It seems devs didnt learn from AoE3 Lakota. They had to get walls ## ### ### unlike others have to wait until later ages to build them
I don’t think Mongols need walls BUT I would prefer an upgrade in feudal to make towers or emplacements cheaper. Mongols need vision. That’s their “wall” ingame, to know where the enemy is coming from and I think that would be fair if you have to get towers to make them cheaper. Not in dark age because then towerrush will be a bit to strong again.
I will link some discussion here Idea for a wall type building for the Mongols
What about mongols can build palisade wall after they build Khaganate Palace? They learned more about the benefits of settled life from the dependent civs LOL.
2 Likes
Instead of just palisade walls, how about something like movable wooden spikes like @ShaolinX12 suggested in the link I posted?
This would really fit the Mongol play style.
1 Like
That’s certainly an interesting idea, but I’m not sure if they have the times to create this mechanism
Yeah time would be an issue however I really liked Shaolin’s idea, it would be a very cool mechanism.
The lack of walls for Mongols can be worked around in 1v1, but it is a critical absolute game ending deficit in teamgames. One person can’t keep up with 3 other enemies at the same time, and this “quirk” of Mongols makes them nigh unplayable in teamgames as a result.
The irony is that they also hold one of the most destructive units for teamgames, the mangudai, which helps not with this and only promotes even worse gameplay.
Devs need to take a serious look at this civilization.
Just get rid of dark age tower rushing so that you may actually boost their outposts. The mongol outpost is meant to be the solution to the lack of walls, yet it functions exactly like any other civilization. This is a massive design flaw.
1 Like
Yes, they did the same thing as the Lakotas in classic AoE 3, they should be able to build walls at least in Imperial Age, like the Lakotas can do in 3DE…
Industrial age tho, so Castle age equivalent
Why did you play a nomadic civ with a huge power spike in feodal and castle (and also an ok imp age) and want to be like any other defensive civ ? Stop play this civ if you dislike his game play. Actually, the design is well done on this one, and I hope for another civ like this.
1 Like
The weakness which is heavily balanced around 1v1 is too big of a downside in teamgames which hasn’t been addressed. The suppoused solution which existed in launch was the cheaper Outposts, which got nerfed due to the strength of tower rushing. This needs to be addressed so the defensive properties of Mongols can be more appropriately utilized in teamgames.
The civilization is being held back by tower rushing. Mongol Outposts HAS to be stronger to compensate for lack of walls, the aspect of a nomad society is good and should be preserved, but it should ultimately be a tradeoff not simply a negative. It is a game afterall and Mongol should NOT be weaker than other civilizations.
Sure, in this case it would have to be in castles, symbolizing the Chinese Yuan Dynasty…
Homogenising design for the sake of balance is, in my opinion, damaging for the game.
It’s not like design only ever has a single solution to a given problem. It just requires more iteration.
Team games are a problem for balance because they’re inherently unbalanced at scale. 2v2 is more than twice a 1v1 with the combinations available. It takes a lot more effort for anywhere near the same benefit to balance (for any given change). This makes it tricky. But I still think homogenisation is only going to lessen the game’s appeal.
1 Like
It isn’t homogenisation. You’re not reading correctly.
I stated three times to enhance the Outpost which is Mongol’s defense. It currently functions like any other Outpost in the game. The removal for walls without making up for it in any meaningful way is not good design, it is a critical mistake.
Make the outpost useful.
With respect, I was just offering my general opinion. I wasn’t replying to you, as you’ve specifically and repeatedly requested in the past.
I’m not sure buffing Outposts is the best move either, but that’s a balance argument instead of a design argument. As such, I’m on shakier ground.
1 Like
It’s both arguments at once. It’s s design solution that incorporates balance.
The mongols were nomadic, no need for walls because they were always moving, or just conquered cities with walls. Gameplay wise the mongols already have alot of forgiving features, moving buildings, double production, pastures, starting tc near gold to make them unraidable etc. They absolutely do not need walls.
1 Like
I thought I’d commented on this thread before, but it turns out I commented on a similar thread because it’s been covered several times.
Anyway, I’ve been playing Mongols lately, and it’s indeed frustrating not being able to build walls. Although in a sense, there’s a big problem with Mongols if they were allowed to do so:
1).- Too much stone
Normally, you can’t easily give a civ that much free stone for construction, or they’ll end up building hundreds of Keeps on the map or infinite walls.
-
Mongols in Post-Imperial, through trade and the destruction of buildings, can obtain huge amounts of stone that other civilizations would only dream of. The trade-off is that they can’t use it to build buildings.
-
The French are the exception because they are conditioned: They need a 3rd Age Landmark to do this, and on top of that, they spend a lot of time accumulating stone, a factor that could have been used for other resources and ultimately defeated them if they don’t plan well.
2.- Bombard Towers for Mongols are already a problem.
Currently, it’s already a problem that a civ that “historically” wasn’t specifically known for its defenses (because Karakorum had them, but outside the capital, the rest of the Mongols lived in tents) can build hundreds of towers and give them “Siege Cannons” en masse, something that is currently used by Mongols when they are allowed to acquire too much stone through looting or trading in the Post-Imperial era.
-
I understand that they were given this for balance when the game came out and all the civs had elements in common; But now that we’re looking for historicity (Templars without firearms), they could very well remove them or give them a more appropriate technology, perhaps a Honeycomb rocket, with less damage or something like that.
-
Now, I might be exaggerating, and the real problem is the fact that a Small outpost has a cannon with area damage, which is odd, since not even the cannons in the game (bombard, culverin) have that effect. I think the AoE effect should be removed; the amount of damag (70)e is fine.
3.- Differences between Team and 1v1 gameplay.
Right now, there’s a certain imbalance with the Mongols. In 1v1, they’re very vulnerable, but in Teams, they can hide behind allied walls and be one of the best civs for teams.
- If they’re given walls, for 1v1, they’ll be Top S (no problem).
- If they’re given walls, for teams, they’ll be invincible. Top SSSS++++++ (that would be a bad balance).
In this regard, I find one detail: They’re only bad “if” they’re given walls normally. Like the French, the walls could be subject to “Conditions.” I’ll give my suggestion in another post.
1 Like
My suggestion was as follows:
Karakorum walls / Chinese masonry / Sedentary Life.- (IV) You can finally create walls. But everything changes:
- All your stone is converted to gold and added to your current gold. Your stone goes to zero (0).
- Your villagers must collect stone to earn it.
- Stone Trading, Stone Loot, now gives “extra gold”.
- Market now can trade stone, with taxes of course.
- Need yurts to support populations (1 yurt: 15 population).
- Ovoos no longer collect stone. The White Stupa now gives constant gold.
- Improved technologies and extra units now need the same amount of stone as “1.5 extra gold”.
In this way, they could have Stone walls without overusing the extra stone, and to be fair, it would be in one of the later ages (III or IV). I could be wrong, but hey, this is just an idea for a new technology.