val scouted and SHOULD have seen vil on STONE; delhi has no META reason to be on stone so; vald should have known; AND I think thats why vlad did NOT go 2nd tC song but tried to zhuge nu rush; but didnt presss IMO.
And your 2nd point “unexplored” is EXACTLY the scare for going 2nd TC as delhi; will you have enough ghazi and eco to deal with vet spears and PG???
A lot of that eco is trade. Abbasids often go pretty heavy on traders late game, especially on very wall able maps. It’s not like going 2-4 TCs in AOE2 was rare. Heck most pro AOE4 games end in feudal or early castle age. Sure most civs go 2 TC most of the time, but it’s not like that’s some crazy super-boom.
the structural problem of this game
You should maybe provide an English translation of the clip.
That was before the nerf to keep.
Vortix complained about the game’s static defenses, the patch only changed Keeps; When Vorrtix analyzes the patch at no point does he mention that all of the game’s defenses have finally been resolved.
This game, which fortunately was a mirror, conclusively demonstrates that Fast Castle does not defeat Boom; With an average collection rate of 40/minute, each villager recovers his investment in a short time
Proposal
Increase the villager’s cost by 10% to 55 food or 20% to 60 food.
Increasing the cost of each villager will make it riskier to make Boom and gives a counterplay to Fast Castle vs. Boom
In this way, a rock-paper-scissors system will be established between the different strategies.
Isn’t it rush beats boom, boom beats turtle, turtle beats rush?
I attach the source of the detailed analysis. Activate subtitles
Not a big fan of the map changes. I think different map should have different resources positioning to have more varied gameplay. Also resources too far from tc or nerfing tc will make it much harder for new players…
I think if there really need fix meta boom, probably best to just increase tc cost, or make other unit/building changes. Maybe less hp on tc, but without nerfing the arrow range.
@Marc4770
The ones that benefit casual players the most are the map designs themselves, the only competitive map that has always been available is Arabia; They should start creating really competitive maps and let the casual players (builder players) ban them and that’s it.
Why would arabia be the only competitive map? I think pro player should be able to adapt to different maps not just be good at 1. I know arabia is the most versatile and probably the best one. Doesn’t mean they should not learn other map. This makes games more interesting as you can’t always use the same strategy if all the map were like arabia we would have less variety.
One thing i’m thinking is that if we reduce tc range from 8 to 7, this would make longbow even stronger in feudal as they could basically snipe all villagers next to the tc. There was this other post about range units being too strong and this would definitely make longbow stronger. Same if you move starting gold/rock farther away. And on top of that it doesn’t solve the issue of booming since your first tc you have it no matter what.
I think to solve booming you need more expensive tc or less hp second tc, not changing the range as its already hard to defend your base if you’re not a top player.
Making starting resources less safe is ironically a buff to booming. Since booming is all about creating multiple TCs, having starting resources less safe means that getting extra TCs carries more value because it protects those resources.
Making starting resources less safe nerfs tech strategy of stuff like fast castle or fast imp far harder than it nerfs booming.
it would also drastically make English more powerful, and they are already by far the most common civ in lower-middle elos (and quite good at low level).
It would also make Mongols and Rus (the strongest civs right now) so much stronger, since Rus would be even more uniquely safe early, and Mongols is all about feudal pressure.
Totally agree with this.
Just more expensive tc would be a better solution.
Tbh, I don’t think booming is really an issue now. There are plenty of civs that don’t go for boom/multi-tc builds. Tech strats instead of boom are becoming pretty popular this patch, and I don’t really see an issue even if 2TC becomes the most common play.
The issue I find is imperial age play with walls/keeps/siege, especially on certain maps (mainly the closed ones). Imo ranked maps, especially non-water ones should have contestable sacred sites, and/or be hard to full wall.
Boom meta is still the standard for most civs with the 2 exceptions (delhi*) and ottoman. Technically capturing sites and taking advantage of free upgrades is an effective boom although lower ceiling and has a window where the feudal upgrade stagnate since there is a time where the other civs technologies and bonuses catchup and or supercede delhi’s.
And Technically Technically??? Even ottoman Booms because the vast majority use of resources gathered gets funneled into making units and ottoman get those units for free; which means ottoman also is a BOOOM.
The real real issue isn’t whether the boom is 2tc or trade or cows or military schools or free tech plus sites or varying discounts/perks… the problems are some methods of boom are more easily punished and or have comparable counter play while others are exceptionally save AND overwhelmingly REWARDING.
Mongol trade
Mali pit plus cow boom (if pits are close together and or behind their base)
Rus Kremlin 2TC plus bounty and early knights
Ottoman safe military schools, effectively infinite and safe food into all kind of timings and additional BS…
Meanwhile
HRE fast castle regnitz relic or fast 2nd TC with lil innate defensive are hit or miss.
Delhi linear free tech into sacred sites is heavily map and matchup dependent, hit or miss.
English, despite how popular and defensive they are; their boomy strat is only good on food and certain matchups and maps effectively result into auto loses.
French medicore discounts plus decent villager production plus early knights, i personally believe is where the balance BOOM with sufficient counterplay options SHOULD be with all civs. With abbasid Boom as a close 2nd design with almost equivalent counterplay options.
(Abbasid is the currently best balanced gameplay viability and versatile civ we currently have period. But that’sa different topic.)
All that to say; i think our issue isn’t the game is designed heavily around growing your empire, but more so with each civ in each matchup having viable individual boom play and appropriate counter options to the opponent AND that the overall game designs FORCES map control as a critical, critical part to overall victory (not just sacred site victory).
