Nothing to say if you are just stubborn like this. Not a healthy argument.
That’s hilarious. You got personal with me twice before I directly accused you of something. Now you call this “not a healthy argument” 11
If you have nothing to say, that’s fine. I realized that earlier when you kept rephrasing your argument as to make them seem consistent when they actually weren’t. You jumped from complexity of the game to complexity of the civs.
“Dodging projectiles” or “shield” mechanics of the Shrivamsha Rider might confuse those who are familiar with traditional AoE2, but it can be substituted with standard mechanics. Like, think about SR as Hussars with Berserk’s healing ability, which is good at killing archers and also shrugs off some damages, but eventually gets killed if too many archers, or get defeated by other melee units.
IMHO, I think it is not the ‘strange mechanics’ that really annoys PvP players, but their performance is good for the price. If SR costs 100 gold, nobody complains about it, and rather they say it should buff it because it is too weak compared to cost.
The devs who designed these weird units need to be removed from the position because their crazy brainstorms ruined the logical and authenticity of the game
This ability should be given to most of the heavy cavalry units. Recharge with move distance instead of time.
This ability should be removed because not only it does not suit the game, but also got a lot of weirdness. It is hard to explain why only Shrivamsha rider can dodge but other light units can’t dodge anything at all, and why this ability is rechargeable instead of permanent. We just should not have evasion stats in this game because evasion is affected by distance and speed which is too complicated and too hard to be balanced.
Folwark instant harvest
Folwark is the only thing can harvest resources instantly other than AEGIS which is a cheat code. Now we can see how bad and imbalanced the design is.
Farming includes all the progress of seeding, growing and harvest. People must not be able to harvest anything from seeds right away.
Ignore armor and reduce armor
The weapons that can ignore armor are usually blunt weapons, but Leitis are using lances
The ability to reduce target armor is a debuff that is completely unnecessary in this game. It can be replaced with higher attack or ignore armor. I don’t know how many of you want to see the abilities with burn damage, bleeding damage, reduce target hp limit, reduce target speed, reduce target range, etc in future patches.
In my case, what bothers me about the folwark is that it directly encourages a specific way of arranging your base.
I’ve always find it beautiful that you can place any building you want wherever you want, and the typical layout of houses and production buildings surrounding and encapsulating the farming economy emerges naturally as the player try to optimize his game. It’s not like “X building within Y tiles of a Z building has more HP”. You arrange your base whatever the way you want without direct incentives.
When I see polish bases it looks like one of those souless planned neighbourhoods. Artificial, unnatural.
The cost has very little to do with it, at least for me. I think the same is true for a LOT of people who complain about shrivamsha riders. The mechanic in of itself is extremely frustrating.
In some sense, sure. Shirvamsha riders can be replaced with something like huskarls or eagles as an anti-archer unit. However, Shrivamsha riders are an anti-projectile unit.
No standard mechanic can achieve what shrivamsha riders do. High pierce armour units like hukarls and ghulams are weak to ranged melee units like taxmen, gbetos, and mamelukes. They are also weak to mangonels. Shrivamsha riders are strong in all of these cases. Lastly, they are super strong against gunpower units. This is a weird combination of high pierce attacks, and melee attacks. However, they are also vulnerable to melee attacks in melee range.
That might be fine, as long as you give the kamayuk ability to all spear units. This was the biggest strength of spears historically.
In history, most of the heavy cavalries use charge.
Not every spearman can handle a super long lance. Look at the price of spearline and you will see that they are not the elite ones should have extra attack range
On the other hand, attack range is a standard game stats that have been accepted and balanced for long time, we don’t need to discuss it.
If you want to get historically accurate, each cavalry unit should take up 3 pop space, and way more resources than an infantry unit. Also, cavalry charge wasn’t really a thing. Horses were expensive to breed and maintain. So while you could charge with cavalry, it was usually wasting a fine horse. Make each knight cost like 200 gold and 300 food, and 3 pop space. Then they can get charged attack. That is, if you want to be historically accurate. Infantry on the other hand was dirt cheap to maintain.
But from a game balance perspective, knights are already OP. If anything, they need strong nerfs.
I actually think the Leitis’ Pure Damage armour class is a far more elegant feature than the Samurai’s Unique Unit armour class
I do want to get historically accurate but I am not extreme. You didn’t get my idea at all so let me explain to you. Hopefully you can stop talking about the nonsense such as “spearline should have extra range " or " knight should take more pop space”
The Charged Attack ability is very questionable in 2 ways.
1, Charged attack ability is recharged overtime and the units can use charged attack without moving.
2. Most of the heavy cavalries can use charged attack in history, why only Coustillier can charge attack in this game ? IMO, either give this ability to some other cavalries or just remove it.
I talked about Charged Attack ability in another post already and I can repeat it here.
I am sure the devs and players already knew that most of the heavy cavalries use charge attack in history, but we decided and agreed to not give OP knights such an ability or it will cause balance issue. I don’t see anything wrong so far. However, there is no point to bring a thing that we denied long time ago or we might get more crazy brainstorms in the future patches. In my opinion, new units are okay but new mechanics shouldn’t be implemented without thinking carefully.
I have replied in this thread before but I forget what I wanted to say, so I will start over:
- I agree that mechanics creep is a thing and it is bad in the long term
- However I think some mechanics are more “AOE2”-ish and does not differ TOO much from other mechanics
(e.g. EM6, EM7, EM10, EM11, and EM5 to an extent if Letis existed)
- For example, EM6 can be seen as a raw food bonuses at the end. It probably is still a new mechanic if you play as Pole, but not that different if you play vs Poles.
- I think adding that kind of mechanics once in a patch is fine:
- For PVE players, it is probably good to introduce some new mechanics to keep the game from too stale
- For PVP players, if you face that new civ, it does not differ too much if you don’t understand the mechanics (Poles? bigger Franks maybe). While if you play as that civ, for each civ there are tricks that you have to learn anyway (For each civ there are weird mechanics that you have to learn)
- Just for example, consider a new civ that has the bonus:
- wood collect rate is 25% faster in some radius around the mill
It is quite weird bonus, but if I play against that new civ I probably won’t really feel it, and would just look like a Celt bonus to me.
- wood collect rate is 25% faster in some radius around the mill
- I think the problematic mechanics are that you don’t know how it works if you play against it:
- EM9. The rider requires an entirely new way to deal with it. Same as EM1, EM2, EM8
- EM12, now I need to learn how to separate the units if I play against it.
- I agree that these kinds of mechanics should be avoided if possible. These are really annoying to learn. It feels like they are adding another “common” units (in the sense that they composes the main army) while niche that only one civ can use them.
This would be something really interesting if applied from the beginning. One could make a knight a hard-to-get (hence, elite) unit without making it insanely expensive. Imagine an elephant that costs 5 population but takes down a building in 2-3 hits. It’s too late for that game, though.
Maybe you should add units changing class after they die to this list. I played as the Bulgarians against my brother a couple months ago, and the Konnik brought him a lot of rage.
EDIT: This post was meant to be originally for the Unique castles for every civ thread…
This is not a good way to design the game imo.
It’s like a minigame where the player interacts with a mechanic for himself without any relevance to the game with the opponent. It artificially attempts to make the game more complex and intresting, when in reality it only gives a unnecesary layer of steps to get to the same result.
In the case of the folwark the player loose the safeness of farming near the town center, so that’s something relevant there. Although just for the first few farms and still doesn’t justify its inclusion.
I barely watched any gampley, so I may be getting things wrong, but I think AoE4 went along that route with the chinese tax collectors, rus hunters (or that thing you build next to forests), delhi schoolars…
what does HW stands for? if its hussite wagon, it still lets damage through doesnt it?
You’re right. But OP consider them as same mechanic. Ram and mangonel absorb 100% damage from defensive buildings and give protection in 1 tile. HW absorbs 50% damage from all projectiles and gives protection depending on the position of HW.
It does differ a bit (Poles are not the same as Gurjaras food bonus) but not differ too much.
I think Poles folwark strikes the balance actually - more risky farms for slightly more rewards.
And even if it is just some deviations, it is something fresh than having to place farms literally the same every game. In some sense it is like Chinese start - at the end it is always 2 vill headstart but the “different” opening feels less stale.
The issue with introducing new mechanics, at its core, is that there are simply way too many civs to study. There are 40+ civs right now and you have to learn all the tricks. Actually even if they do not have new mechanics, they just play so differently.
As a 2k1 player, I didnt even know Bulgarians can go CA until a few weeks ago. There are too many tricks with so many civs.
So I think a fix would be not adding new civs. Which is obviously bad. I think we should move to add new civs but that they do not feel too differently than other civs, at least in opponent’s eyes.
What does “not extreme” mean? Spearmen attacking between each other in a formation was far more common than knight charges in history. When is history important to you? What is the criteria?
Let me repeat what I said. Cavalry was expensive. Horses were expensive. That’s not extreme, that’s basic history.
Why only kamayuks can attack through units in this game? either give it to other spear units, or just remove it. Technically, ghulams can do a similar thing too, but you get my point.
If you want to give it to new UU cavalry units, that’s cool. I’m for that. Heck, I wrote that in the post. If you want to give it to knights, that’s a whole different story.
That’s an interesting perspective. It is true that such new mechanics will only frustrate beginner players who aren’t familiar with it yet.
But it does feel distinctly ahistorical. Like, did poles historically have farms that harvested instantly? And it suffers from the other problems I mentioned in the post.
The way I see mechanics is like interlocking puzzle pieces. Think about gold and trash units, working as counters. It is an elegant puzzle set which meshes with each other to form a beautiful picture. So are well-designed civs. Britons, for example, have several standard bonuses which in conjunction makes them a great archer civ.
These new mechanics feel like puzzle pieces that don’t mesh fully, leaving out holes in the picture, or pushing out of the picture. One civ by itself might be fine, but when you consider the game with 42 civs, the picture is ugly. You can even extend this to a mathematical view, but you get this gist.
@SMUM15236 and I had a conversation about it. Here: