Until then, it’s only gonna be spam meta.
Zero micro, zero strategy, just spam and build tcs.
This game sucks after 2 years still doesn’t feel like aoe.
This is age of spam mindlessly amd apm.
Reduce gathering speed of vills also.
3 Likes
Agree with both suggestions.
The issue with Feudal TCs is that it defines Dark Age for too many civilizations. Abbasid will plan to go that route ASAP, meaning they will squander Dark Age to just booming. This goes for half of the civilizations in the game. It would be far more interesting if players instead if the focus of Dark Age & Feudal was a bit less boomy in mentality, which this could provide by requiring players to first reach Castle.
Villagers do gather too quickly, I agree. Though, this is more of a repercussion of many technologies and multipliers in the game. It is not uncommon to see 60 military units already 10 minutes into the game in a Feudal match if they decided to go on the aggressive. Too easy to mass. Would rather see half as big armies, making micro more meaningful per unit.
1 Like
I will only give you a few examples to collapse your idea of the many that there are
Mali’s passive income represents x number of additional villagers
Passive income from the holy places of Delhi
The passive income of the Mongolian ovoo, the Mongolian trader
Higher production speed in the French and Chinese TC
etc etc
1 Like
All this has to be adjusted together with the changes above, that’s a no brainer.
For once, the team has to bring a complete overhaul and not just change some numbers here and there mindlessly.
after 2-3 patches the game should be set.
this shouldn’t take longer than 1-2 months.
And don’t forget that 2TC is the only option if you lose the sea, a map that some ban due to its low strategic versatility.
2 Likes
I agree, it is part of the meta arrass in 2 era if you have a civilization ‘punched on going in 3, this way of playing, with the tc, would ruin the game, because’ everyone would try to go quickly in castles, and the games would begin to last really long, then civilizations’ as the English would like it for the maa in 2 era etc, I think it would break the game too much, it’s like those who say to remove the dark age, it would change many mechanics, which I think would ruin the game, it would become just a game of archers and horse.
Exactly, that comes on top…
Ideally, if someone goes early water boom, there should be a small time window when he’s vulnerable to an early all in (rush), where he’s in risk to lose everything he has on land, because he can not produce as much military while/after investing on water.
But that’s not the case.
You go counter-water or counter-tc boom.
Rush not possible.
It’s pretty sad and one-dimensional.
In most RTS games, if you scout well and spot the enemy going all in eco early, you go all in military and brute force push/slice his throat.
In aoe4 you can’t because the tc has an inbuilt MG 42 and pallisade walls are too easy to get up in between choke-points and forests.
1 Like
I’d love to respond to your post, though unfortunately I don’t understand your first lines.
Would you please try again to explain what you mean?
Moving the TC in 3 Era, would make all civilizations similar, because you would be obliged to create military with everyone, the game would become very very slow, just for the reason that losing Villager would be very risky, and automatically you would be forced to create military, but being in 2 Era with only one TC, resources would be scarce, and you would be For too long playing only in 2 Era, continuing to create armies, you would never reach the time the resources to go in 3, and some civilizations like the Chinese would have an good advantage, making civilizations based on a grand economy almost useless, what I mean is that the possible strategies would be reduced, making the game too much like StarCraft, Even rebalancing the game, you would have to change everything, removing basic mechanics of some civilizations would be like having a game the Alpha that becomes in beta, would change at least 50% of the game, In the sense I’m trying to find motivations, I don’t know how the game will move, even if it happened I would continue to play, but it would lose a bit of identity in my opinion.
I know you probably like the micro and win at the beginning of the game, but even if I like it or not, we can’t make the game the same for everyone, everyone should have his own style of play, without forcing him to have high APMs.
1 Like
Why do we even need a drastic change like moving the TC to the third age? Why not simply make TC’s more strategic in the first place while keeping them in feudal age? I’ve proposed it multiple times already but what exactly are the cons for having upgrade options for a TC such as garrison and arrows shooting that require some ressources (when fully upgraded it can also be even stronger than it is right now). The player aiming for building extra TC’s has to scout his opponent and if the extra TC is quite exposed, not upgraded and has no protection by actual units or additional towers it becomes an easy target for the attacker, even without rams.I don’t want to make the extra feudal TC’s go away but make them more strategic. If built at the right moment and right location they should become more powerful, if built at the wrong moment, wrong location and missing upgrades they should become less powerful. So scouting is required. What are the cons for this proposal? Im open for debate.
2 Likes
I would not make TCs stronger as they are at the moment, even if they need upgrades.
The reason is, if the update for arrow slots takes as example 1 min its really short.
Why should extra TCs dont act like the the chines village without any defense?
You can still produce villager and they can hide but they dont act like a little “keep” and need protection.
1 Like
I always go 2 TC as fast as I can. More Vils you win some matches
1 Like
I was thinking like you at first but some civ has to go 2 tc to keep up with agressive civs
1 Like
What civs???
Abbasid for example they have nothing compared to other civs in feudal age(like knights,man at arms,longbows) french have knights and they can harrass you so easly also they can make counter of the counter of the knights with same resources.If one french knight kills 1 abbasid villager you are so behind in order to equal this you need to go second tc
1 Like
That’s why i suggested letting Abbasid build one additional tc age 2, if they age up with eco wing to age2.
1 Like
what’s the point? if you do this go back to the way it was before and everyone will create the echo wing to do a fast tc.
1 Like
The point is, that there would be variety.
One (!) civ having the option to go 2nd tc age2 and only when choosing eco wing.
This is just a suggestion.
These days a lot of people go military wing with abbasid, which is refreshing at least.
Of course it has to be rebalanced and observed (hello winrates and pick rates !!!).
A lot of people in this forum see things incredibly one-dimensional and non-creatively.
They can only think of one possible way of things and don’t question mechanics behind the game at all and are not open to new ideas.
Are you one of them?
If the devs really wanted to, they would easily be able to make such a change like moving additional tc option to age3, while keeping the game at good balance and improving variety of playstyles and strategies.
The pronunciation is on IF.
It does cost time and time costs money.
I am just a small sandcorn compared to the mountain experience of a dev team.
They do have the tools, experience, skills and creativity to make a good game.
If I as someone with no experience in this field (except of some years of coding in C, Pascal and SQL for fun), already have ideas to break down the big issues of this game and I have these ideas spontaneously, then the Devs are DEFINITELY capable of doing so, with even better solutions.
Sadly, nothing is being done.
The game is (sorry to say this) pretty much dogshit for having been developed and patches for many years now.
This whole project seems so low budget, that we’ll most likely never see such a change, because the devs would rather go for a quick but half-baked makeshift change, which saves coding and dev time.
That’s the sad truth.
There is no real interest in making this game great, there is only interest in selling as much copies as possible and get quick cash. No interest in longterm-quality of the game, absolutely zero.
Make cash and run off.
maybe the better option is nerfing TCs?
- reduce the main TC damage, so you can dive under the TC or remove the autofire, so the defender has to micro
- additional TCs has no arrow slots, so you still can place them, but without any army they can easy taken out
I really don’t agree with that. It already feels like you need to go castle age for everything (relics, siege, keeps, MAA counters).
At least you have other strategies than “just rushing to castle age”. if you have choice between going castle or going tc that’s a good choice.
If one strategy needs to be nerfed fine, but don’t remove the choice. Im totally open to new ideas just not bad ones. Also making villagers gather slower would just make the game longer. Why ?
Also i don’t really have issues with TC spam in my games im really not sure what you mean.
I think the devs did an amazing job with this game considering the low budget they have, and microsoft pulling out their funding. Im pretty sure its not “make cash and run off” but more in the lines of “games cost more to make and support than it generates in revenue”.
2 Likes