics, but representative of a poor change. Its one way to express dissatisfaction, though probably not the best.

Regardless I am happy to see the point being brought up by more people. Hopefully they make the changes.


You people are so unreasonable…

"Have a product that is ready for consumer use and enjoyment "


“I want my product to have my likes and desires in considerations.”


" i do not want to trial the product while dev attempt to figure out just how i want this product to be."

Only other words i have for you ppl are the ones that gets you suspended or banned.

1 Like

PUP Feedback

Please keep a 30% trade bonus for French land and water trading. Free land traders aren’t a good trade-off for losing the 30% bonus to overall trade (especially for water trading since free ships aren’t produced per economic upgrade, only land traders). Free land traders can provide an econ boom early in the game, however, the long-term ROI on traders just isn’t as good (I’d rather have a longer-term 30% bonus on all trading, than just one-time free land traders).

Continental: Make continental like AOE2 where several randomly shaped continents are formed with inland rivers/waterways connecting to the outer sea. Add more varied mountain ranges. The current version of continental is just one large island with 4 tiny islands in the corners. It shouldn’t be called continental and just called the large island or something, until a true continental map is added.

Tribute - add tech upgrades at markets to reduce tribute tax to 0% like AOE2

AI - I agree with many others to add a higher difficulty like an extreme setting rather than replace the hardest. Create lobby setting Economy 100% to 300% to AI. (for a greater challenge, see the advanced games setting mod as it also offers a 100% to 300% military strength bonus, which I believe increases hitpoint an enemy has).

Wishlist for this and future PUPs/updates:

Please note, most of these would be Lobby Settings Only, so players can choose not to use them for ranked matches. I will refer back to this sentence if I get reply bombed, with others saying that the below recommendations will change the meta. They will just add more interesting gameplay options, especially in private custom matches:

Lobby setting - pop cap increase up to 500

Lobby setting - starting villager amount (can add more than 3)

Lobby setting - start with an empowered king (see advanced game settings)

Lobby setting - starting castle

Lobby setting - add an auto scout button for scouts (like AOE2). I recommend this being a lobby setting as some players might not prefer this option in ranked

Add a guard button for units - this will allow units guard traders and caravans

Add an additional Slow Patrol button for infantry, archers, and cavalry. This will make the units ‘walk’ on patrol rather than run. I’ve thought many times this would not only look better for patrols on walls and through cities, but slower archer patrols on walls would be useful gameplay-wise. The walk patrol could be seen in the first trailer for AOE4 with calvary slowly riding outside the walls. Of course, keep the normal ‘run’ patrol option too.

For formations, when villagers are in formations, make sure they stay behind the formation so they do not run out ahead.

Create lobby setting for seige on walls (mainly gunpowder units that cannot shoot over walls).

Create lobby setting to add new larger round wall section called Bastions to add to walls so more seige/ranged units can mount on top. These could be far more expensive and have higher hitpoints than normal wall sections.

Allow Allie’s walls to connect. This can be done in AOE 2 and is a huge benefit for team games.

Allow walls to connect to Castles.

Add lobby setting for random guarded treasures to generate throughout the map (like AOE3).

Add lobby setting for ceasefire 5 to 60 mins

Add lobby-setting diplomacy. Expand diplomacy to allow switching between ally, neutral, and enemy. Make AI set terms that you have to pay them x resource before they will ally with you. Expand diplomacy later to include auto tribute (give selected allies an ongoing percentage of gold, stone, food, or wood). Auto-tribute could help support allies who are on the front line while reducing the micro-management of tributes.

Add lobby setting to increase resource values of gold, stone, food, and wood for longer matches.

Fix rivers so that they don’t just go from one off-map point to another off-map point. I understand they are created with splines, but this design is very limiting for map making and future official maps. make it so they naturally connect to larger bodies of water like lakes and oceans. If you are going to add future DLC civs like Norse, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese, it seems like adding more inland waterways to new maps could create more interesting gameplay and offer more options for potential water-based civ bonuses.

Add lobby setting - Allow allies villagers to build ally structures

Other Future Recommendations:

Capture the King game mode - Each player has a king that is stationary in a special keep. Once another player destroys the special keep, they capture the king and have to take them back to their special keep as a prisoner. once the king reaches their keep, a countdown timer begins. Obviously, this would be for longer custom matches. Add a subsetting to this which allows you to hold the king for ransom or kill the captured king whenever you choose, so as to subjugate another player for economic advantage (this is where auto- tribute comes in handy, as you could set the terms of what ongoing resource percentage the other other players has to pay you).

Lobby setting Weapons Dealer - add an option to convert your units to another player. this would allow you to supply an ally with military on the front line, while not having to worry about micro. also, you could sell special units to other players for resources, which would make diplomacy more interesting. Perhaps at the market, there is a black market/weapons dealer option, that allows you to sell tech or convert units to another player. This would be for longer custom games where there are changing alliances and proxy wars.

Please look closely at the advanced game settings mod. There are so many settings in this mod that can be added to the official game.


you dont understand the point.

i bought a working product, than it was changed so its broken now. i only want my working product back.

and its ok to test and try things. like in beta-tests, public previews.

changes should be made carefully.

and this isn´t done here.

and its not much aksed to roll the patch back. thats no highcomplexrocketscience.

I’ve been following you for a while and the more messages i read from you ,the more it helps me to reach a conclusion which is either you’re a hidden Relic dev(unlikely but possible) or an outsourced PR guy.

Apart from your textbook PR tricks,gaslighting is a new low for you.You may know a bit about business 101 and consumer protection laws which would be surprising.

Customers always have the right to call their respective governments to investigate(not intervene OMG!) for false advertising.

If seller promotes a feature that is either gonna be added or removed from a product,seller must provide a specific timeframe to it’s customers when it’s going to happen or they’ll be open to investigation for false advertising and the inevitable faulty product allegations.These laws apply worldwide but way much stronger in EU states etc.

Someone who gaslights customers and dissuade them from using their rights and calls them as being overly dramatic and thetrical when they were clearly deceived which is supported by empirical evidence just can only be on the supply side.

The sad thing is low has not a bottom… Sigh.

did you like the elephants whats your idea

1 Like

I need more control groups for water maps because I put a control group on each type of unit

1 Like

AI changes: Honestly I don’t like it. It is way too obvious that the AI is resource cheating and it is a bit too difficult. The hard AI on the other hand is laughably easy. Therefore, we need something in between. If people want to keep this new AI and call it impossible AI or something that is fine but we need a hardest AI that doesn’t cheat but is still challenging. The previous hardest AI went with build orders that made no sense, massively over-gathered stone and set up random pocket ecos instead of relying on their TC for protection. Can’t we just give them a few “meta” build orders per map that will make them difficult without blatant cheating?


I think the nerfs to network of castles/citadel and enclosures are good changes. English were a little too hard to push before and now enclosures feels like a strong gold trickle rather than unlimited gold.

I like the Council Hall change, being able to make crossbowmen from the CH is convenient and helps them suck a bit less in Castle Age.

The King unit is okay I guess, it is an upgrade for AOK but I personally don’t like using it, as I think it is a bit annoying to pay attention to.

I’ve always thought that King’s Palace went down too fast so I appreciate the HP buff.

Berkshire buff is nice but Wynguard is still too good to pass up most of the time.

New unique units: Honestly the Wynguard army is the best option by a mile due to cost effectiveness. That said, the ability to quickly pop out some knights and horsemen for a good price with wynguard raiders is really valuable. All the options allow players to surprise their opponents with a tech switch in theory but it really only works with the horsemen. While the rangers and footmen are really strong units, taking a full minute to produce just 6 of them really isn’t that useful. Also there is so much opportunity cost to missing out on making either wynguard army or the 18 cavalry units you could make in the same amount of time at a better discount.

1 Like

In your “research” have you somehow managed to miss the many times I’ve said I don’t like the way they’ve implemented this AI change and how they could have done it better?

Sure dude. By all means get the ball rolling on that.

Definitely agree. I like the idea, but I think tweaks are needed or no ones going to be making those two options really. The Footmen are very gold intensive, the Rangers cost more than the same number of longbowmen.

I think the footmen need a gold reduction at least and the rangers need to spawn more than 6 or something.

The Raiders probably needs a nerf.

1 Like

Adding my voice to the AI changes: it is indeed too large a jump. Double resources coupled with a now earlier attack focus makes the AI unfun to play against.

Most human players’ advantage vs the AI is superior adaptation and strategy. The trouble is that in the early game there isn’t that much strategy to employ: no splash, no armored nor anti-armored units (for some civs) and no positional or tech advantage to exploit. It’s almost a pure resource vs resource fight where the player is at a 50% disadvantage. More than 50% if you account for the compounded effect that has on economy and supply.

That being said, if this was it’s own difficulty, that would be fine. But the way it has been implemented was by essentially removing “Hardest AI” and replacing it with a “cheater AI”. Players no longer have access to a game mode/difficulty setting they have enjoyed since launch. You can see why they might be a little upset.

Perhaps a scaled approach might help? The AI, per age, gets progressively stronger (with resource cheats) as the game progresses. This way when the players have found their footing and optimized their eco, the AI can still pose a challenge and not get steam rolled.

Love to the Dev team.


The recent Hardest AI changes are just wrong… I agree everyone wanted harder. But no one wanted an outright cheat by doubling resources. Doubling the resources is not more of a challenge, it is an unfair match. I know you guys are trying but sorry but it feels like a lazy way to increase the difficulty. Also why not add more difficulties instead of just sticking with the 3 if you want to make such drastic changes? This changes literally kills me and my friends sunday AI match.


Also just to add to my above note. A 2x increase from the start compounded over a match, ends up being more like a 100x increase.

1 Like

War elephants are still bugged in a few ways. War ele still have an extremely small aggro radius . You know when you either issue an attack command or your units are responding to an approaching enemy, your units will pursue their target up to a certain distance unless you reissue additional attack commands.

Well war elephants stop the pursue sometimes Loonnngggggg before the enemy completely out runs them; which requires you to give the war elephants more attack commands attention.

Also war elephant siege is NOT +100 like the patch notes says but only +50.

Also a fix they made for melee infantry charging. They reduce the charge activation tile range for melee infantry to insure these infantry would better utilize charging to get on top of targets. Meanwhile it feels like the War elephants charging activates at the same distance other cavalry charges activate?? But the War Elephant 's walk speed is less than the slowest infantry???

I argue the war elephant need more base speed (1.38 tiles/s); regardless the charge needs to be updated for effectiveness.

Tower elephants have been reverted to their previous glory once you research the Imperial Howdah upgrade. I think it’s fair to allow them to be overpowered by that point so late in the game.

Towers do have a bug, incendiary arrows will not apply to NON HOWDAH upgraded tower elephants. Found this out with cheats as it is unlikely you’d ever complete incendiary arrows before howdah because of efficient production.

Lastly the HC Tower elephants, imo gives Delhi a reasonable power spike moments after entering Imperial; something Delhi has never been known for since they greatly increased the research times.

I still think house of learning is lackluster especially in comparison to new Compound.


Interesting, I had not noticed their aggro radius being any different.

I did see that the siege attack was wrong, I assume that is a mistake they will fix before the PUP patch goes live. It has been reported already.

I invite you to have constructive conversations without disrespecting users. Thanks.

Surely the developers will be aware of your feedback and will collect the most important.


Couldn’t agree more with this perspective. I was going to write something similar and saw this.

Mongol buildings and gers require a babysitting-level of micro to unpack. If anything slightly crosses its path it will not unpack. There should be some AI that detects if objects are about to cross the area and re-path them to allow it to unpack.


The hitbox on buildings exceed their actual shape. For instance, if a deer or sheep is near the edge of a Mongol TC, you will not select it with a right-click. You will select the hitbox of the TC instead. I suggest reducing the size of the TC hitbox.

Has nobody mentioned that the last Test of Strength is to defeat Hardest AI? Ouch.

1 Like