I recently started to really like 1v1s, previously I mostly play TGs. I enjoyed 1v1 I make different unit combo instead if just one unit, and not having to worry about teammate and look all over the map, but I really dont like the games go to trash war too frequently.
If 1v1 play cav it is not that gold consuming, but if I play archer or eagle warrior, which is super gold intensive, it goes to trash war a bit too early, and frequently. Not all games can end in castle age.
I’m not against trash war and don’t want unlimited gold in 1v1 either, I just want to delay a bit, we can use gold unit for a bit longer maybe? Trash war feels boring as everyone makes the same 3 units. And there are civs almost unwinnable in trash fight, (aztecs, mayans, incas, turks for example). It is also the reason Hussars are so op in late game, they can raid, fast moving, kill arbalesters, and only cost 1 resource, and very wood efficient.
I think we can add some gold on maps, or add some market style map to ranked pool. Like marketplace. That will make gold unit more useful late game.
High gold resources is a classic noob setting which dates back to the Voobly days. The fact that you are on a timer with limited gold means it forces you to be aggressive and get relics. So adding tons of gold to maps would make you a worse player overall. Relics would be almost meaningless so you’d get into the habit of forgetting to pick them up and players would just build massive fortifications around the golds and mega wall + boom, which would drag out every game into huge drawn out epic wars which go on for hours. And the abundance of gold would remove the pressure of time, so you would get into the habit of being passive, which is never a good thing for your skillset. So the trash war stalemate would just be replaced by a gold unit stalemate, until eventually even that gold runs out and you’d be back to square one with trash wars, except an hour or two later.
We actually see more and more tendency on “open maps” to go for double gold comps actually.
The one thing I see is that how it’s currently there is often a “hard-dropoff” in the availability of gold. And I think this should be a “smoother” transition.
I actually would like if there was overall less gold on maps on arabia but a bit of unexhaustable gold (maybe a unlimited Gold pile that can be only collected at 1/2 speed) as compensation.
This would make the transition more gradual and at the same time also can function at a “game-winning” mechanic. Cause conquering this pile from the opponent would almost surely give the victory in these lategame scenarios.
You still have some gold once gold runs out (relics, market, even trading with a defeated enemy who conveniently left a market), that just means your gold units should really count.
I had FFA in mind for using another player’s market, in which it often becomes a trash war (as you’re less likely to go all-in to attack, since it makes you vulnerable to other players).
For 1v1 you still have relics and your own market, indeed.
Me and my friends are exclusively playing on our own custom random map scripts. we have increased the total number of gold in all our maps because of that. But we are likely casual players since age of kings and we play the game more or less relaxed, with a little bit of competition but without learning build orders or trying to play meta etc. I don’t know how much a change like that would affect the competative online play and if that would be a good idea.
I like the amount of gold and stone the way it is currently.
I would rather add a mod (checkbox) to double the amount of gold and stone per pile. It would be 10 times more interesting than the turbo mode already, and potentially we could add yet another checkbox for ranked ( like random civs), if all players select it then the gold and stone piles get more resources.
A game option yes, choosing how much resources appear on the map (or maybe a multiplier on how much resources are on each pile). Just as you can currently choose starting resources.
very good post, I don’t think one can nail the issue more precisely than this.
I will add also that “having limited gold for Eagles or Archers” raises a big eyebrow for me. Only counting the “natural” golds, you start with 12000g. Considering upgrade costs negligible, this is enough to make 240 Eagle Warriors (for example), which is roughly 3x the max army you can get typically (I am assuming 120 vills in Imp, and before that you rarely make 80+ army in Castle age).
This amount of army should be more than enough to close out the game. You are crashing 3x80 potentially Elite Eagle Warriors vs your opponent, + whatever amount of trash you add to that (Skirms, potentially a few Siege). If you have trouble winning after making 240 Eagles, or 240 Arbalesters, it’s a l2p issue. But even so, Arabia iterations are quite generous in that there are 2x3 extra gold piles on the map (another 4800 gold) aside from the 12000g natural that every player gets. These extra gold piles are typically are contested in Imp. Relics also can often generate 2-3k gold in your average 50 min game. If anything, there is too much gold on Arabia, you can lose like 3 armies of Cavaliers before going into trash wars, one could make a case that that number should be 1-2 armies instead.
You dont spend the whole game making eagles. All other units and upgrades cost gold. That’s not the right way to calculate. 1 army of cavalier thrown away is game ending already. However if you trade evenly vs opponent army, it is not bad. But result is you both go into trash war which is boring
The Lightbowman would counter the current Militia line. But this could be somewhat solved by changing gambesons to give the militia line some Infantry armor instead of the current pierce armor.
And for trash Siege… I actually think Rams can be made trash units. Just 2 little changes for that:
A) Reduce HP slightly
B) Give the “Boiling Oil” effect to murder holes aswell
As compensation in the midgame Rams could be produced much faster or even by infantry units like in AOE IV.
The new Trash counter mechanics would look like:
Unit
Countered by
Counters
Halberdier
Skirmisher, Lightbowman
Hussar, Shieldman, Jinete
Skirmisher
Hussar, Shieldman
Halberdier, Lightbowman, Jinete
Hussar
Halberdier, Jinete
Skirmisher, Shieldman, Lightbowman
Shieldman
Halberdier, Hussar, Lightbowman
Skirmisher, Jinete
Lightbowman
Hussar, Skirmisher, Jinete
Halberdier, Shieldman
Jinete
Halberdier, Skirmisher, Shieldman
Hussar, Lightbowman
So the new units would intnetionally have some kind of disadvantage against the “traditional” trash units, as they would only counter 2 and be countered by 3 whilst the tradtional ones vice versa.
That would require big tweaks. Scorpions aren’t the best “siege” units either in terms of damage against buildings. And they have high damage output against all military which is usually something you try to avoid for trash units. Trash units most of the time only counter a few opponent unit types and lack in utility otherwise.
They’re already kinda trash unit since they only cost food to upgrade. Maybe just remove their gold cost and increase the wood cost. Stats should stay the same, since they are receiving a nerf in the new patch, with villagers receiving a +3 attack bonus against them