It cannot be possible that eliminating more than 10 villagers does not give you a strong advantage, the villagers recover their production cost due to their high collection rate. Therefore, the villagers of Non-Capital Town Centers should have a higher progressive cost according to each age respectively + 15% /20% /25%
Example 1: advantage of 26 villagers and yet the rival did not lose easily
I would prefer having a slower build speed for villagers produced at non-capital town centers. Maybe a 20% reduction. Seems too beneficial/boring for civs to just go for a second tc rather than engage early on in multiplayer matches.
Each villager would need to gather for 1 minute 12 seconds to pay itself off, 2tc (without resource reduction) takes about 6 minutes to pay off. You sacrifice tempo to gain a significant boost to economy. After they reduced the tc range and health and garrison slots any further reduction in capability would make it pointless to build a second town center, especially if the resource cost of vils was higher. Civs like china and french would get decimated by that change, higher scaling cost with production bonus, abbasid would get a major buff since their vils are already 33% less, and malians would only ever cow boom.
If you put enough pressure on 2tc you will be able to lock down map resources or maybe even destroy the tc with a similar resource cost army. Examples of 2tc getting 6 minutes of relative peace is a victory condition for that strategy.
Edit: in the screenshots the players who went for vils also grabbed the most relics and destroyed the most army value. I haven’t watched those games but it seems like they are both examples of the strategy paying off because of map control or a successful defense
Thanks for the amortization data but if you increase the cost of villagers in Non-capital town center by percentage, that is similar to the general nerf that was done to all Non-capital town centers
In Abdasi case it would be like this
(villager *bonus Fresh Foodstuffs) * 1,20
(50 food *bonus Fresh Foodstuffs) * 1,20
In your calculation of the 6 minutes you must limit it in the time interval until the 2TC investment is recovered
The highlighted point shows the moment where the 2tc play is resource negative, showcasing the most vulnerable time to be approx 1 min 18.96 sec (obviously attacking while it is building is better) with time to positive in value being 5 minutes 34.44 seconds
(testing using english I started tc at 5:27, finished at 6:21, and gathered 935 gold by 10:38 making full payoff time 5 minutes 11 seconds, 15.5 vils produced)
with a suggested increase of 20% to villager production cost it calculates as: -935 - 180m + (38m*3m)/2 = 0
It really wasn’t the difference I thought it would be, it creates a slightly larger window (new vulnerable time is 1 min 34.74 seconds) and only begins to be positive in value at 5 min 55.56 seconds
Bonus: current abbasid (and the reason why eco wing feudal play is so effective)
assuming fertile crescent + fresh foodstuffs + golden age 1 -727 - 97.5m + (43.7m*3m)/2 = 0
I still value having the option of boom vs tech vs rush, what I see as the standard paper rock scissors stratagem triangle, but I am interested in seeing how these kinds of changes would influence gameplay. Hard to tell just looking at equations, many things I am probably ignorant of that could influence a live game such as: lost military potential, the resource node that the tc is placed on, the garrison slots providing protection from raiding, etc. An increase of 20% food cost may not have the impact I am expecting, but I believe it would have a pronounced effect on china and france, making it a balance change that affects every civ differently.
When the price of TC and Keeps was raised, the nerf was that a stone deposit contains 1200 resources so you should expose yourself and look for another deposit for work that takes you time without producing.
Therefore, you should not only focus on the amortization of the villagers, which will take 1 minute and a few seconds. If a berry deposit contains 1500 food, the 300 necessary for 2Tc will take you 5 minutes to exploit.
With a higher cost of villagers, the rival has a window of opportunity around 1 minute where he will have to look for another source of food or transition to farms because he finished the 1500 resource more quickly.
In Abbadsi case it is also approximately 1 minute difference
With 1.2 cost of aldens
I didn’t want to be extreme on the additional cost but if you all agree on a +50% villager cost that would be equal to the cost of a fishing boat, I have no problem with that
I don’t know why you want to nerf even more boom strategies. TCs are right now like a joke to be honest, you can torch them down with a few spears, are slower to build them, and can garrison only 7 villagers.
What’s wrong with delete villagers? Getting 140-160 villagers to get all and then delete is as valid as rush sacred sites as Delhi, is just another strategy.
Boom strategies are right now so nerfed since FC or feudal agression is meta, why nerf even more boom? Can’t understand you.
What benefits the economic game the most is the same way the maps are designed, there will be no more competitive maps like Arabia.
As an example, watch the Pro matches and see that 2Tc continues to be used even with civilizations that quickly reach the age of castles.
Nerf like 50 more stone costs are very subtle as in the case of the Rus market, and as someone calculated in the previous post, 20% does not affect much but, in any case, it is less food to weaken the defensive game
It’s not only 50 stone, it has been several nerfed. A year ago 3TC abbasid was safe enough to give a try, nowadays a second TC exposes you already a lot, and 3TC is insta dead.
If you are going 2TC and the other is preparing an offensive, it’s very hard to defend that second TC, because garrison has been reduced, time of building has been increased, range of TC has been reduced, etc… Right now a second TC feels like a tower with more life, it’s easy to mass spears and burn it down, and it’s hard to defend it if the other player wants to destroy it.
Check one of the latest vortix games playing Abbasid against a regular conq 3 dude using Delhi(no top or pro players like beasty, puppy, etc…) . He goes 2TC and loses the TC against the delhi player. Finally the Delhi commits a few errors and vortix can finish the game, but vortix suffered a lot in feudal, and clearly the Delhi player was ahead, being totally unable to defend cause he spent resources and time to build the TC.
As a player who likes to play defensive and boom, I have noticed a lot in the last year that now it’s much harder to boom. To the point that I see now it’s not meta, and FC or feudal agression it’s much better, hence I don’t think nerfing even more boom is necessary.
In the first match the other dude is playing malians (and probably booming), so he decided to also boom, what’s wrong?
In the second match, he’s going 2TC abbey+castle, which is a meta strategy for english right now due to the buff to abbey landmark, and is considered as fast castle build, not a boom build.
In case of english yes, because you get the king by free, this is the reason of this post: English are too strong
In this post, is discussed that english got a safe 2TC and fast castle because the king puts too much pressure. But the problem is not the TC but the free tempo you win with the king.
