New WOLOLO Ideas

change sacrifice to theocracy in aoe2, only one priest loses faith if a group of them are wololoing one target) , cost can be still G400 as it is quite useful

  • buff the priest, we LOVE WOLOLO in competitive game!
  • buff Egyptian a bit more as they lack late game changer
  • versatile Choson’s late game strategy. Sacrifice is not really costly for their cheaper priest, so I cannot tell it is a buff to them
  • buff Babylon a bit as their late game combat sucks
  • replace a useless tech, such as Atheism

Any other excellent ideas are welcome:)


New Add-up:
increasing heal range is really a good buff

3 Likes

The best buff to priest is to remove macedonian extra resistance to conversion. We all want this.

  • Atheism is an age of empires 2 tech, it doesn’t exist in age of empires 1.
3 Likes

Personally I am ok with Macd resistance, as far as all of their troops are extremely vulnerable to seiges. They should have that late game advantage in exchange of no economy bonus & slow boom and no priest / vils upgrade.
In addition, it also differentiates their play style.

If Macedonia loses its conversion resistance then they must get priests.

3 Likes

Macedonian lategame is insanely good, even without that resistance. One of the best Cataphract(because better sight -> larger scan range -> better AI), Armoured Elephant, Heavy Horse Archer, Super Centurion, cheap Catapults. There is currently no real counter to all of this. Helepolis is decent against Ele and Centurion but cheap catapults counter that really well. Cataphract are not exactly what I would call extremely vulnerable to siege either.

Priest would be decent counter against most of those as well so it would buff the priest, especially in team games. Currently someone on the enemy team being macedonian instantly means priests are a bad option. Then it would instead generate more preference for priest.

I don’t really see any reason why they should get the temple and priest in this case either. Persians don’t get academy and the hoplite either. What makes macedonian temple/priest any different?

1 Like

however as u said, the best combo is still Hittite elephant archers (can be replaced by CA to reduce gold cost) + catapults which is enough to knock them off.

also Assyrian, Minoan, Roman, Greek (4 real siege civs) who have access to FU catapults and ballistas can still massacre them

meanwhile, I don’t know whether is it different for AI, AI priest can still convert my Mecd units pretty well…

I think the higher conversion resistance is itself a good civilisation bonus. 4x might be a bit to much though.
They should ne nerfed in another way like reducing the melee armour of their Centurions.

I think a technology like theocracy that makes only one priest recover could be very helpful.
Maybe a technology that recovers some of the gold cost when they die like the Saracenian bonus from AoE2 maybe as a second effect of sacrifice. Like priest give back 50 gold on death if you use the sacrifice mechanic (not available for Choson) making the technology actually useful. That would reduce the cost to 75 gold for a conversion.

If you buff priest maybe there should also be technologies that increase the conversion resistance.

Conversion is random so, yes, you can get a conversion easily against Macedonian but you can’t count on it to work as a tactic. The more conversions you need the more likely it is to start working against you. In theory, you could get infinitely lucky and instantly convert everything you try in a game against Macedonian but the chance of that happening is astronomically low.

This is getting a bit off-topic but CA can not be used to replace the elephants in the hittite lategame deathball. The main thing that elephant archers have here are 7(5+1+1) damage and 600 hitpoints. Chariot archers only get 6 damage and one sixth of the hitpoints, thus they are not suitable for tanking purposes and the units with high shields like cataphracts,legion and centurion take a lot less damage from them because of how the shields affect ranged damage. Having one more damage can raise the effective damage by a significant margin.

In my opinion, Macedonians are one of the worst civs in AoE. Due to the lack of the temple, the important technology of the villager buffs is missing and units can’t even be healed. Poor woodcutters, mediocre towers at most. They have quite good units, but nothing really outstanding, other civs have them too. The +2 armor against ranged weapons for the academy units are well-intentioned but not very useful, at most a niche. The higher resistance against conversion sounds nice, but is rather useless.

Many greetings.

The thing is, there are 3 counters to academy units: archers, priest and siege. Taking away the first two makes them them nigh unstoppable. They are absolutely outstanding and having a macedonian on iron is often game deciding on land maps.

Cavalry and war elephant lines are also two of the most vulnerable units to priests. Macedonian has both super units for them as well. So they are very, very good bonuses.

Missing Craftmanship is a bummer for their Heavy Horse Archers sure, but the eco bonus isn’t that big of a deal, it’s around 9% extra wood income if you have it. Meaningful, but not necessary.

They also get Ballista Tower with architechture so I would put them solidly in the good category there.

On top of all this they also get a great bonus at +2 sight on villagers and all melee units. This makes their early game very consistent. It also makes their early game rushes very easy to pull off and increases their effectiveness. Similarly it helps their cavalry play in bronze a lot as you can make decision about engaging earlier and raiding is that much more deadly.

And if you wish to, you can just make composite bowmen in bronze and heavy horse archers in iron with cheap stone throwers and catapults to back them up.

Comparing all that to missing jihad and the ability to heal? Yeah, I’d give that up any day of the week. Even without the conversion resistance, they’d still be a civilisation with strong options at all stages of the game.

2 Likes

As you say, Macedonian is an excellent civ. They have a great initial advantage for exploration, finding resources and gain time makes you attack first than others. Even ships have this vision bonus. You can explore enemy coasts and islands much better.
+4 conversion resistance is a lot, right now Chariot has +2 conversion resistance. Unstoppable centurions AND cheap catapults even if they don’t evolve, all of which make it one of the best civs.

That may be true against the AI - in multiplayer nobody plays with priests, because they are very expensive and Doctor Random plays a to big role. Simply too inconsistent. Single player honestly doesn’t interest me at all. Sorry.
Everything else is tactically just as feasible with other civs.

On the towers - yes, they can develop ballista towers, but the lack of the wood technology means they lack range.

Granted, they have many strong units, but as already written, others have those as well. Just without the disadvantages listed. Whatever strategy you want to play. There is always a nation with which it is more efficient.

Many greetings.

1 Like

There’s possibly a problem with this that you might be able to just spam click enemy army and get all your conversions in a rapid succession so perhaps the way multiple priests convert as well needs to be changed along with it. It should still be beneficial to target single priests to units to reward good micro. Currently it is working the exact opposite way and punishing bad micro instead. It’s very penalising on lower level players and in multifront engagements. We should lower the micro penalty and that’s one way. Auto-convert is too good, so that’s probably out.

Maybe medicine could also increase the healing range? So they would be useful behind your army even if not converting. Then when you do have time to watch your army in that location you would queue converts for them and leave to micro other places while they regain faith. During that downtime they would heal your army from the rear ranks, being at least somewhat useful.

Sacrifice is a counterproductive technology as it actually increases the burden on the player microing the priests, not the other way around. So replacing it makes the most sense.

Never say never. Here’s Weber with priest in high level multiplayer.

Towers lacking +1 range is irrelevant because they have hidden extra range , they can hit all 10 range units attacking them even with 9 range. And 10 range towers still can’t hit catapults so it’s of no real value.

But if you want to believe that macedon is weak that is fine. If you believe no one makes priests, then it shouldn’t matter that they would lose the resistance, right? It’s not like it changes your gameplay experience if you never see them.

PS. If no one makes priests in your games, then why do you care about healing? :thinking:

2 Likes
> 

Never say never. Here’s Weber with priest in high level multiplayer.

Towers lacking +1 range is irrelevant because they have hidden extra range , they can hit all 10 range units attacking them even with 9 range. And 10 range towers still can’t hit catapults so it’s of no real value.

But if you want to believe that macedon is weak that is fine. If you believe no one makes priests, then it shouldn’t matter that they would lose the resistance, right? It’s not like it changes your gameplay experience if you never see them.

PS. If no one makes priests in your games, then why do you care about healing?

Of course, I know about the towers. The malus is nevertheless noticeable when it goes against catapults, which can exploit the aoe damage to artificially generate an additional range point. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to talk you out of this civ. If you like playing it, go ahead and do so. It’s totally fine. It’s just that I find Macedonians rather difficult in the overall picture and in relation to most other civs.
Healing is the most useful thing about priests for me. Because it’s reliable, consistant, and may even save a lot of resources.

Many greetings.