So you need foot archer specifically against shotel, but Ethiopian has better foot archer than you.
1 Like
I think this is a bit broken as well. With this change, the only viable general counter to shotels will be foot archers.
This in of itself would be one thing. But remember that ethiopians have an insanely good imperial tech in torsion engines.
This means that ethiopians have a strong counter to everything in the game. Infantry? They have better archers, on top of shotels. Archers? Torsion engine siege, and skirms. Cavalry? Shotels, on top of free pikes. Cav archers or Elephant archers? Shotels.
I donât think that this is a good change overall, especially considering that ethiopians are already a pretty good civ.
Watch the latest SoTL video about the new royal heirs.
1 Like
I understand why people think this, because the units that have their damage reduced by âRoyal Heirsâ also have the cavalry armor class, but the new way of using the new armor class is not directly connected to the traditional cavalry armor class, and could have been given to (or withheld from) any unit. Each âmounted unitâ was specifically and individually modified to have this effect, so I assure you it was intentional. I only belabor the point, possibly ad nerdeam, to show that the full effect is here to stay, since if it was a bug or unintended behavior it would very likely be patched out.
Thereâs a chance this will get nerfed to 2 though, which would still be a worthwhile bonus. Or accompanied by a small cost increase for Shotels. But weâll see.
Itâs definitely a solid buff, and very possibly overtuned, and it raises the question of whether/when the bottom civs will get a similar or greater boost.
4 Likes
I Think this is too op. Now think, youre playing a guy your own skill level. Hes making a similar amount of mistakes as you
Hes got one of the best archers in the game that deletes infantry and other archers. And now hes got an answer to cavalry and cavalry archers too
You cant go knight skirm vs them
You cant go generic crossbows vs them
You cant go infantry vs them
You cant go HCA vs them
???
The only civs than can handle this is your super archer civs like britons and mayans
I think itâs actually fine, just need to increase its cost. Only 300 + 300 gold is too cheap. Ethiopians were kind of stale and predictable, so these changes make them more exciting and flexible.
2 Likes
Archers are still very much strong vs militia. They merely die slower to archers now, but militia is also even more expensive and need 200 res to get this upgrade, 20 crossbows can still demolish 20 longswords while costing less and being much easyer to sustain economically not costing food
Also Champion are more gold-efficient against them, and HC should be much stronger counter. Civ without HC/strong foot archer usually have their own strong infantry to counter them. Only civ hard to find counter would be Huns which also have Paladin which should be Okay vs shotel.
Also insanely expensive and I never see Torsion engines can win the game in 1v1 Arabia.
Well. that is really bad thing? Civ like Malians, Saracens also have strong counter to everything but doesnât mean they are broken. For the civ like Ethiopians which have low-tier eco, it makes sense to have strong and versatile army. It is good change to make Ethiopians less 1-dimensional archer-only civ.
Ethiopians are basically nonexistence at tournament after archer nerf.
Huns, Bengalis, Magyars.
Infantry against Ethiopians Archer is not a good option.
Thatâs the only reason this tech will be balanced.
Though
I agree with this. Needs to be increased by at least 100 food +100 gold.
1 Like
Except for their excellent archers. Nothing about shotels has changes with respect to infantry so this point is inherently moot.
In case you werenât aware, there are maps other than 1v1 arabia. Torsion engines is commonly seen in team games and closed map games.
Have you ever played ethiopians? there were never a 1 dimensional archer only civ. They are an archer-siege-infantry civ. Other than torsion engines, they also get the pikemen upgrade for free, and get FU halbs.
Literally donât care. I care about the state where I play at. If itâs broken for people like me, I care about that. If itâs broken at 2600+elo, idc.
Now, if it made watching those games boring, that would be an issue. But that doesnât seem to be a case here.
I would say Mongols Tatars too
I think game is balanced around 1v1 arabia or not but arabia seems to be the most played map. To a lesser degree, arena. The game is not balanced for black forest for example as so many civs struggle vs mass siege. Only like half of the civs are actually decent on black forest. Even worse for water maps only 10-15 civs have water related bonus. So arabia should be the standard when considering balancing civs
1 Like
There is a kernal of truth in that statement. But itâs far from the full truth. For example, elite battle elephants were nerfed multiple times because of closed maps. Poles were average on open maps, but they got nerfed multiple times because of closed maps. Another example is the houfnice, which wasnât a huge problem in arabia. But it was recently nerfed.
So no, the game isnât balanced exclusively around arabia. That is just a common misconception.
That other person was completely ignoring torsion engines because it isnât popular on arabia. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of the game, and how it is balanced.
1 Like
I also donât think Shotels needed a buff. I lost a match as Burgundians the other day, my cavaliers got shredded by a mass of Elite Shotels, and they then destroyed my TCâs in literally 3 quick swipes (maybe 5 seconds). Thatâs faster even than a mass of Paladins. So no these guys really donât need a buff.
If only Burgundians had strong gunpowder, this wouldnât have happened! 
2 Likes
Those civs were nerfed because of arena. The game is like 70% arabia 20% arena 10% rest of maps.
2 Likes
Those civs were nerfed because of arena. The game is like 70% arabia 20% arena 10% rest of maps.
52% Arabia, 17% Arena, 31% rest of maps.
1 Like
As @AriesXBox90 has explained, you are wrong about the numbers.
But just to add to the point, it is also bad game design. If you have like 40 maps in a game, and you ignore everything but 2 of those, you are doing something wrong. Even if only 1/3 of all games happen in those maps, the game should still be relatively balanced.
This is not to mention that almost all of the latest tournaments have focused on a variety of maps. The upcoming KoTD is the only recent one which is completely focused on arabia(or arena) and for that reason, I am not really interested in it.
The devs know this too, because all civs in AoE4 have a single water bonus, to make things even.
So, you are wrong about this. But even if you were right, thatâs a bad thing, and you should be putting pressure on devs to change things.
1 Like
So, you are wrong about this. But even if you were right, thatâs a bad thing, and you should be putting pressure on devs to change things.
Looking at the stats of a civ like Franks per map it seems the devs are indeed not balancing around just Arabia and Arena.
Since the Crossbow and Arb nerf the Franks have (regarding 1v1, 0-3000 elo):
- 54.70% win rate on Arabia
- 50.25% win rate on Arena
- 49.56% win rate on Black Forest
- 49.37% win rate on Four Lakes
- 48.60% win rate in Fortress
- 45.78% win rate on Nomad
- 39.05% win rate on Islands
But in the case of Franks I actually a wouldnât mind a nerf because of Arabia-style maps. I think civs should be more balanced around the maps they are best at, so regarding Franks Arabia, or regarding Spanish Nomad, because there they are picked the most often and a bad balance has therefore the biggest effect on the games overall.
Team games are probably also a factor for balance.
1 Like
Yeah but shotel are not intended to beat strong cav. Stirrup cavalier are top tier cavaliers. You donât even need camels or Spears to counter cav then
1 Like