civilization that receives bonuses for the Cistern but is forced 2TC ago in minute 6, I don’t think the Meta is correct that way
And when did he have troops? I would like to see that game. An early aggression could very well destroy his second TC before it pays off, but all this depends on who’s playing and what their plan is. In this case, the map generation slightly helped by placing the berries and gold next to each other.
Now he is up against the English, who can do the same and transition to farms much cheaper, or send longbows and be aggressive while the other guy has no troops at all.
Not to mention that you need food to produce two villagers plus troops, and that’s if the other side isn’t being aggressive and forcing you to gather food only from within your base.
I think you should play more matches and, if you find it so broken, try to do the same to see if it works in every game you play. By the way, have you been playing the game?
It’s funny because in one match, a guy said that the civ I was using was very strong because I won with just one TC while he had two. Who knows what goes through people’s minds?
1 Like
I am not against TC, it has already had previous nerfs, I have long disapproved of the overproduction of villagers, there must be some counterplay to that strategy, that is why I suggest increasing its cost.
Another rts designed by competitive experts, not for nothing, they designed their game with diminishing returns, they explain it right there
Not only in Tc but also in other buildings that produce villagers, such as the Delih keeps, the king’s palace and the Swabian palace
Therefore a + 35% or 40% cost seems good to me.
In the Abbasid civilization it would be like this
(50 food * bonus Fresh Foodstuffs) * 1.35
(50 * 0.65) * 1.35= 43.87
I believe there is already a countermeasure for this. Since it’s an RTS game, we must make decisions against the opponent’s strategy. We can’t stay in our comfort zone, and that’s also what the scout is for, to check what the other player is doing.
If you see that the opponent has built a second TC, there are many things we can do:
Obviously, it depends on the map, the civ being played, and the opponent.
-
Attack to punish the other player's decision (the opponent loses 750 resources building a second TC, possibly another 50 wood to mine stone, and idle time for villagers to construct another TC. Additionally, they have to pay another 50 food to produce two villagers). -
Build a second TC to not fall behind in the number of villagers. -
Take control of the map. No matter how many villagers the opponent has, they need to gather resources from somewhere, and the resources in their area are limited.
I see everything as a matter of knowing how to react. I took some time off from playing and returned to find the game quite different due to new civs, new methods, and civ balancing. I lost many matches because I didn’t know how to deal with certain civs, but after understanding how some civs play, I started winning many matches against the same strategy because I knew how to counter it.
The most difficult thing for me to do is build a second TC (recently I have been doing it when I see the game going longer, almost 20 minutes into the game). So, I am not defending it, but I don’t think it is hurting the game.
But I also don’t think such a change would hurt the game since it applies to both sides. It will just change the style of play, but the second TC already has its cost, which is not cheap, especially at the beginning.
1 Like
But men there is a counterplay for this gameplay. Just stay 1TC, build some production buildings and start attacking.
Because you haven’t spent 750 resources + build time you have more than 1k of resources to spend in build an army, play your cards well and you will be able to take down the TC and even kill villagers and get a better eco.
2 Likes
If that were the right strategy the Pros wouldn’t do 2TC 
French can start 2tc at 5:25 while fielding a knight at 4:00~, transition into constant knight + archer production by 6:30, enemy has to punish vils or base by 11 minutes or they are behind and unlikely to recover. French vils also produce slightly faster, so there’s that too.
In many ways this is highlighting the nature of any RTS, well practiced strategies with fewer weakpoints based off of asymmetrical bonuses between factions. A blended aggressive/eco play, with a vulnerable period at a time when the opponent is less able to respond. I can see why this is frustrating to play against… but it is part of the strategy portion of the game. Much like proxy protoss or 6pool zerg, or any other well practiced strategy within a meta. Simply counter rock with paper, scout and counter like anything else!
1 Like
In an RTS there aren’t right and wrong strategies, there are just strategies and at the start they don’t know what the other is gonna do exactly.
Moreover it depends of the civ, for example it’s very usual that Delhi stays at 1TC going full aggro. Same happens with Jeanne or french. OoTD and HRE will stay also at 1TC while going FC.
It’s a false assumption that going 2TC it’s what always they do.
There are civs that staying at 1TC can mass and be aggro with a greater chance of being successful and civs who benefits more of going more TCs because they got some buffs to that strats, like abbasid or chineese.
It’s not all that plain like you are saying. Which rank are you?
2 Likes
He says that phrase after the possibility of the Mongolian TC and the Chinese barchana 6 squares from the rival’s TC Landamark was disabled
Each match is unique and so is each strategy. In this game, I played against an English player who tried to go full economic and built a White Tower. He simply had no way to defend himself, and there’s nothing broken about that. He had no troops and no map control to gather resources.
Playing against the English is always a surprise for me; they might rush you with Longbowmen, they might harass you with Men-at-Arms from the first age, they could build their White Tower right in your base, or they might close themselves off and go full economic. There is no single strategy, there are many, and each has its countermeasures. To succeed, we need to step out of our comfort zone and respond correctly. It’s a real-time strategy game, so we can’t do the same thing every game. I think the game needs to be balanced to the point where players use their creativity and not invalidate a strategy because they want a symmetrical, monotonous game.
That’s where skill comes in.
I agree with balancing when necessary, but I don’t see anything outrageous about a second TC. I often see a second TC as similar to a barracks that you can build another one of at any time to produce units when necessary.
And what has this to do with the theme we are talking???
If you have no arguments don’t be a kid. In the end your problem with second TC is probably that you can’t afford enough skill to manage multiple TC eco and you want everyone to use just 1TC so game is slower and easier.
Btw you contradict yourself a lot. You are the same guy who claimed that games lasted too long, but at the same time you want things that clearly fasten up the game pace to be ridiculously nerfed to the point it wouldn’t have sense to build second TC.
Right now TC boom is enough nerfed to even not be meta, and we can see how feudal agression and FC is the meta right now. The only reason you see pros going a second TC is the same reason as why they go fishing when they can: to get a better and faster eco.
And at the same time is the same reason that you don’t see newbies going fishing or multiple TC: it’s harder to manage.
I will not answer to you again if you can’t elaborate an argument.
2 Likes
Just bringing data from another match I just had to complement that 2 TC is not a meta, doesn’t win matches, and is not broken.
Coincidentally, I played against an English player again who tried the same thing as the previous one, 2 TC and FC, and he managed to build a White Tower even under pressure, all to defend the only one he had in his base because his second TC, even next to the gold, wasn’t adequately protecting the other one. Obviously, he didn’t have the resources to defend. I pulled back and attacked another point he couldn’t defend, and he didn’t have enough troops to fight mine.
Sure, the person mixed 2 TC with FC, but even without the FC, he would just lose villagers until he had some troops to fight, and when he did, I would already have many more than him.
If 2 TC didn’t give the guy enough strength to continue in the game, increasing the villagers would make such a strategy useless, becoming even more restricted to a few viable options. And for anyone who has played against the English, they know very well the number of strategies one can follow, having a very strong feudal age and having MAs in Age 1.
And to complement, I played as Byzantines and who said I made farms? I gathered berries around my base, hunted deer, and even collected resources from the enemy’s base since he walled himself in and was surrounded.
And I even got one for free, which is a total lack of respect towards the other player
I hope the game punishes him appropriately.
1 Like
Well, you should not oppose making changes, if these do not affect average or cooperative matches, I only argue the 1v1 meta with matches between professionals
I think that’s where the problem and the confusion lie.
I don’t see this being the goal even among the famous professional streamers. What happens is that it’s a feature in the game, and since they are professionals, they are so good at taking advantage of all the resources available, not because it’s strong or broken, but because of their mastery of the game.
Are you a professional? Do you have the authority to say that this is a broken feature at a high level of play?
The pros will use everything the game has to offer because they are good enough to use everything, and in a competitive scenario, only the best prevail, as every second counts.They will start the game and eventually use it, or would you prefer that such a feature be just for decoration?
If you want to compare yourself to their level, you need to train to reach that level and not undermine the merit they have by trying to make the game easier.
Pure illusion. Professionals will always play impressively, and that’s what makes them good at what they do, not because someone thinks a mechanic is broken.
If a very good player has the weakest civ in hand, they will make that civ do things that no one would imagine anyone could achieve.
So don’t compare how such players play; instead, look at the game as a whole and know how to differentiate what is necessary for balancing.
1 Like
Losing 10 villagers seems not to be a sufficient reason to give up, with that loss the game should not exceed 5 more minutes of play, but they can afford to lose them.
lose 4 villagers but the 3Tc will make up for it, plus that can reach castle age at 11 min you get the best of both worlds!
1 hour of play
After losing 24 villagers the game should have ended quickly, it is inconceivable that more than 1 hour had to pass
Not for nothing was the change made, of just 15%, therefore the cost of the villager does have an effect
1 Like
He eliminated more villagers than his rival but I think Delih’s “keeps” evened out his disadvantage.
In the same way, the villagers who come from Keeps must be more expensive.
More than 60 villagers eliminated and the game had to end through sacred places
I will edit the Proposal:
Increase in the cost of villagers from 35 or 40% in Non-Capital Town Center (includes Delih keep, the king’s palace and the Swabian palace.) as well as a longer production time, which will increase progressively at each age
Are you aware that with these changes matches would last like 1h sure?
The proposite of making more villagers is fasten the game pace. You were the same guy saying that games last too long, but you at the same time propose changes that would slow down A LOT the economy, making games longer.
If you want games to be shorter I don’t understand why you want this. Despite that, you will literally kill some civs who are specialized at eco boost, like abbasid or china. Those changes are too heavy for civs who need to outboom the enemy to be competitive. And no, abba/china main don’t want their civ turned into another feudal rusher or castle rusher, we like to boom and we want civs in the game who can give us that experience.
I don’t know which rank are you and if you understand that there are civs who shine booming, turtling or rushing. You want make the game a plain unit spam simulator, by giving TOO MUCH value to the kill/lose of villagers.
The only thing I agree is about castle keep villager production, I don’t think is OP but god a castle who can also produce villagers is way too good. I don’t know how english can’t produce villagers from their landmarks taking into account it’s the most ridiculous civ who gets tons of buffs.
2 Likes