Stop trying to make it AoE2!

Why do all civs have to be able to achieve all win cons?

It just doesn’t make sense to me why this is a MUST in a civ’s design.

As I see it, multiple win-cons only adds to the diversity of the civs you can have and hoe they can be designed. Some good at war, others at sacred sites, some at wonder defense.

Sure, a civ might be a “wonder” civ. But the fact that you can pick a different one each match, along with the new map preferences would be a really solid diversity, especially when more are added

Too bad that even with spears he would’ve died. Spears are not good counter to lancers tho on that map it would’ve been better but with his skill level the result would been same

There is one fundamental problem with this.

If you go for wonder victory it means imperial age victory meaning you need to be able to control part of map and have map presence and able to defend.

Wonder is more like to break the stalemate and forcing opponent to find way to push in

You’re perfect reason why this is stupid. Its a video game and its FAR FROM REALISTIC SITUATION. Stop trying to force “accuracy” on multiplayer where it makes less and less sense especially when game is not realistic.

Buildings dont just appear from thin air yet alone the fact that it takes for ever to build something with 1 worker.

Top of that keeps require lots of wood too and not just stone. Not single keep is made out of pure stone it contains wood and metal. So where is this part from repair costs?

Literally… Freaking game “but i want it to be realistic because aoe2 does it” when its million miles away from being realistic. AOE2 is not realistic game and neither is AOE3 or AOE4 so stop trying

Okay, so if the argument is that mulitple win-cons are a large part of why heavy amounts of asymmetry won’t work, but a wonder is essentially a “fail-safe” for stalemate games.

Then doesnt that make there only 2 win-cons, with the 3rd being a “just in case”

And again, it still doesn’t answer the question WHY, or HOW multiple won-cons create a need for pseudo-symmetry in civs.

I think the issue is that when you’re high elo, there’s a lot of back and forth happening in your games. You are always planning, observing, replanning, reacting to your opponents etc.

At low elo, what happens is both players sit in their base for 45 minutes until they have max pop, and when they have their army ready they face off once and maybe twice and that’s it.

Now imagine one guy at low elo making 150 fire lancers and then simply burning down 4 landmarks with it. At low ELO you don’t scout it out. You just train a few of every unit and just attack. So this gives the 150 FL’s an easy win.

You might say " Please learn to play the game properly instead of nerfing Fire Lancers."

But most people aren’t here to learn to be better. It’s either fun for them, or it’s not. If not, they’ll complain and leave. And them leaving isn’t good for Microsoft.

Lets have an axample. Because i’m trying to understand where is the limit.

  • We have 8 units in order of strength. We have low level players who play for fun.
  • You nerf unit 8 because it’s not fun for low elo players.
  • Unit 7 becomes the next. And someone comes and complains about it.
  • You nerf unit 7 … and it goes on and on.
  • It does not matter wether low level (play for fun) on high levl (play to improve) everyone likes to win.
  • And if 2 low level players play one wins and the other comes to the forum to complain about the Op strat the opponent used. And it gets nerfed because MS does not want to lose players.

So imo you have more unsatified players if you go this way. Amongst the casuals you want to keep.

And thats why I said. Rework and not “op”.

Everytime someone is suggesting nerfs they should literally be forced to start with their elo rating because this gives readers very clear indicator for their skill level and this way players can be help and explained the situation.

Literally elo should be right after our forum names.

Top of that there is few individuals that are moaning strategies or units being OP because they dislike them. Some of them have even openly admitted that only reason why they post “this OP” things is because they want the thing go away and not be part of game. Which has nothing to do with balance.

When FL was as they were. I asked anyone who was complaining about FL to gimme their IGN so I can see their replay and explain what went wrong and how to prevent it. How many IGN’s I got? 0 absolutely 0. Only IGN that I got was my own game where I went FL and then someone who gave me that started blabbing so much against them even tho opponent had well over 3-4 minutes to react to my FL play and I run past multiple towers and through everything and even when I was at opponents base taking landmarks down there was no reaction whats so ever for 1-2 mins from either of my opponents.

When I pointed this out I got response “blablbalb al irrelevant”

Its clearly not working for microsoft. Game has been in slow and steady decline. Each patch takes away civ identities and makes them similar or same civs with little variety. No one is going to pay xx euros to play the game when there is actually only 1 civ. Lot of it comes down too fast launch of game etc.

Lets face it. Majority of players out in world are PvE players those come and go. They want to do AI games, skirmishes etc. Some do move to PvP and its good to have large player base but alienating those who are AOE4 fans to make it more appealing on AOE2 players is bad idea. Especially when its some AOE2 pros pushing the changes behind scene and quitting the game after they get stomped by better RTS players and go back to AOE2

I love the changes. A little iffy on removing torches graphically but think of using swords etc as killing the workers or chopping ropes etc. Having something other than siege counter siege is great for game balance. As currently late game is awful to play with people making armies of only siege units.

Also, I’m not too worried about Rus getting stone wall access. They have to make an otherwise awful landmark in order to access them. Seems fine to me. The civs still feel plenty different in my opinion

But there is already counters for siege? Why don’t you use them? And not talking about other siege units.

Making armies of siege? In what mode? 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4? If its issue for 3v3,4v4 then its not really issue unless all players go pure siege. Which only could work if you can choke point your opponent to attack in small area but otherwise nope wont work.

I can tell you after all the games I have played 2v2. I have seen maybe 10 times someone going pure siege and this was even before the first nerfs. Did it work? Few times and other times it didn’t.

No! i dont agree with this one! This was a needed change that its inspired of aoe3 , not aoe2 . Siege is much healthier now and FINALLY AFTER all this time , THE GAME is finally clean without siege spam .

It looks much better now.

Siege was not good , in imperial age you could just spam siege . I can see you are a chinese player? Did you seriously enjoyed using NOB spam dude?!

Siege was cheese and this change alone just makes the game 200% better.

Because patches are meant to be minor changes and updates are meant to be LARGER updates! its logic!

This change feels good too , because now stone is a much valuable resource , in aoe3 you also needed to pay both wood and a small gold tax to repair a building , depending on what building it is it cost less or more gold and in most of the cases it only costed wood , so this new aoe4 change is not an aoe2 change , its something that has been here for a long while .

The only thing that i dont like is RUS having stone walls , because it makes the game and the civilization less unique , since the main asymetry of rus was that they didnt had stone walls.

Every other aspect of the update is fantastic.

Any of them (1v1, 2v2 etc). Literally springalds and culverins were the counters to siege meaning units that do bonus damage. However, since they are in fact also siege, whoever gets a high mass first wins. The counter system is supposed to be about reacting to what units your opponent is making. Trying to counter with the same type of unit doesn’t work because one player will have a numerical advantage.

Chinese for example make nest of bees (siege) and bombards (siege). Bombards in the current patch beat springalds and nest of bees beat infantry etc. They can also use grenadiers (not siege) but you get the point. You shouldn’t be able to make they same type of units regardless of what your opponent makes and expect to win.

Mass siege never worked in 1v1 and now Im talking about pure siege. Going for 10 siege is not mass siege. Its only 30pop of units which I most commonly seen / saw.

Horses deal with siege insanely well. AS someone who has played through almost all patches as chinese and played with siege and without siege Im fairly certain how to kill siege without siege :slight_smile:

I play siegeless china and been playing for +200 games with 65% winrate and I can tell you now. You dont have to commit to siege to beat siege.

Bombards dont beat springalds outside of chinese arsenal because they got 12 tile range (even in this scenario springalds are much easier to micro and move back and forth to snipe one bombard and run away but you need to micro 2-3 bombards to kill springald and if you got 10 then its 1000x more micro taxing than controlling blob of springalds back and forth), but china has no imperial age siege weaponry like culverin, 13.5 or 13 tile range springald or super strong trebs.

Mangonels / Nob do not do anything against cavalry as long as you know how to pick the fight. Hand cannoneers blow up siege instantly as long as they get into range.

the big balance problems aren’t really about tweaking numbers. too many of the tech trees and landmarks are just inadequate

the game is “balanced” around a flaw where the only timely counter to some armies is outpost spam. so that means the game will never work outside 1v1

if you make static defense to beat longbows, then the longbows go 2v1 your ally. or both players are forced to preemptively make defense, and opponents can just invest in economy

and then if the game progresses beyond that, then whoever has the strongest cavalry gets a huge advantage because spearmen can only play defense for 1 player, nor for the whole team

I myself am a PvE player who gets only a few hours every weekend to play.

But I don’t think you need to be a competitive player to understand balance. You need to have a good understanding of the game.

The Fire Lancer was a nice unit. It’s only OP in huge mass. If I was going to balance it I would have put a build limit on it instead of making it weaker. That way you get to keep its uniqueness while at the same time preventing an enormous mass of it.

The most recent DLC of AoE3DE has introduced the Polish Winged Hussar unit. Its charge is so strong that it kills everything, but you can only make 8 of them for every royal house (something like a sacred site) you control. And they are expensive.

I think devs should look at how other Age games are balanced as well, not just AoE2.

They really don’t until now in pup where they actually deal bonus damage. Watch the Viper vs Marine Lord from the other day, they were worthless vs clock tower siege because they died to grenadiers/nest of bees faster than they could destroy anything. Hopefully horsemen dealing bonus damage fixes that and forces actual horsemen counters (spearmen) on to the battle field to protect the siege

Do you have link for the video? So I watch right video.

They deal bonus dmg already. If you take head on fight with siege which I assume happened but might be wrong. Ofc you gonna get killed. I got my 30-40 lancers completely obliterated by streltsy when I tried to flank 3 mangonels. None of the cavalry was able to reach them. Why? Because Rus had vision over my flank. This is the reason why I go imperial palace always, because it gives me so much vision around my base and im safe from raids and if opponent is aggressor, I know exactly what they’re doing and I can move around to take perfect engagement and out play my opponent.

Spears don’t protect siege in any form. No matter what you think. In my last game I played against english that had spears and cross bows. I had like maybe 30 lancers or so (might be off with numbers). English attacked and had like 15-20 spears and like 30-40 crossbows. Should fight well against right? Nope. I used like 10 lancers to engage front while main force was behind in stealth forest and I flanked all the crossbows and killed them. Won the engagement 100-0. Next time english pushed I had my previous lancer group already moved to side of opponents base just waiting while was massing more units in front and moment he moved out I moved all my like 20-30 lancers to his base and destroyed his whole economy and he couldn’t do anything.

Even when he had multiple towers, white tower and so on. Do you know why? Because heavy cavalry is so strong and it will be insanely strong in next patch. There is no other counter than going lancers/knights yourself.

So. Tell how much are you willing to commit of your army supply to protect siege that cant be protected well enough to justify even making them when you can go pure lancers and kill everything?

All I’m saying is that the way the game is supposed to work is that if your enemy masses a unit, in this case let’s say player 1 is massing siege. Player 2 is supposed to make units that counter player 1’s units, so in the new patch player 2 would make horsemen because they now deal bonus damage to siege. In this situation it would be a good idea for player 1 to make spearmen to protect his siege from player 2’s horsemen.

Whether or not that actually works is up to the balance team to solve but units being countered by a different unit that is in turn countered by something else is how the game is supposed to work.

The previous problem was that while horsemen were somewhat effective against siege, they didn’t deal bonus damage and therefore weren’t a true counter. Only springalds and culverins actually delt bonus damage thus breaking the counter chart

They do get bonus? Torch dmg 16/20 + 20 vs siege. So yeah.

I think they should keep the torch animation against siege at least. They could even remove the range; apply charge bonus and make the anti-siege damage stats exactly the same as the melee damage of each unit, but I see no reason why they remove it entirely.

BTW now it makes the “poof” death animation of sieges even more stupid.

1 Like

That is one area in which we could be more like AoE 2, haha. At least there trebs have a nice animation when falling apart, instead of AoE 4’s “lose molecular cohesion” poof.

1 Like