Man Cumans Steppe Lancers aren’t bad, you can mass freaking fast after UT, and the extra speed bonus isn’t bad tho.
to me it sounds like you want to change infantries entire role in the game. That isn’t going to happen without some realistic downsides for them.
why create an extra armor class when just giving them +10 ele armor will help?
nerfing them was warranted when making them easier to mass. the problem was they nerfed them too far.
what are you smoking?
short of a complete rework Elephants and Infantry won’t be able to be the core of an army in 1v1.
are they? they are sitting at 1.75% playrate right now.
frankly, that isn’t going to do much for them. on the other hand giving them cheap eagles with extra armor also reinforces the infantry role.
plenty of civs have bonuses that overlap, and this is one that would give them a little nudge. they aren’t exactly lighting the world on fire/
I gave them an open map buff too
1 Like
You know, I praised half your ideas and gave some thoughts on a couple I didn’t love. Why is your response to ignore everything positive I said and try to argue with me?
I don’t see that as an issue. They’re a fun civ and their winrate is in a good place.
Ok. Directionally speaking, my view is that underused units like infantry and elephants and scorpions need more help. Not that they should be central to the game, just that they are a possible option. You seem to agree, based on your suggestions. So what’s the problem?
To each their own. Aoe2 games have a nasty tendency of dragging out to horrible stalemates that can go upwards of 3 hours. Flemish revolution is a gambit that ends the game one way or another, usually in a dramatic way. Most of the time, it’s a throw. I’m in the minority of players, but I like revolting and I like seeing my opponent revolt. It makes things exciting and its better than mashing skirmishers together for another hour or two until all the trees run out.
In any case, people have been begging FE to remove revolution since its inception and they haven’t budged. We’re wasting our breath when there are actual topics they will listen to us on and we agree about, like archers or infantry.
2 Likes
He’ll have a more personalized answer of course, but I find this is generally par for the course on forums like this. I don’t think it necessarily reflects ill intent either, more just a matter of human nature being moved to react to things perceived as negative or conflicting, rather than commenting much on points of agreement or neutrality. “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down,” and all that. Also the level of manners in general on the internet dot com is lower than if you were to speak to someone in person, but that’s common knowledge.
I’m with you in that minority; I like Flemish Revolution and think it’s an awesome mechanic, but I do think it can be overpowered and I think the cost should be variable depending on the number of villagers you have (like Spies, but obviously less expensive per unit).
This is the same reason I enjoy the occasional standard victory game (relic/wonder); it puts a time limit on what often becomes an otherwise seemingly interminable stalemate and leads to a decisive victory for one side or the other.
1 Like
Steppes are pretty bad unless you raid with them in early Castle
And what would change… paladins still would beat an arb even with +7 MA, and so will skirms or onagers, or even some other civs arbs, italian arbs would just be able to beat hussars, but in late game it’s still a fight that you don’t want to take… so I don’t see it as game breaking.
What it reallyy changes is that you need a bit less xbows against knights in castle age, but again it’s not like you are on mayan or ethiopians levels because italians eco is still behind other civs…
A +2 bonus damage against eagles and +1 against spears is what they need to be a tiny bit less niche.
3 Likes
That’s why I say it’s an unlikely idea. Even if it was inspired by the English in AoE4, and it is a chance to tackle the long-maligned organ guns for the Portuguese.
Once there is any possibility of boldly updating the old civilizations, I think this is definitely one of the most worthwhile changes.
I remember I pointed it out in other threads before.
We shouldn’t pretend that it’s a fair solution for the Franks to not get the HP bonus until the Castle age just because most players don’t research the Bloodline very often in the Feudal age.
In my opinion, this is likely to encourage Frank players to always fast wall and fast castle, as there is no advantage in the Feudal, and in a few cases it may even be a disadvantage. Once the opponent is someone who is willing to invest the cost for their Scouts to get +20 HP in the Feudal, the Frank player don’t have any chance to even take the initiative to spend resource to get +20% HP (less than +20 HP for scouts) in the Feudal.
A strong late-game civilization does need to be weaker in the early game, but balancing it in an unfairly way is very disappointing. As long as the Bloodline is still a tech in the Feudal, then this HP bonus equivalent to the Bloodline variant should also be available in the Feudal. Unless, the Bloodline itself becomes a tech in the Castle age.
1 Like
The flip side of this is you are “forcing” them more into scouts (if we only consider berries Vs hp)
Whereas if you remove the hp in fuedal and leave the berry bonus, it means they’re slightly more flexible.
(I’m just pointing out the negative side of it)
But I would (same as you) prefer to see the removal of the berry bonus and give it to someone else (Eg Portuguese) since franks already have a decent early eco advantage from farms and free blood lines in castle age
No I agree, but if anything by not over tweaking them too much in one field, you still keep options open to tweak them elsewhere. As you pointed out they’ll still be worse off Vs archer civs. And lacking siege engineers makes it even worse for them
Whereas good monks, and GC (and HC where required Eg goths, Hindus, eagles) already gives them a good chance Vs melee civs, and too much MA might be over board. It also affects damage from siege (melee damage) as well as specifically hussars (a common counter to arbs)
Seems fair, and could easily get more than that
Tbf Saracens are the oldest civ and they’ve had a fair amount of work done to them
It’s more that Britons are popular and that’s why it’s difficult to touch them. You can fiddle with less played civs because there’s less diehard fans defending them
1 Like
Im just pointing out the stuff i disagree with. No sense taking something i already agree with and just saying i agree. Obviously i agfee or i wouldnt have proposed the change.
My ideas lean towards making them just a tad better/more techable, not hard buffs like making elephants a 1v1 unit like some want.
1 Like
Pretty reasonable changes so far. I still think slav need something else for their infantry in feudal and castle because free supply is kinda laughable. Maybe Allow Slav infantries to build ram on the field like in aoe4 (starting castle age), not sure if this can even be done with the game engine tho.
It’s an interesting idea and I agree slavs could maybe do with something infantry based earlier on, but rams are fairly weak in aoe4, especially later in the game.
In aoe2 in imperial you’ll end up with champs building siege rams, which is a completely different ball game and you realise how OP it is.
Even if you reduce construction time you hurt castle age viability more than late game siege rams
The other issue is slavs already have the perfect eco bonus for infantry and discounted FU siege. Afaik you can create polarising games (Vs non BBC civs) if you end up with overly buffed infantry+ buffed siege and therefore you usually get one or the other
Even Teuton UT is only MA,which is the least desired trait. Or conversely Celts have amazing siege but generic infantry
So whatever buff slavs get for infantry likely has to be a temporary one (like a discounted tech or one time bonus) otherwise they might be too oppressive in the right matchups
So maybe something like free squires or arson
True. That’s why I think moving forager bonus to Spanish will be better.
I have no problem with Portuguese getting the bonus either.
Someone already pointed out Persians and Koreans. And also removing OA from Mayans was a big step to change classical civs. You’re right. Britons won’t be changed bcz they are one of the most popular civ.
1 Like
many of these makes very much sense. love the post. i would add -25 wood for Donjons and -10 Gold for Serjeants for Sicilians, or a cost change of some sort, and elitè upgrade cheaper (as well with a look to unique techs of course)
also italians silk road need a change. either a minor 1vs 1 effect or should at least affect all your team
3 Likes
It already has a 1v1 effect, if you dare to trade with your enemy
1 Like
Yeah also a good choice. I thought it might boost their FC into conqs potential too much. But not sure.
They could do with an early eco buff, maybe at the cost of increasing conq tt slightly (and then tt reduced with the elite tech, which needs a buff anyway)
Will this be really OP? I don’t think nerf on conqs TT is needed.
currently spanish are already doing extremely well on nomad maps (and fairly well on arena) berries is signifcant eco boost early in the game, which also boosts them on arena and situationally on nomad (where they already do well)
so while these are less played maps, i can see the argument for counter balancing
that being said i would prefer to see the berry change done first and then adjust if required
I’m obviously supporting their 1st TC gets the same treatment as Sicilians.
If anything we can just keep it to 15% and not go back to 25%. Conqs getting nerfed will be an overall nerf on Spanish than the small buff of berry bonus.
Same.
BTW, I was really hoping PUP today.
1 Like
Why today? 20 characters