So what those 3 elephants could might do while your ennemy is ready to prepare a imp push? Because 3 war elephant is not even fast enought to push a tc before he get imp age.
My example only included knight + war ele situation we talked about. Scout cavalry? then what’s the point of that UT? if you end up mixing scout with your war elephant?
On a TG you have teammates, instead it will be arbalest from your flank teammate that get converted.
You really fail to understand dont you. First shots are when your pikes are behind your mangonel. So they get no damage. When those elephants try to rush on the mango, pikes are their to block the path and surround them. They are much faster than war elephant so they get here first. When they bind them you move your mango around those units in between and shot xbow.
As for the building+ tech part cost. You clearly lost at that point, because war elephant require a castle. At that point you need to move a part of your eco on stone and use like 10 vills or more to build the castle on a decent time. While from the other side, one barrack was already built much before castle age. So your ennemy just need another barrack and one siege workshop that can be built by just 2 vills immediately.
I don’t believe that game shows what you think it does. At around 2:23, for example, it shows exactly what I’m talking about; pushing in with about 4 war elephants, forcing an engagement to defend buildings and siege.
The only reason it failed was because the enemy converted two of them right off the bat and utterly disabled the push. My proposed tech would have had a good chance of preventing at leasat one of those two conversions and made that push dramatically more effective, even in small numbers.
So honestly, it really just reinforces my point and demonstrates the viability of the tech.
It doesn’t help when the people who claim to know the game don’t seem to even understand the suggestion. The number of times people have said this would make them OP in the lategame, when it very clearly would have minimal or no impact in the lategame, is bizarrely high.
Pointing out potential flaws is one thing, but repeating the same point over and over again, in the face of repeated rebuttal, is another.
Honestly, if I’ve learned anything from a decade+ of hanging around on forums, it’s that many people are simply unwilling to consider any changes to the game, no matter how well thought out. There’s another game I’ve played for 10k+ hours where even being one of the most experienced players there, people still continue to argue with more or less the same approach as seen here. Fortunately, they do serve the purpose of keeping the thread near the top, so they’re something of a blessing in disguise.
So he reaches imperial age but loses a TC. He’s now down on vills, down on eco, AND spent a bunch of resources on going to imp, leaving him in a very vulnerable position. AND now he has to spec into halbs to take advantage of imp to drive off the elephants, leaving him even MORE vulnerable to all the rest of your units. Just by having a few war elephants, you’ve created multiple factors that will result in a loss.
The point of the tech is not to prevent conversions entirely, only to divert them away to a nearby other unit. Without other cheap units nearby, the tech won’t have any benefit, because it will just convert a different high-value unit, instead. So in order to use it, they’d need to have nearby scout cavalry, trashbows, or maybe camels to tank the hit. That’s the entire point of the UT.
True, but you’re still looking at closer to a 50/50 ratio at best, compared to a 1/9 ratio earlier in the game. The tech becomes weaker as the game goes on and more high-value units are added.
Doesn’t really matter; mangonels only do like 30 damage per hit to war elephants, so even if you get in a hit or two, it’s only about the value of a single pike hit. And if you play it too safe with the pikes, you leave the mangonels vulnerable to taking damage anyway, at which point the elephant is basically guaranteed to trade equally, even if it dies. And of course, that’s assuming the missed shot from the mangonel doesn’t just instantly result in its death because the xbows now have a huge amount of time to take it down before it can fire again.
Except, of course, those units don’t provide an innate defensive or offensive ability. Castles are already highly effective defensive buildings that will 100% be built eventually; by putting them in competition with other buildings, they become even more valuable from a cost/benefit standpoint, justifying building them slightly sooner. Even if only by a few minutes one way or another, that’s more than enough to make a big difference in a game.
Im not even sure what you are arguing anymore.
You claim that your tech would have made an already strong push in a lategame BF game an insta win. Then, in the next post, you do a 180 flip and claim that it would not have an impact at all. At least decide what your point is, would make the entire discussion a bit more constructive.
You also clearly missed my point, and im not sure if on purpose or by accident. If you actually watched the game, you saw that even aztec monks could not stop the elefant push in the end. My point never was that the tech was not viable; its that it would not change anything about castle age while beeing possibly OP in lategame teamgames.
of course while they take such a long time to down the tc his army destroy your elephants …
with this tech i would never mix in war elephant with scout knowing how fast war ele get converted. Otherwise it’s like scout have a similar conversion time like every other unit. As for trashbow you want both UT being researched on castle? I cant even imagine the investment of time and ressource you need to make it happend…
Unless you sticked your castle right next to the tc (but by doing it you cover a less area) a blind spot can always be exploited by a mangonel to shot your tc. And even if you cant shot it, you let your ennemy get the rest of the map. That allow him to castle drop you wherever he wants.
Other thing, castle arent 100% necessary to get imp, your opponent can go imp with siege workshop + university and come with bombard cannon + another unit to push your castle.
11 what 50/50 ratio? You really think arbalest are hard to mass like war elephants?
A strong push? He was going in with half a dozen other units and 4 war elephants. Not exactly a strong push. It certainly would have been stronger at that point, though. But it wouldn’t have made much difference later on, when more war elephants were present, because the chances of another war elephant being randomly converted would have gone up.
Like I said, even speccing into halbs is a losing move. It’s a win/win scenario - IF you can take advantage of it.
Who cares if you lose a scout or two? They’re cheap. Heck, mix in pikes or skirms and it’d be even better. There’s huge variety in options available.
And no, you probably wouldn’t have Kamandaran researched at that point. Why would you? It doesn’t do much other than remove the gold cost, but gold is plentiful at that stage. They’re still relatively cheap compared to an elephant or even a knight.
Again, this is not meant to be a god-tier strategy that’s unbeatable. It should be useful in SOME cases. That’s all. The fact you can find potential weaknesses just means it’s well balanced.
If you’re at the stage of the game where you’re running mass war elephants, then you’re gonna be popcapped or nearly so anyway, so yeah, 50/50 sounds about right. Any numbers advantage on the arbs side would be counterbalanced by the fact they’re not going to be sitting in the middle of the elephants, so many of them would likely be outside conversion range anyway.
Halb is not even needed just pikemen is fine to deal with them. When you lost your 3 war ele you’ll be stuck on castle age for a longer time than your opponent then you have to face a treb or bombard cannon push with of couse some units to back them up.
paired with war elephant food cost, you think they are still cheap? If so then you’ll have a tough time to produce the two of them and your vill production. All of this being under pressure from ennemy raids. I’m sure at 100% your ennemy has a much better eco if you try it.
I see no use of that tech in castle age. Except making war elephant a little better but far to be a viable option on whatever cases.
Like I said before, the resource investment for 3 war elephants is not particularly significant compared to the amount of resources you’re producing at that stage. And if they stay in pikemen, you’re free to absolutely destroy them with the rest of your army. One way or another, you have the advantage.
If they’re not cheap, nothing is. Raids are to be expected, so you should be prepared for those anyway.
Really? I’d use it all the time. Even if only to protect my knights!
they cost enough to slow down your imp time for an ingnificant result other than a little damaged tc. Advantage? Even after you wasted over 700 ressource for nothing + your ennemy is now imp age and you are still stuck on castle?
several knights, a castle to research the UT, another type of unit you will mass (to make the UT work) more than knight itself otherwise RNG is more against you. That sound so accessible.
I guess you dont understand what i meant. Or just playing dumb. But with war elephant 170 food cost + another food unit you will be unable to keep your vill production and since farmer take a lot of space some of them will be out of reach from your castle and tc.
After they’ve been forced into infantry upgrades+pikemen, things are more than equal.
Start with scouts, add knights. They probably won’t even bother going monks because the tech exists; it’d be like going archers into goths, it’s playing straight into their strengths.
Naturally you’d be trading some amount of one unit for the war elephants. That’s an acceptable trade though, because they’re so much more powerful per resource. No matter what, losing a scout converted instead of a war elephant is a big win.
3 War elephants are not a threat even xbow can deal with them just it take some second. or a correct mass of knight can do it too without huge loses. Beside if you throw 3 war elephant alone your UT doesnt work there. and one monk can reverse the situation.
We are back at what’s the point of that UT if you make scout in the end. Beside you still need a castle to research the tech while you try it your opponant has a higher mass of xbow or knights.
If your scouts are getting converted and only war elephant is there then you can just run away and convert later.
Sorry, I thought it was implicit that it’s 1-3 of them mixed in with your standard unit composition. Alone, elephants have many weaknesses that can be exploited, but combined with other units, they are able to take on many attackers. For example, you might have skirms taking out their xbows while your elephants body block and damage melee attackers.
The tech is valuable even if you don’t research it! The mere potential for researching it pressures your opponent away from going monks in the first place.
You’ll have way more scouts than monks, so you’ll be able to kill their monk. Then they’ve traded 100 gold for a damaged scout, which still isn’t a good trade, AND you’ve protected your much more valuable elephant which can continue to do serious work. There’s a reason people don’t bother converting trash.
Honestly dude, you cannot convince me that a tech that protects your most valuable units from conversion is not in some way useful. Heresy costs a thousand gold, for goodness sake, and people STILL research it in some cases. This is just a more specific version that helps more in the early to midgame than the endgame. It WILL be useful; the only question is where and how, and the only way to figure THAT out is to put it in and test it.
Elephant + scout are much harder to mass than full monk on castle because food is harder to gather on castle age.
It was at a point that he gave up on LC and make monk himself. You can say, he could create more scout instead of monks. If he has done so the food production would been unable to follow ( and then give up on vill production.)
And that example only show Light cav alone so imagine you want to make a castle and some war elephant to mix in with your LC + your new UT.
They are just too slow to protect anything. it’s pretty easy for knight to snipe your other units without receiving huge injuries from 3 war elephants unless you stick them altogether. but that’s a good opportunity for scorp and mango to deal a lot of dmg.
That’s why i said this tech would be useless in castle but more useful in imp age. Your strategy take just so much time, and ressources for castle age that your ennemy will be one step ahead from you.
Full monk is a rare strategy at best, and with good reason. If this manages to make the enemy go full monk to counter it, then it’s working.
It still forces them to give up valuable micro time, which is a pretty important achievement for 1-3 units.
It doesn’t take ANY time, since you don’t even need to research the tech for its presence to influence how your opponent plays. And it gets weaker the stronger your army becomes. So no, I disagree; that’s a complete misunderstanding of the tech and how it would work in a real game.
and yet more easy to take place than your elephant + lc compo, with the video i showed he did that on early castle and his opponent couldnt outproduce his full monk with lc only and made monks himself aswell to counter monks…
barely 30-40 sec of micro and they dont even hit one xbow once (if you face an archer civ). As for knight civs, they barely need to micro if he wants to target your archers,mangonel or whatever range unit backline to peel the elephants, kill them, and run away. In fact i think you micro more than he does …
I think your opponent will know if his monks convert something else than the original target. Beside wasnt that tech goal was to make castle elephant somehow viable in some situation? Then what’s the point of making war elephant if you dont research the tech.
You’re getting into an extremely niche scenario at this point. Yes, in ideal circumstances, monks can counter even their counters. That’s not a common scenario though, and it only reinforces the utility of a tech like this.
30-40 seconds is a game-loser if you take advantage of it properly. And a big advantage of elephants is not needing to micro as much.
The same reason goths almost never have to face archers, even if they never make huskarls; the mere fact that they CAN make them means people avoid going into them in the first place.
This is even better though, because it can be researched retroactively. A goth player still has to actually build the huskarls, the Persian player can build their army FIRST, and then wait and see if the enemy goes for monks, and THEN counter those monks if they’re unable to do so with their other units.
Monk is a niche unit to begin with and on arena it’s not that uncommon. On arabia you just mix with another units but less monk.
As for the utility reinforcement there is none if lc get a hard time to deal with a full monk rush it certainly not war elephant that will make a difference. And honestly you wont even have the time to get that castle.
xbow doesnt need to micro as hard as they do against knights since the speed difference is huge. It wont be difficult to shot them, take a look to any type of raid and go back to check your xbow.
I’m at lost of word for such a bad comparison and not even right at that. Before one castle is up and huskarl spam, goth struggle a lot against archers. So if you say they never see them even when they dont make huskarl is a huge joke.
The purpose of the tech isn’t to make elephants invincible, just to make them more resistant. If the enemy can mass-convert your units, then you need to come up with an alternate counter. That doesn’t mean the tech isn’t working just fine, or that it isn’t perfectly balanced.
And yet, the elephants will take even LESS microing, so it’s still a net win.
That’s missing the point a bit, I think. Yes, you can go archers before they have a castle up, but many civs can go for unexpected strategies early on. Teutons can go archers for a surprise, and to take advantage of their earlier build times, but that doesn’t make it a viable long-term strategy.
And in this case, monks are a castle age unit anyway, so the same doesn’t hold true.
Honestly dude, I can keep doing this forever, because it’s impossible to say what exactly would happen. There are infinite theoretical answers; the only way to truly test it is actually put it in the game and try it out. But if it’s put into the game in the way I envision it, it will also work the way I envision it.
