That is still super easy if people are JUST trying to complete the mastery. They can set the map to revealed, resources to max, start in Imp. Then just build a bunch of production immediately and A-move the AI TC, it will die every time.
The AI is that bad.
Just a question. Why is it that the AI regardless of difficulty never seem to build any walls around their base, choke points, etc.? It’s really disappointing.
On very small maps they sometimes do. That being said in most RTS, AOE included, static defense is somewhat less valuable in a fight compared to having an actual army. With walls having essentially 0 dps, the AI’s opportunity cost tends to lean towards spending on an army (the best deference is a strong offense after all)
Bring back the old AI for the hardest difficulty for casual players like me, just add another level of difficulty for AI w/ cheats or a checkable options for players who wants extra challenge
The Sahara biome looks cleaner (less visual clutter) but the color of the sand does not contrast enough, so units don’t stand out visually. The sand needs to be a darker or deeper color value.
its good that you tell the people, it saves us all some frustration.
but to be honest, this kind of gaming isnt fun. but it works for the mastery.
i am curious about the reaction after all the feedback here, on youtube, instagram, facebook and reddit. it sounds always the same
This is why I do not play Mongol
The “improvements” to the “AI” is such a lazy way of developing the game.
The computer player is just artificial, there is absolutely nothing intelligent about this cheater bot.
PUP thoughts:
*More AI difficulty levels. IE …Hardest, Cheater, CheaterX2 or something.
*Is there a way to make it so Mongol buildings will force my own, or allied units, and sheep to move so they actually place? it’s ridiculously frustrating, they pretend like they are going to move, then don’t.
*Khaganate palace, it would be really cool if you could choose what units spawn instead of random. similar to military schools.
*Khaganate palace, seems like the Mangudai that come out do not have the same upgrades as current units, feels bad after paying for fire arrows then half your army doesn’t have them.
I agree with @MonsterIce9229.
I like having cheater AI and would also welcome even stronger versions of cheater AI (e.g. 2X, 3X, etc). The reason I like it is because I’m cheating on the other end and it’s helping me practice battle micro.
the sarcasm is strong with you
Is it just me, or does it seem like Ambient Occlusion isn’t working, at all?
not sure if it ever did to be honest, as weird as that sounds, also applies to all the shadow flicker
This is what I’ve found to be annoying since the game has been released. I think there was a big prize money tournament match where during the late game a steppe didn’t unpack so 20-30 workers went for super long distance gold minging for several minutes. One could argue it’s kind of the duty for the mongol player to check if everything has unpacked everytime but it is kind of impossible to predict and atleast to me its unreliability was just super annoying.
French Trade Nerf: I feel like my opinion is a minority point of view, especially since Beasty on YouTube seemed to dislike the old chamber of commerce and likes the free traders. But if the goal was to get this landmark more play, it has had the opposite effect on myself. Many of the landmark choices are All-in Rush style versus the long game (my preference personally, but depends on the situation, especially 1v1 or 4v4). Long game I would have to build the chamber because I want the better trade. But now I just get a finite number of free resources in the form of traders. I can just build a regular market, and utilize to school of cavalry. You could split the difference and have 10% or 20% and some traders. That’s my 2¢. Thx.
Firstly the new troops tied to landmarks is awesome, the Ui and Minimap too, but pls move it a little closer to the edge and an option to make the Icons bigger would be nice.
Give Ottomans Horsearcher, tie it to Vesir points or a landmark and make it an active ability for the Sipahi, with a time limit.
Don´t make the hardest Ai a cheating one, just add a Cheater Ai or give us the option to set the gather multiplier for the Ai.
I have an idea to make the Siege Tower viable:
-let us attach the Tower to a part of enemy Wall, so infantry troops can, with one click climb enemy walls, instead of getting troops in the tower and teleporting troops behind the wall.
-The Siege Tower gives a little buff around it when it´s attached to a Wall
I 100% agree with @JohnDresty. It’s not a fair trade-off for the french to get some free traders earlier in the game just to lose the 30% trade bonus for land and water. This new change to the chamber of commerce gives me no reason to use it from now on, especially since it only provides free land traders and not ship traders, so it isn’t useful on water maps.
Dev’s please keep the trade bonus of 30% for french. Even though the majority most likely use the School of Calvary for rushes, there are those of us who prefer the long game and to have our trading efforts pay off in the late game. I liked that the options for the French Age 2 landmarks were more geared towards different styles of play, now they are just more focused on early gameplay.
a change ± of 10 resources in Hulk and compensating in some way with the ± production time, will make the costs, more friendly to learn
Make the buildings rotatable even if its just 4 direction im ok with it
Unit ui can be improved to show everything like in aoe3
A humble request to stop trying to push for trade to be a viable choice in earlier stages of the game. I know that a number of landmarks (including the landmarks for the two most recent civs) have been designed with feudal trade in mind, but I think it’s a bad direction for the game. The trade boom is the strongest boom in the game, and it requires that your opponent either disrupt the trade quickly, or else trade themselves.
With current map design, trade happens behind one’s starting base, which makes it more difficult to effectively attack. It also creates a similar situation to how water used to work…where there would be a kind of razor edge fight for water control, and then whoever won would have access to a massive economic benefit that basically always led to a win. Often in high level 1v1s you’ll see this battle play out with trade…a Mongol player will set up trade, the opponent will attempt to disrupt trade, if they’re successful they usually win…if they can’t disrupt it they lose.
This is unlike the far more interesting economic benefits of things like sacred sites or deer packs. These are all both in more central locations of the map, far more easy to disrupt/contest…and also they provide less decisive benefits. Someone can secure an extra deer pack or some sacred sites and the game is not over. Securing them generates an advantage, but it still leaves room for play. They don’t scale in the same way that trade does, or the same way that water (especially pre-nerf deep water) does.
I also think it’s generally better to incentivize players to be out on the map, engaging with one another. The old 3-4 TC meta was bad because the meta leaned too heavily to simcity like gameplay and less early player interaction. Changes to increasing the value of deer packs helped improve the importance of map control. Trade incentivizes a very defensives, turtle-y sort of gameplay with what is often a very binary breaking point…can my opponent disrupt my trade or not…instead of a more incremental and interesting sets of gains and losses while fighting over still important but less overwhelming economic advantages (sites, deer, etc).
Maybe there’s still space for early trade, but if so I’d argue it should only be effective against a pretty narrow set of opponent choices. Maybe trading could be a winning counter to someone turtling and booming on 2-3 TCs, for instance. But, it should lose quickly and easily to someone going 1 TC aggression. Currently, civs like the Mongols can trade early while also getting enough production to defend against 1 TC aggression. I think this is a problem.
tl;dr, encouraging a fight for map control, and securing the important but more incremental economic benefits that it entails is good…encouraging a turtling-style of economic booming which forces a singular, all-or-nothing engagement is bad. And, even worse when this heavy boom style wins against a dedicated rushing strategy!