We should reduce the line of sight for catapults and ballistas so they’re more reliant on other units in your army. I’m sick of overpowered siege weapons.
They would still be good against fortifications but this makes scouts more useful/necessary late game.
I don’t support this and I think many will agree. Catapults are already easily desotryed by cavalry in the iron age. The fire rate of helepolis’ will be nerfed so they won’t be able to fire as fast so they are also more easily desotryed by cavalry. Helepolis’ are also easily countered by enemy catapults.
I think they will follow Upatch changes to siege. That means the Helepolis will fire much slower but also do more damage. Stone-throwers and Catapults will have faster projectiles but they’ll do less splash damage.
Catapults can be countered with cavalry, but the problem becomes when you mix catapults and ballistas. There’s very little you can do to counter than combination if you’re playing with a civ that has weak siege. Perhaps the decreased rate of fire and blast radius help. We can’t really say before we get to try out the beta.
It’s been a while, but I remember playing matches back in the old days and discovering that massed catapults could take out any size army of cavalry. I haven’t played a serious MP match since Upatch though, so maybe things are better since it was rebalanced.
I find it unrealistic that catapults alone could be responsible for killing so many foot troops when they weren’t used that way in real life. Having catapults capable of killing defenses AND everything else is over powered. They should only be good at killing walls and towers mostly.
@Lithen777 said:
I find it unrealistic that catapults alone could be responsible for killing so many foot troops when they weren’t used that way in real life. Having catapults capable of killing defenses AND everything else is over powered. They should only be good at killing walls and towers mostly.
If you want realism, go play the Total War games. Age of Empires is a fun RTS which very badly approximates reality (humans/villagers don’t pop out of thin air on demand). I don’t think the game has to be historically and scientifically accurate to be enjoyable. And a remake must be appealing to new players and veterans alike, so a compromise must be reached.
@rlagore I agree, the struggle is to be able to strike a balance ^^
@rlagore said:
@Lithen777 said:
I find it unrealistic that catapults alone could be responsible for killing so many foot troops when they weren’t used that way in real life. Having catapults capable of killing defenses AND everything else is over powered. They should only be good at killing walls and towers mostly.If you want realism, go play the Total War games. Age of Empires is a fun RTS which very badly approximates reality (humans/villagers don’t pop out of thin air on demand). I don’t think the game has to be historically and scientifically accurate to be enjoyable. And a remake must be appealing to new players and veterans alike, so a compromise must be reached.
total war mixes turn based play.
total war is 3 years newer.
For its tech limitations, aoe is realistic.
As far as world conquering emperors are concerned, villagers do pop out of no-where. its a very macroscopic game.
Being realistic will attract new and experienced players alike.
It’s a fallacy to say that it wasn’t perfectly accurate but since it’s popular, people mustn’t want accuracy.
I’m sorry if history is frightening and complicated to you, maybe it’s you that should switch games.
Add the gates.
Add the rams.
Keep it real.
The Helepolis name must be changed by Scorpion.
Doueble post.