Because it impacts 2hs and champion which DO see use, and when they see use they excell. Especially as gold starts running low. You have to consider more rhen just what your changes do to the Long sword itself.
You think changing a units cost drastically and altering how resources are gathered isnt a huge rebalance?
Because i certainly do.
I never said the longsword needed a price change. I was merely pointing out the cause and effect relationship of training time via an analogy to the knight line if the knight line had its training time and farm intensity scaled to the longsword.
Also in terms of acual effects on balance, changing the training time of a unit is extremely mild. Its effect is very narrow and short lived and is easily tweaked. Compared to almost any other change you could make its not risky at all.
But changing the training time, the cost, and how resources are gathered is not anywhere close to mild.
if you reduce the food cost it would not have that big an impact for champions since food it’s not an issue in late game. they would still retain their full 20 gold cost, which is what matter. i do not think 40 food champions are a problem where 45 food champions are barely playable and niche aniwat, while 55 food LS could help a little. every 10 LS you get you can afford a villager over what we currently have
infact i proposed changes on the cost that would mainly help the transition cost for the late game, which is still a problem of the champion cause yes, they can be effective late game, but you still have to pay 2k+ res and almost 5 minutes to get full barracks upgrades, so it is something that the unit could certainly use
and even a food discount would be mild in late game since food is not an issue in late game anyway, so it’s not like decreasing the gold cost of champions by 5, which would be huge.
For all we know Devs might be considering further tweaks though. I don’t think many expected the Saracen / Slav buffs. Or even the sneaky camel LOS buff
Due to the importance of gold in imperial I would still argue for a stat buff for champs if the gold ratio is increased.
But if the gold ratio isn’t changed we could still push for stat buffs in the earlier stages when food is more important
I can’t see why squires isn’t at least moved forward. Celt MAA are even faster than squires yet aren’t oppressive.
Goth, Burmese and technically Magyar have an effective +1 Vs buildings but still aren’t oppressive. So we could at least get +1 and see how it goes from there.
i certainly hope so. yeah the buff for slavs and saracens pretty much made a precedent for many things to be changed for something more interesting/viable
Judging by Reddit it also seems people are slightly more accepting of proposals as well
Previously the majority of game suggestions on Reddit were automatically downvoted, but we’re regularly seeing at least positive votes.
With things like a ram elephant and discounted castles, who says the next proposal won’t be implemented
Ok well youre clearly not understanding what im saying because Ive made 0 mention of changing the longsword cost or how resources are gathered here. Im not saying knights should have their cost changes. Im saying longswords should have their production capabilities normalizes to be in line with knights which only involves training time.
If you think training time changes in castle age “are not anywhere close to mild” im going to assume you havent done any mathematical analysis or empirical testing because relative to the space of all possible changes training time in castle age is minor. The highly discrete nature of feudal production is gone, and its easy to change from patch to patch.
Youre not making a coherent argument here. From my point of view it just sounds like youre scared to make changes that you dont understand and you dont want to put effort into understanding this dynamic.
No im fine with adjusting the training time, even if i dont think it will have the impact some want.
Your initial post though msde it sound like you were talking about making the knight very food heavy and changing how food is gathered as well. Thode wouldnt be a mild change.
I agree. Actually I’m start to believing that we should reduce M@ attack bonus vs building by 1. Too bored to see M@ opening by every civ. Even Franks, Mongols who used to open scouts for 20 years, are doing M@ for last 2 years.
What? Didn’t get that.
I posted the Idea I had here:
It’s the shieldman that adds just some tankyness to the full infantry “comp”.
Problem is not militia line but spear. Lithuanians and Celts spear are really good. You can’t make everyone as Lithuanians and nerf scout rush even more.
This is an amazing idea!! Very good suggestion in my opinion. Specially since Hussars are the go-to late-game unit in 1v1.
I’m on the fence about this, on one hand I don’t like the idea of bonus vs Villagers for generic units (would be ok for UUs), on the other hand Longswords are so bad this could be what they need to be at least useable… Idk
Doesn’t a “Scout” armor class already exist? Boars have a +4 attack bonus vs both Eagle Scout and Scout Cavalry. Not sure about new Camel Scout though.
Boar has bonus vs Cavalry (not Scout). And yes, has also bonus vs Camels, and this bonus is 8.
And Eagle, right?
Yes, and Eagles. There is no Scout Armor Class
honestly a bit disappointing that they decided to remove some monk stats buff. albeit rarely used it should be left alone.
especially the saracen one, they removed it because its so rarely used and it’s also to fix a bug that was probably not fixable with current engine.