I’m proposing a definitive solution to end the Bosphorus game. Let’s double the time it takes to build a market in the Feudal Age. We’ll prevent this with a very simple solution without changing any cities or units. This might cause some problems on maps where Fc is used, like arenas, but this can be solved with a different build, such as using archer range or stable instead of a market. Also, we’re not completely removing the market from the second age. We’re just increasing its duration to make it easier to punish those who build Bosphorus. Currently, they advance to the Castle Age very quickly and almost without punishment. If this change is made, it will be easier to put pressure on them in the second age and defeat them; we’ll have enough time for that. But there’s still no 100% win guarantee (at least in lower Elo).
Why I don’t want the Bosphoru game (read this before defending Bosphoru):
The Bosphorus game is absolutely detrimental to AoE 2. This has nothing to do with meta or anti-meta. I don’t even think Bosphorus is a style game. Bosphorus is completely rote learning, a one-sided game. In every game, you do the same thing; there’s absolutely no strategy. Age of Empires 2, on the other hand, is a strategy game: you always think of different strategies depending on the maps, civs, and opponents. There are many factors that force you to constantly change your strategy and think. Bosphorus, however, always does the same thing and doesn’t even think! Furthermore, skipping the second age is a critical mistake that shouldn’t happen. The Feudal Age is a very fundamental mechanic that exists to be played. If you don’t like the second age, you can specialize in maps like the arena. But at least on maps like Arabia, we can’t ignore such a mechanic!
Please think carefully, this isn’t a strategy. We have a multifaceted and challenging competitive game to master, but we’re trying to turn it into a one-dimensional game. Let me explain with an example: imagine you reach 2k Elo by only playing Spearmen or Steppe Lancer. With so much variety in the game, imagine that only Steppe Lancer is played and there’s no response to that. How simple the game would become… Right now, the game balance doesn’t allow you to reach 2.5 Elo just by playing Steppe Lancer, but you can reach 2.5k just by playing Bosphoru. Look, my friends, this is a very diverse and multifaceted strategy game. We shouldn’t let the game be ruined by a single tactic. Please, let’s just double the market building time.
The phosphorus strategy aims for a quick win through early castle army. Like knights or archers strategies, it executes memorized the strategy and make the opponent defeated. The problem is that the vulnerability of phosphoru strategy has not fully found yet, despite the food price adjustments.
Markets are necessary for balancing eco in emergencies. If market construction times are extended, it will be more difficult to balance eco in times of crisis. This is a burden especially for low-ELO players.
FC with military facilities + blacksmith is easy to do, but difficult to boom with 3TC. This is fine if you fight in castle age, but boom race will be slow. Moreover, this FC is difficult to do on Nomad. It costs extra 175 wood of barracks directly. This is a major disadvantage because you need a lot of wood on nomad. It’s probably better to build a market, even if it takes longer building time. It may be possible to counter castle drop by use feudal army, but in the end, you will just be attacked by castle drop + knights (a little late).
To balance phosphoru strategies, we could either share more of the countermeasures used by professional players, or decrease the durability of castles that are under construction significantly (especially in early). I would prefer the latter balance change. It would also be good to nerf unreasonable castle drop.
The construction time for markets will remain the same in the 3rd age. In other words, the construction time will decrease in the 3rd age compared to the 2nd age.
In the second age, market trade is not of great urgency. The extended construction period will not significantly affect this.
Let’s revert market nerf instead. Phosphoru is a nice spice up. We have seen archer/scout/MAA into xbow/knight opening for 25 years anyway.
The real problem is Wheelbarrow is too expensive and farming is way too slow without it. So I’d rather suggest Wheelbarrow Training Time reduce 75 seconds → 35 seconds and cost reduce 175 food → 75 food.
I disagree. Phosphoru strategy IS a strategy. It is a “degenerate” (i.e. extreme), but one nonetheless.
Phosphoru strategy is “naked Fast Castle into 0 TC all in with unique-unit”.
It is no more annoying than a turtling player (boom with minimal siege+monk defense), which is another degenerate strategy. One want to end the game in 20 minutes, the other wants to drag it for an hour.
I agree that these two degenerate strategies should not be too viable, and they highlight a gameplax imbalance problem.
I would like Phosphoru to lose against full feudal aggression and against buying one’s way to castle age and full monk+siege defense. But it is good to have as a skill-check or aggression-check, just like it is good to have a few civs with strong enough relic bonuses to force opponent fight for the relics.
I am in favor of reverting market prices.
I dont think doubling the market duration will do much. Phosphoru will find a solution anyway, because he has a tactical mind. He will not not mind puting 5 villagers to build a market, as he is not trying to play “visually clean” and the 5 villagers will all go to mine stone afterward anyways. I do not know whether the players facing the phosphoru strategy will put 5 villagers to build the market to keep the same castle age time.
And the worst part about increasing the market building time is that it change most arena/BF/Nomad build orders, and those who like these maps will rightfully complain that the Arabia balance changes destroy the balance on their map, and that a best alternative would still be to remove deers from Arabia or remove Arabia from the map pool.