I am not saying make raids more effective, YOU keep implying that is what I am saying. There is plenty of other ways raids can be countered that don’t rely on cheesy mechanics but now I am just repeating myself…
Your own logic could very easily be used against your argument about raiding. If you let the enemy raid you by not building up walls beforehand then that is your fault and not the game’s fault… see what I did there?
I actually like the new mechanic of being able to convert people by having relics. That actually used to happen, and it happened during the crusades for example where having a piece of the true cross by the defenders really demoralised the crusaders.
I refer you to
It was suggested that raids should be able to steal resources. If that’s not making them more effective, then what exactly is it doing?
lol, it’s not **simulator of reality **.
let’s do more “realistic” - buildings should not give LOS and empty gates should be “neutral”
And friendly fire…
see the key is to find other ways to do this, such as suggested to hide in houses and trees, or let vills be a little more hardy (we kinda see that with brit archers etc…)
The game is a strategy game, when you allow houses foundations to block cav then it really turns into a micro game. In a strategy game you counter that not by being passive and waiting for a rush, but you turtle and either rush yourself or add in defense to make their rush a cost effective nightmare. But the means to save your vills should already be in place and not instant on demand… the equivalent would be like allowing instant train units… so as soon as you saw your enemies 3 scouts would then instantly make 5 pikemen to counter. Its just bad mechanics for a strategy game.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or sarcastic…
What is this game then? a parody? a cartoon? a joke? Its a simulator of medieval strategic play… now who would build a castle right behind another castle and expect it to shoot through? how does that add to the game? when someone can just make rows of towers.
I think you could take away building LOS, if you greatly increased unit LOS. Especially Villager LOS. Then you could balance that out.
I think it would be a really interesting game where villagers do more than gather res and you need them to operate siege equipment, and towers, so I would see it as gates stay closed and locked until you send a vill to let them in… Would be really interesting… possibly enemy could get in too, so you might have to lock your troops out… instead of this perfect fast closing gate! good idea!!
Also friendly fire is in AOE2 and that and a minimum range is the only thing from making the onager lame OP. We could extend this to archer fire… I had suggested earlier a new way of doing archers that is an accuracy reading, then a chance to do a few types of damage or be a armor deflection. So some units may get killed from 1 shot, but to counter, may also kill some of your own troops with bad accuracy readings. Or you can not fire on melee engagements like often was the case.
Yea its funny when people try to hold on to dated game mechanics which only ever really existed because of hardware/engine limitations of a 2d game that was made in the 90s as if it is somehow the holy grail of game design when in reality the devs would probably have made all those things differently had the tech been available to them.
We have already since those days had other strategy games introduce so many new and improved game mechanics and yet AOE fans are supposed to just be happy with 20 year old game design flaws which are now presented to us as being in the “true spirit” of the franchise.
Yea or even make more towers and outposts. The outpost is already underutilised in games why not create more of a reason to use it?
I like this idea, but I don’t think villagers should be operating (or repairing for that matter) siege engines. That was the job of siege engineers and maybe they should be dedicated units. Maybe something like the presence of a siege engineer gives accurace/rate of fire boost to seige equipment within a certain radius or something…
Again, possibly a bit cumbersome, but regardless shouldn’t be a villager’s job rather the job of the military to guard a gate.
I have talked about this smae thing before, archers should be a massed area of effect unit. This idea of archers having 100% accurace and all of them firing on one single enemy is also absurd. There is no reason the “fire ground” function given to siege weapons couldn’t also be given to archers. Archers could severely weaken a group of enemies before a cavalry or infantry charge. Friendly fire would also be a good addition.
totally on point… it really needs to grow and get more nuanced for us long time AOE gamers that want more of the next thing.
great idea! make the outpost cheap, no attack, just LOS.
I do like the idea of siege engineers much better! (they also had cool hats)
Some of these things I was just playing into his sarcasm of how it would work, but I do find it problematic gates close and open so fast limiting enemy units… I think you should have an option to lock, closed or open or put it in auto, but auto will take a couple seconds to open and close so if chased could allow an enemy in,
I like these ideas because ranged fire is too dominant in AOE games.
Also no civs with houses that gather ressources either please
lol yea, that was introduced in one of the AOE3 expansions yea?
So you mean a mechanic that’s been around in almost all their games?
Doubt thats going to change.
ummm he said houses not feitorias.
Yep, it started on TAD with japan then sweden and inca also have it.
Not talking about these things, certain economic building’s or mechanics are fine.
I am talking about the aoe3 houses that are pretty much the equivalent of a villager that will constantly work idleless and are unraidable. (japan, Sweden and inca) which are pretty hard to balance and are really annoying to deal with.
ah I read your post as “trickle buildings in general”
is it the fact that there are multiple houses? Because you can build multiple Feitoria too.
Then again im not aware of Aoe3’s specific balancing as i don’t play the game. But in aeo2 almost no one gets to the point of having more than 1 Feitoria even though its technically possible.
Yea but it makes sense for a Feitoria to generate resources. A house not so much…
well im not aware of the cultural/historical reference they may be making.
Perhaps cottage industry?
Yea I get this, but it makes little sense in a game where the economy revolves purely around raw resource extraction, i.e. food, lumber, gold and stone. So the economic activity revolves around farming, hunting, fishing, cutting trees or mining. It makes little sense in that context for houses to generate resources. If you had a more complex game with a more complex economy where people were making commodities, paying taxes, getting wages etc then something like income generating or commodity manufactoring houses could make sense. But in AOE generally all resources are raw materials and any sort of production is specifically military production which happens in specific military production buildings. So the houses generating resources thing seems kinda out of step with the broader feel of the game IMO. Sure you could try to rationalise it but it still feels off.
I dont know much about feitoria but if am not wrong they are expensive, cost a lot of pop and are only avaliable on age 4. That is no problem as on aoe3 we have factories avaliable on age 4 that do something similar.
But japan for example can get very cheap houses and place them around the map from age 1 and place them around the map, and each of these houses are the equivalent of a unupgraded villager. Same with sweden torps which are even more effective as they also gather gold and wood
I mean IMO conceptually I think its a fun little reference to that era. They are representing production in the form of resource trickle from these houses. In the same way they make units in aoe2 reflect some of the history of their culture. Like Keshiks getting a gold trickle every time they kill villagers: Keshik (Age of Empires II) | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom
I don’t think you need to revamp the entire game’s systems to make little references to history.
Whether or not its balanced is another debate that I won’t get into as I haven’t played the game.
Yep, historically the concept makes sense.
Japanese can’t hunt because of the vegetarianism of that era so they place their shrines(houses) on the map which atract animals and these generate ressoueces.
From a balance and gameplay perspective it hurts the game though.