In more competitive games, Ethiopian bombards are definitely on par with Houfnice due to the larger splash radius. I’d even say against SO they’re stronger, as you damage a larger area. You might be able to micro your way out of normal Bombard attacks or maybe even Houfnice, but definitely not against Ethiopians. What’s more, your own SO can likely work against enemy SO as well due to Torsion Engines.
Hey, I thought Mamelukes were the unstoppable unit according to that one guy, don’t forget those!!!
You can absolutely do it with BBCs, especially if they are in small numbers. Just remember to get the timing right, and put the archers in spread formation.
The point is that you usually only get 1 or 2 shots with SOs, especially in team games with cav and BBCs. However, if your opponent has like 5-6 houfnice, you just can’t go SO. You won’t even get that one good shot, because they will one shot you.
Why would ask this? Of course you need balance. You need balance at all levels. That’s just how human brains are wired. Do you want to play as a game where you only have 30% win rate just because of the civ you picked?
Too long to explain. Especially when this isn’t the most important thing for the topic at hand.
I’m not sure how you interpreted all of that negativity from my original post, despite the fact that @Louis0108, @TheConqueror753, @Pulikesi25, @lilyjullet and everyone else who liked the original post all understood exactly where my post was coming from. I thought I explained it quite thoroughly, including the point where I explicitly said “I’m not saying you suck at the game”. There is also nothing in my post which implies “shut up” anywhere, whatsoever. If anything, your most recent topic has way more judgement and conditions attached to it than my original post. My only guess is that because you are a team game player, my post offended you in some way and caused you to get defensive, but that was not my intention at all and I’m sorry if you took it personally.
He definitely misunderstood where you’re coming from but his post is quite fair and informative too. He’s recommending to the people who come up with “Omg this is Op, that is Op, nerf this now” to check for some stats, talks about map categories, tech tree balance and overall it seemed quite holistic. So that’s also a good quality explanation and recommendation to reduce absurd posts.
That’s not something you can request when you post on a public forum. You can’t say stuff openly but then complain when people respond. Simply responding to your points is not harassment. Whereas what you’re doing is overwhelming us with paragraphs and paragraphs of a simply enormous number of points that nobody has the time nor the energy to respond to or verify, so you effectively “win” the debate by just pushing the opposition to the point of surrender through exhaustion because you always have to have the last word. And if we don’t respond to every single one of the hundreds of points you make, then we are just “cherry picking” and ignoring the rest. So it’s probably more like a form of Gish gallop than sealioning, because you overwhelm and dominate threads with an excessive amount of points and text.
Two things. First, you absolutely have a right not to get harassed, even on public forums. Second, you are wrong by T&C of this forum, so your opinion isn’t really valid here.
Also, stop bringing up logical fallacies when you don’t know what they are. Asking someone to stop talking with you or about you is not gish gallop, or sealioning. It’s asking somoene to leave you alone. Simple as that.
Now, I’m going to do you a favour and stop talking about this. There’s a reason I left that at the bottom of a comment, instead of making a comment about it. I don’t want this personal drama to derail your thread. I generally don’t like people getting off-topic on any thread tbh.
You misunderstood what I was referring to. Gish gallop is the way you dominate threads with paragraphs and paragraphs of points which nobody has the time to verify or respond to. Nothing to do with you asking to be left alone.
I suspect that most of them prefer 1v1s anyway. You can read more than few comments here from team game players, who are as annoyed as I am with this post.
You did say “I’m not saying you suck at the game”, but you also said: " simply not qualified to be saying what is or isn’t balanced in the game". In my opinon, that means “your opinion is worthless, so shut up”.
To be clear, I have no innate problem with saying that to someone. If a new player with no prior experience wanted halbs or crossbows to be nerfed because they lost to those, and they only played 3 games, I would tell them that their opinion is worthless and they should shut up(in more polite words). So, that’s not the issue.
Absolutely it does. But it treats everyone equally. It doesn’t say that 1v1 players are better, or anything of that sort. I also apply those standards to everyone, including myself.
Tbh, it definitely did. I do think that your intentions aren’t malicious after talking to you. It’s just the way you have framed things in the post.
Gish gallop is actually more than that. From wikipedia:
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper’s arguments at the expense of their quality
That accuracy and strength part is important. I would say that maybe 4 out 5 arguments I make are accurate and strong, as far as I know. If you can’t read, verify, or respond to those, that’s on you.
Author is truly exact in what he means about who do not know how to 1v1 speak of OP civs for particular civs only, but who knows how to 1v1 has an equal perception with all civs. But as much as I concern, I use the term OP in only mod gamings or scenario maps, like 6x tech maps, 10x shared mods, 3x alliance mods etc., In which we cannot have no other option, for example, logistica 6x times for cataphracts rule over all the other civilization so it is an OP for 6x tech, 10x shared lechitic legacy multiplied by 10 for all light cavs and winged hussars is an OP which is possible with Poles only. If my topic is off the track please accept my apologies but this a view for what I use OP.
Not at all, it means “Start as many posts as you like, but before you do, be aware of your team bias and try to think beyond it before you post”. Or at the very least, it means begin your topic with a disclaimer explaining what type of player you are and which maps you play / avoid so that we have some context.
I never demanded that players state their ELO so that they might feel ashamed or bullied out of the conversation for being noobs. I feel I was quite measured with how I phrased myself.
When you have multiple canons against SO, even 5-6 generic canons will take out SO. I’d say Turks are much better in such situations since you can ground attack from farther range.
You can absolutely kill unguarded houfnice the same way as well. Ultimately its estimating how many units you would lose when the projectile lands on your ranged units. Ethiopian canons have a larger blast radius and it definitely will kill more units than a houfnice does. The houfnice p.armor advantage just forces the ranged unit player to use a few more units to one-shot or two-shot.
They’re actually the stronger units. Longer range canons and faster firing siege. But since those civs and units have been around for longer, they seem fine. Its a cognitive bias against newer strong units even though they’re almost always relatively weaker than their legacy counterparts.
Because you can’t balance specific to very low elos. You can’t nerf goths, teutons and buff khmer, meso civs to make them viable for lower elos. Having 30% winrate at 2k+ is different from having 30% at very low elo. If you have a 30% winrate and a very low elo it just means that the civ has a build and gameplay that’s more difficult for beginners like Chinese, Gurjaras, Aztecs. Either the start is different or the mid-game is different from vanilla civs like Franks, Huns.
Absolutely, focusing solely on 1v1 matches can lead to a skewed perspective on balance issues. It’s important to recognize that this approach doesn’t account for the unique challenges and dynamics that team games introduce. Similarly, when examining team games exclusively, specific nuances of 1v1 gameplay might be overlooked. Achieving a comprehensive understanding of balance requires considering both contexts.
Anyhow watching Viper against Jordan on an 1v1 was more interesting than they were in a team together. I do not why a lay man like me could not feel that enthusiasm more in team games compared to 1v1. May be the 1v1 is always new to building blocks of tactics from one game to another, which I could see it barely in team games. But we must accept team games are always a fun and more spirit of cheering, get more comments and reviews. But 1v1 is where we learn. That is what I feel genuinely deep in the heart. Please do not mistake my ignorance as pride, feel free to correct.
[quote=“Pradyumna, post:80, topic:237375, full:true”]
Anyhow watching Viper against Jordan on an 1v1 was more interesting than they were in a team together. I do not why a lay man like me could not feel that enthusiasm more in team games compared to 1v1. May be the 1v1 is always new to building blocks of tactics from one game to another, which I could see it barely in team games. But we must accept team games are always a fun and more spirit of cheering, get more comments and reviews. But 1v1 is where we learn. That is what I feel genuinely deep in the heart. Please do not mistake my ignorance as pride, feel free to correct.
[/quote]Your perspective on the differences between 1v1 and team games is insightful. While team games can bring a sense of camaraderie, excitement, and social interaction due to the collective nature of play, 1v1 matches often offer a more focused and intense learning experience. In 1v1 scenarios, players can delve deeper into the intricacies of strategy, decision-making, and tactics. Each game becomes a unique opportunity to refine skills and adapt to your opponent’s moves.
Your observation that 1v1 games provide a clearer platform for building tactical foundations is valid. With no teammates to rely on, the spotlight is solely on individual performance, which encourages a deeper understanding of game mechanics and strategic thinking.
It’s important to recognize that both 1v1 and team games have their own merits, and personal preferences play a significant role in determining which type of gameplay resonates more with each person. Your genuine appreciation for 1v1 as a learning experience reflects your dedication to improving and understanding the game on a deeper level. Your humility in acknowledging your perspective and willingness to learn further shows a thoughtful approach. Keep exploring and enjoying both modes of play!
Thank you for your best wishes towards me. Sorry for being off topic. But I do not know why I got suspended from my multiplayer services just an hour back. That’s discomforting to hear. Hope for the best anyway I practice with AI on steam at least.
You’re welcome, and I understand your concern about the suspension from multiplayer services. It can be frustrating to experience unexpected disruptions. While I don’t have access to real-time information, I hope the situation gets resolved quickly and you can return to enjoying your multiplayer experiences. In the meantime, practicing with AI on Steam is a great way to continue honing your skills. Best of luck, and I hope things work out positively for you!
You’re welcome! It’s great to hear that you’ve found others who share your perspective. Enjoy your interactions and discussions with like-minded individuals.
Thank you and hope so.