I tested. Dark Age with Dungeon while being Sicilian. You cannot make any units in the dungeon. Building is not used to go from AgeI to AgeII.
This would depend on if higher age buildings are in general accepted for lower ages.
So, if you start a regicide game and have a castle already, can you freely go from dark to imperial age in terms of building requirements? If no, then siege workshops needn’t count towards aging up. If yes, then it should count.
The arguments for donjon and siege workshop are totally different and not comparable.
This is not me being pedantic, this is me being specific and consistant.
Also, it might be a good idea to put all your thoughts into one comment than to post multiple. You can edit them to include more information.
Why? As has been pointed out, Krepost already counts. Another example is the folwark. That counts towards getting to feudal. Now, you might say that it’s just a mill, but no. It’s not a common building.
Siege workshop is a common building anyway.
Yeah I hadn’t thought of regicide.
I realize that this would just be differently inconsistent, but if regicide players don’t want a castle to count towards feudal and castle, then the Cuman SW specifically could count toward castle age.
I was responding to different people so I put my responses in replies to specific messages, or just in the thread when not in reply.
Afaik, Castle don’t count for Feudal and Castle but counts for Imperial. In that case, Cumans Siege Workshop should not count.
I’m not convinced that’s intentional. I’m a web developer. I’m way too familiar with unintended results because much later you added another feature and the thing you did originally at best doesn’t make much sense, at worst breaks.
back in '99, afaik, the only instance of a building showing up before the age in which it could be made is a castle on regicide (excluding the scenario editor or a campaign scenario).
Presumably then they coded it so that it’d say if you’re in a given age you need two of this list of buildings to advance (probably the easiest way to code that), instead of a more programmatic approach of creating a list of buildings that were unlocked upon reaching your current age then using that as the list of valid options.
The simple solution, solved the regicide problem and it just generally worked.
They didn’t forsee 20 years down the road a civ would get access to a building an age earlier than everyone else.
Even with the meso civs not having stable, they wouldn’t need to do anything special for that. Just build two buildings amongst this list of feudal buildings. stables didn’t have to be one of them so the AoK solution worked with AoC but now doesn’t work with ##### and beyond.
Not sure if Tower counts as a building to age up
But after the change the devs made to Donjons about count as a pre-building for Stables and Archery ranges it should count as a building to Age up
Cuman TC and SW both should count to age up to Castle Age
I even propose that Cumans don’t have to build the Blacksmith before their Feudal SW; and Saracens don’t have to build the Mill before their Market
Those 3 simple thing will buff Sicilians, Cumans and Saracens an it will create very interesting strats in some maps
Hadn’t thought about the TC. I don’t think the TC counts as a building for any age. Otherwise you think it’d count for feudal.
However, even so, that does FEEL right. Like it SHOULD count.
That would be a pretty cool thing for Cumans. If a player wish to go for SW route in Feudal aggression, and then the game somehow lasts till Castle, it’ll be cool to see that SW building from Feudal to count as one for both going into Castle and Imperial age.
Also, how often do we see Cumans do SW in Feudal?
Not very often. You need enough wood for a Blacksmith, then the Siege Workshop and then for the Battering Rams
(150 + 200 + 160 = 510 wood for the first Battering Ram after 116s)
Too much wood, it is a lot cheaper just go for the second TC (275 wood)
Yea I would say it is fairly expensive to see such play, more reason to give incentive for player to use them in this case? If early push ended in stalemate and last until late castle or early imperial, this SW would be great use to act as building requirement for two ages rather than just one.
Would the SW make a difference you need a blacksmith you also presumably want military to go with your rams so you also need a stable or archery range. So you don’t need the SW to reach the age up requirement.
My proposal is to remove the BS requirement to build the SW
With the Stable and Archery range discount should be enough to see some SW play with Cumans in Feudal
I initially agreed for the SW counting, but I’m not sure how that would work exactly. It might be best to leave it alone.
For example, if you built a Blacksmith + Siege in Feudal, then went up to Castle Age. Now you have a Siege Workshop and add a Monastery, can you go to Imp with 1 new building? If so the SW counted twice, which seems wrong.
Or would it be somehow counted only once? So you would need to build a Monastery + a 2nd SW for Imperial (assuming you had one in Feudal)?
Alternatively SW could be coded to only count as a Feudal building for Cumans. However that would get annoying because people would do something like Stable + Blacksmith into Siege + Monastery and find they cannot click up to Imp because they have 1 “Castle Age” building.
All of these sound worse than the current behavior IMO.
SW counts as a Feudal building to advance to Castle Age for Cumans, and also counts as a Castle building to advance to Imperial Age, you don’t have to build it twice
I just tried it
That’s odd. It’s never counted for me.
I have been thinking about the prerequisite building mechanic recently, and from a gameplay perspective, I honestly don’t understand why it even exists. I think that the bonus
- No buildings required to advance to the next age or to unlock other buildings
should be given to every civ, since I believe that this would allow for more flexibility during the game by letting players decide themselves which buildings they actually need. I also believe that, assuming that this would be implemented, not many balance changes would be necessary after the removal of this game mechanic.
There are more than a few reasons. First, ageing up without the correct buildings is a noob trap. Those buildings are vital for economy and military. Two, in the loose historical context of AoE2, it makes no sense to age up without discovery and innovation, and the buildings represent that in-game. Three, This is now a core part of the game, for better or for worse. The game is 20 years old, and most people like what it is. Four, the buildings delay age up, which is a good thing in open and semi-open maps. It allows players to spend a bit more time in feudal and castle age, which is good imo.
I had a similar situation on megarandom when I started dark age with an archery range but wasn’t able to make archers until Feudal. I also couldn’t build a stable in feudal until I had a barracks.
If you don’t know which buildings are important and which aren’t, then you probably play exclusively against low-level AI or at an Elo where this doesn’t matter.
This doesn’t relate to gameplay but rather to the setting of the game.
I know that, but time changes, and when we use this as a serious argument (which it isn’t), then the devs can clearly forget about adding anything slightly new. More importantly, you recently made a post regarding a buff for the militia line (If I could have only one buff for infantry). Using that logic, I could simply say that “Tracking” shouldn’t have been made free since it has been in the game since 1999, and I don’t understand why the devs made that decision with the Definitive Edition. Or, specifically regarding your post, I could simply say that this isn’t a good idea because the game is over 20 years old now and no new stuff should be added.