Knowing in pup they’re can new unit has Spain Miquelet and more Scottish units for Scottish Clansmen, Redshank Bagpiper and Highlanders Handed Swordsmen new Irish Mercenary Gallowglass and sapper the model do it
This not solves really the main problem, that basilica units still interfere with normal shipments (maybe not a problem in supremacy but in treaty made them useless). The train mechanics still ##### ### is a little bit less bad.
1 Like
I don’t think Humbaraci should lose their anti-artillery trait.
It’s their unique feature. I don’t really want to see another grenadier that is just like an Euro grenadier.
Make them counterable by skirms and heavy cav, but they are human culverins and I like that this is unique to them.
I don’t think Ottomans really need another artillery counter option though…they have all the artillery (also with more LOS after this patch) and decent cavalry.
That “counter artillery grenadier” design had better be given to civs who really lack culverin equivalents.
8 Likes
if only inca had a desperate need for a unit just like that
3 Likes
I would like to request that this also include the ability to train the black riders from the tavern/saloon. If it involves making the card cost more, so be it. Or reduce the number. The reason is, it could be the basis of an entire new strategy which would make me want to play Ports, if I can both receive and PRODUCE super cool black riders in age IV. Right now the only way to get age IV level black riders is to play Germany and send mercenary camps and the 20 % buff card to all mercs. It would be super cool to give Ports age IV level black riders named ‘order of the sword’ and be in line with the civ design of ports having the strongest goons in the game.
If all I can do is receive some strong mercs, 6 Elmetto card seems better, but if I could also train order of the sword knights that would be a different story. Remember I already have to send the church card for this. And Nizams were granted to Otto, why not give this to Ports to spice them up a bit?
3 Likes
Portugal definitely needs something to spice them up. I feel like they don’t have any advantages whatsoever.
1 Like
If some crazy player finds joy in stick holders and stick shooters. I can see that they much prefer a stronger age 2 rush… Which is rare since people nowadays find more comfort in FF strategies.
Though brits arent necesarrily inclined to use pikes… Musk-Longbow is often a go to. I wont see a use for age 4… Hell sweden has better archaic pikes than most other civs
Wow, you made a LOT of mistakes here. Did me calling out your bs trigger a breakdown?
Excluding cards, using base Age 2 units for simplicity, using numbers pulled from in game in the PUP, against dragoons, with ranged armor of 20%. Abus will do a base siege damage of 36, with a light cav multiplier of 2.25 do 81 dmg per shot. Crossbow, with a base ranged damage of 16, with a light cav mulitiplier of 2.5 do 32 dmg per shot. Ergo, Abus kill dragoons as effectively as 2.5 crossbows. They are still an effective counter, likely too effective.
Abus have a negative multiplier of 0.4 vs cav, where other light inf have 0.5. The overall multiplier for abus is 2.250.4 = 0.9, or 32 siege damage. Crossbows are something like; 2.50.6 = 1.5 and since its ranged damage goons would take 1.50.8=1.2 after all multipliers and reductions. Thats means 161.2 = 19.2 and 38.4 post mitigation damage if we consider even pop. Also, with this patch something abus didnt get:
- Ranged Infantry: Light Infantry and Counter Skirmishers that had their damage against Cavalry and Shock Infantry reduced now have their damage multipliers increased again by about 20%. Both multipliers are now equal at ranged attacks.
I brought up the seige/ranged damage to prevent exaclty this, but looks like you’re very determined to make a mess - or do we call this a ‘minor’ math error?
Yes. They do. Stat for stat, almost every single one of the humbaraci’s are better than grens. The only place they do worse is ranged armor of 0.3 to grens 0.5. That means their effective hp against musks is 321 to 400 for grens. Yes, that means they die faster, with 20% less effective HP, but that’s more than made up for by doing over 18 siege dmg at 14 range vs the grenandier’s 16 siege dmg at 12 range (12.5% more damage at 2 extra range). Humbaraci out-range musks, who have 12 range, whereas grens do not. Oh, and humbaraci have 4.5 movement speed, so they can kite musks. Grens have 4 movement speed, so they cannot.
Spare me the theorycrafting. Just run scenario editor and set up an even pop fight between age 2 muskets and humba and grens. Micro your humba all you want, the normal grens can just beat the musk straight up. Humba outscale them later, and thats a matter of lousy design for the other grens.
Functionally, yes, I will assume players have sent palace intrigue. It’s in every standard otto deck. etc…
You somehow typed all that, all that without noticing the basic point - Otto mosque techs are strong but expensive as hell. The huge saving numbers? They’re that big because the base costs are that damn massive. And thats the balance with them - in a previous topic I did agree that overpoping with the mosque techs was too strong, but the techs alone with their costs are fine as they are - thus why I take issue with you and similiar folk beating the drum on virtually every post ‘NERF EVERY SINGLE THING FOR XYZ’. Did you think I actually forgot why this back and forth started? Noone was talking power levels of the mosque techs till you used that as a point to sell the whole “why are Ottos constantly getting buffs” in a patch were near a quarter of the changes are nerfs.
1.) We are discussing the PUP. Any previous nerfs are not the concern. While yes, there has been previous nerfs, it’s clearly not been enough given the civ’s continued dominance
We were arguing about how you managed to try (fail) at justifying this patch as an overall buff to Ottos. At the moment we’re watching you change goal post, establish arbitrary bounds, and generally do all the things you accuse anyone that argues with you.
Yes, all of the vill techs in the mosque cost 1600 res total (1625 in the PUP). Yes, it’s highly unlikely palace intrigue will be used for those. However, assuming you hit 99 vils, lose none, send 3 vils and 5 vils, plus the 6 starters, for a total of 14 not generated by TCs, the ottoman free villager training provides 8500 res
Its great when you have reach age 3, get the extra TC’s up, get the vil speed/limit techs done and then wait to max out, but there IS a time in the game before that yknow? Once more - the value of a vil is in the time it spends gathering. Consider:
In 5 min:
Normal civ (Spain, idk): makes 12 more vils
Otto: Makes about 6 more vils
To break the dynamics of the otto bonus down, it slows you alot at the time you need to be fast. Otto vils spawn at 48 sec and save you 100 food. Thats effectively 125 food/min for free. The normal civ has a gathers an additional 302 food/ min with the extra vils. A generic civ at 5 min will have an income advantage of 177 food per min. The break even point for when the number of vils out scales the effective income of the otto bonus is the time it takes the generic civ to take a 3 vil lead - about 2.5 min, that is.
After the entire song and dance is done to make the bonus feel like an actual benefit by age 3, ottos can start to outnumber the vil counts - but they still have to gather enough res to balance for the time the genric vils were in the lead and active.
The end result in this PUP is an overall slight buff to ottomans. With the civ already heavily over performing, and with the real broken behaviors untouched, there is no justification to assert that the civ will perform worse, and all evidence points to the contrary.
And back to pulling apart your sh*tpost, the strongest ’ all evidence’ you offered for this patch being a buff overall was your own subjective opinion and random theorycrafting. Unless you wanna fail at calculating multipliers again then the best you have is empty assertations, ala;
Yes. They do.
Just gonna go through the rest all together now, thats enough attention for you.
I disagreed with the loss of the wagon change when it was made, and still do, as it didn’t solve the problem. As far as the crate shipments go, I do not know what you are referring to, but using lots of res crates in conjunction with Silk Road has been a common strategy since 2005.
Yep, its pretty clear you missed my point there - reading comprehension again. Part of the free vil mech is either send mosque construction to control the stupid high cost or burn through more card slots on res crates. The fact that this civ is always behind in eco until the middle of age 3, thanks to the free vil system
Yes. You do. A half second of knowledge that you have that the other doesn’t is a massive bonus.
Its 2 LOS not 2 range. Its about the same as a random movement of a cav army. This is barely more than flavor - and thats fine since the civ is strong enough. What not fine is making like an intern hypeman and shilling nerf as a buff. Rather, let me use your best evidence for this;
No. You dont.
I hope this clearly establishes that my position is well reasoned, researched, and presents my point clearly and convincingly, and I will not reply to any additional comments.
Your arguments are imaginary, your reason cant do simple multiplication, and your research is you hyping up your own subjective opinion. You do every single thing you acuse anyone that tries to reason with you, from straw manning to moving goal posts. Good riddance to you and work on grade 1 math.
Yes, they are afraid that AoE 3 will seem better than AoE 4…they goof off adding mechanics from AoE 3 in AoE 4…
Yes, who came up with that?..the 3 settlers are mythical…
That’s why I say that the Indonesian revolution is from the 19th century.
From when they put aside the European maps in 2005…
No, because you remove historical references from the civs…
Qué genial…
2 Likes
So… no change for them right?
I consider this as a small buff, there’s still so many good Aztec Age3 cards didn’t get picked just because of the 10 card limitation. I hope some Age3 temple card can be moved to Age2.
Pretty good change for Brits but not for Ports. Sole reason is Brits can replaces lost Highlander with the infinite card, Ports dont.
Why Dutch even needs a musketeer? Ruyteer already good enough anti cav, and Halberdier a better damage soaker and also cost more gold than musk.
I have mixed opinion about this, would it make sparse tree map a bad map for Hauds with forced increase of wood consumption?
Finally a good change for Hauds, previously all Age4 unit card Hauds got have the value of other faction Age3. If others can get 2 Xbow in age 4, why Hauds only get 11 Aennas?
Ports underdog
Good change for cav focused Russian player
A very good change, for me at least
3 Likes
Nah I change my mind, 100 Wood Musket Rider is evil, and should not exist at all
4 Likes
devs please do something for revolutions i want to research their imperial upgrades too, maybe they can become a little new nations with their unique units upgrades.(Maybe their units before the revolution completely gone and fully replace by new one for example haiti.I dont like haiti canon crew has the european outfits they can wear priate outfit for example.Also with their imperial age upgrade cost same with normal civs)
2 Likes
I like the idea of British revolting to Pirates, however Haiti really is the wrong name - I would suggest Republic of Pirates (Rev HC is Nassau) or even the Flying Gang (which is the ‘faction’ those pirates were). Mostly British ex-privateers and sailors use Nassau as a pirate commonwealth when they turned pirate. This also gives an excuse to give Pirate Captains with names such as Jennings, Blackbeard, Hornigold, Bellamy, etc.
Save the ‘proper’ (non-pirate) Haiti for France (and future Poland!).
4 Likes
The new cards of Haiti make them more “Haiti” than before, with Republic of Pirates influences.
that would make much more sense for the British than Haiti
1 Like
You are insulting people.
His arguments make sense.
And the fact you underestimate LOS makes it somehow worse.
On an unrelated topic, I think brit losing 3 vills was a nice idea. It gave them an identity. I would have liked to see other cards buffed if Brits were too weak.
But I would argue that Brits were weak because new Brits were not explored. Distributivism is effectively 2.5 vills unraideable on wood for the rest of the game and they still had INF 2v, so idk.
7 Likes
I’m all in favour of a proper Haiti (I long pestered for black Haitian forces), as in post French rule so I think the changes are great. I still however think it’s at odds with the pirate stuff though.
The original intent of Haiti always seemed to be pirates, which itself was inaccurate (the Flibustiers or Buccaneers were not quite pirates and had a base on Tortuga and Petit Goave and fought as a mercenary faction most of the time under the French) as Buccaneering had died at by the late 17th/early 18th century (with the French using them for longer to fill out their navy) and they were not Pirates.
… So a true Haiti is great (though get rid of the pirates - no nation employed pirates by their criminal nature!!)
There is a really loose connection with British and the Haitian revolutions (as in they were pro anything against the French) however I think the Devs are slightly basing on the pirate (again, rather Buccaneer focus, not pirate) side of things as yeah the Brits had Buccaneers on contracts though mainly via Port Royale as well as Tortuga so it doesn’t really make sense.
Flying Gang / Nassau does however as it’s your settlement and units going rogue!
1 Like
“no nation employed pirates by their criminal nature!!”
How dare you sir! Francis Drake was a pirate. Even if he fancies himself a privateer. He is still a criminal.
3 Likes
Francis Drake was a privateer or corsair, not a pirate…it’s different…
A privateer is a private person or vessel that engages in maritime warfare under a commission of war.[1] Since robbery under arms was a common aspect of seaborne trade, until the early 19th century all merchant ships carried arms. A sovereign or delegated authority issued commissions, also referred to as letters of marque, during wartime. The commission empowered the holder to carry on all forms of hostility permissible at sea by the usages of war. This included attacking foreign vessels and taking them as prizes and taking crews prisoner for exchange. Captured ships were subject to condemnation and sale under prize law, with the proceeds divided by percentage between the privateer’s sponsors, shipowners, captains and crew. A percentage share usually went to the issuer of the commission (i.e. the sovereign).
Privateering allowed sovereigns to raise revenue for war by mobilizing privately owned armed ships and sailors to supplement state power. For participants, privateering provided the potential for a greater income and profit than obtainable as a merchant seafarer or fisher. However, this incentive increased the risk of privateers turning to piracy when war ended.
The commission usually protected privateers from accusations of piracy, but in practice the historical legality and status of privateers could be vague. Depending on the specific sovereign and the time period, commissions might be issued hastily; privateers might take actions beyond what was authorized in the commission, including after its expiry. A privateer who continued raiding after the expiration of a commission or the signing of a peace treaty could face accusations of piracy. The risk of piracy and the emergence of the modern state system of centralised military control caused the decline of privateering by the end of the 19th century.
The commission was the proof the privateer was not a pirate. It usually limited activity to one particular ship, and specified officers, for a specified period of time. Typically, the owners or captain would be required to post a performance bond. The commission also dictated the expected nationality of potential prize ships under the terms of the war. At sea, the privateer captain was obliged to produce the commission to a potential prize ship’s captain as evidence of the legitimacy of their prize claim. If the nationality of a prize was not the enemy of the commissioning sovereign, the privateer could not claim the ship as a prize. Doing so would be an act of piracy.
Noted privateers
Privateers who were considered legitimate by their governments include:
- Miguel Enríquez (Puerto Rico)
- Pieter van der Does (Dutch Empire)
- Amaro Pargo (Spanish Empire or Hispanic Monarchy)
- Hayreddin Barbarossa (Ottoman Empire)
- Robert Surcouf (France)
- Lars Gathenhielm (Sweden)
- Sir Francis Drake (England)
- Sir John Hawkins (England)
3 Likes