The game became an unbearable stalemate

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

4v4 matches when they take a long time become a more boring stalemate than they were before.

One of the goals of the update was to create a more fluid and aggressive game, but that’s not how it turned out.

In the late game, weak artillery is easily destroyed by ranged units that are being produced non-stop.

Age 4 has become like Age 2, siege weapons have lost relevance, so since all players produce many units in a long game, it is practically impossible to advance with weak artillery.

And historically, at the end of the Middle Ages, cavalry became tiny and powerless against artillery plus pike and shot, but in the game we have a strong cavalry and a bad siege, but it is difficult to advance anyway because it becomes an endless war of swords.

In short, with so many complaints on the forum it is obvious that the update that destroys the power of siege weapons and gives 30% to cavalry, that this update was a total failure.

No one asked for so much change in the essence of the game, I did not pay for this game.

Please fix this soon.

1 Like
2

That only happened to more western civilizations. The Russian cavalry was effective until the end of the 19th century where they kept defeating invaders like the Mongols, Manchus and the French (Napoleon).

1 Like
3

I think that only happens in medium/low leagues because you are not used to the changes and how to end games.

Mangonels with the university upgrade are very strong against ranged and bombards and rams can push buildings well.

Maybe the only problem is if an English player has wynguard archers, nothing else.

1 Like
4

My research has shown that the main technological changes that helped the Russians against the Mongols were: Firearms. Stone walls. New military organization. Flexible cavalry, not as good as the Mongols, but with bows and swords.

Basically, there were several factors that helped them to become stronger, but the introduction of firepower cannot be denied.

The Battle of the Ugra River in 1480 was fought by 60 thousand fighters on each side. Here is the table:

The Battle of the Ugra River in 1480
The Battle of the Ugra River in 1480950×344 41.5 KB

Firearms must have scared the Mongols a lot. It is to be expected that the Russians would have good cavalry, especially since they were on the periphery of the Mongol empire, but in this specific battle the percentage is small.

After this battle, the Golden Horde collapsed. Then Russia made a campaign against the Khanate of Kazan.

This is the percentage of the army’s composition of Russia and Kazan 1552:

Siege of Kazan in 1552
Siege of Kazan in 15521106×568 99.8 KB

Total Forces: Russia: 150 thousand Kazan: 40 thousand
Cannons: Russia, 150. Kazan: 15.

When I researched which European country had the BIGGEST artillery between the 15th and 19th centuries, the answer was “France and Russia”.

Firearms were essential for them to advance eastwards; those Siberian peoples had no firepower. And it is understandable that it is also necessary to have cavalry to cover a vast territory, Dragons serving as patrolmen and police force, but it was essentially the power of firearms and artillery that made the difference in the Russian advances towards the Hordes and what was left of the Mongol Empire.

5

In real history, it was the French cannons that defeated the English army and expelled them from the continent.

6

Well, that’s what historical documents are for.

I think we understand that this is an RTS with historical content, not a history simulator. If there’s something “too fanciful in sight” you could still look at it, but beyond that?

7

The springalds spam was really tedious. If the games don’t end I think these are more facts that confirm that the villager boom should be nerfed.

8

I agree, it should stay far from being a simulator.

However, the point is that Age IV should not change. I like it the way it was developed, I think they should reverse what they did with the Rus civ and go back to how it was created in the first concept.

The question is, why did the update make such drastic changes to siege weapons and library? Siege weapons falling to archers is like turning archers into anti-artillery weapons, which is not interesting. This leads players to not even bother to play properly, they will produce many archers and when convenient, use them as anti-artillery weapons and this is very bad, the game becomes slower.

And the players who love the man-at-arms and play Germany, how unfair, don’t you think? The cavalry already has an advantage in all eras, who doesn’t know that? How many games are finished with a quick cavalry attack in era 2, 3, 4… whatever, knights are strong units, giving 30% was totally absurd! Many people had to change the way they play. Players like certain units, and many who like to gather MAA choose the monument of the man-at-arms for the main town center.

In the historical war, the French only expelled the English because in battles the French began to use artillery, and even with a smaller army, these props could cause casualties from afar with the cannons. In the end, they won several battles, and the cannons also broke the English fortifications. The artillery made the difference, not the cavalry. It wasn’t the end of the cavalry, but it was the beginning of its decline.

So why in Age IV does the cavalry gain 10% more? It is already strong, it doesn’t need to be more. France is enough to magically heal itself, or the Byzantines with their super strong cavalry, it doesn’t need to have 30%, and the siege weapons should be more resistant to arrows.

1 Like
9

No thanks.

(post must be at least 20 characters)

3 Likes