Update 14.3853

great post agree with all, kinda exceot fir heavy fort card as it is standard amongst most civs

The lack of a damage penalty against villagers was literary a core part of the unit design for the [Bow Rider], but then it was reduced to 0.75x, and now it is completely gone.

I truly hope that this change gets reverted in the next update or as soon as possible, where they will be more effective against villagers than most cavalry units as they were intended to be by Ensemble Studios when the WarChiefs expansion was added to the game year 2006.

1 Like

For Malta, if sentinels have a 13 range now, shouldnt they get a range of 15 in age 4 with their 45% card sent?

I tried this out but they had 13 range for normal attacks and 14 for their rocket attack. I dont know if its just a display error but with their special card sent, they should normally get a range increase of 2.

1 Like

I didnt see the fix to out of memory included in the official changelog. Did it get fix or not?

they are independent attacks so 1 doesnt lead to another, however i do agree that this was likely an oversight, shame as testing would have probably brought this to light and will have to wait to next patch. A difference of only 1 range between irfle attack and rocket attack is to marginal to rely upon.

1 Like

I feel like they are trying to buff wall guns with that since now it caps out at 19.5 range which means they can fire from a safer distance with all of their buffs.

But wall guns is still so very clunky which makes it useless

I also think its probably safer not to give them extra range on that battle bluster since I still want wall guns to be useable and with it the battle bluster outranges skirms and giving them the ability to outrange skirms with a siege attack is probably overdone

image

1 Like

wait how are youre stats like that, mine had imperial with all arsenal upgrades only 14 range

Wall guns and an impractical amount of walls, they really could just make this card better rather then try to change the unit stats

3 Likes

3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Xbox on PC wont update the new patch on AOE3. FIX please

I’m totally ok with nerfing China, Sweden and Otto into oblivion. They have been at the top for so long, and someone has to be at the bottom, why not them?

2 Likes

The update from Microsoft Store Is our, now you can play from Xbox (?

1 Like

Nice update, I like the buffs to sentinels though 5 HP more is a little low it is a 2 pop unit after all. I’m surprised they still haven’t made the card where walls buff sentinels useable.

1 Like

Yes, they fixed it quickly and thanks to all of them and you, and playing on Game pass pc

2 Likes

Maybe because Ottos have been at the bottom since 2007/2008 till the rework? And although they are good, they are not at the top like Sweden or China or Italy. People just get used to whine about ottos and nerfing them to obliviom won’t change the attitude.

1 Like

eh buddy what games were you playing pre-de? otto was broken beyond belief in TAD.

Heck haud and otto was so broken that it was banned in all tourneys and was basically the reason that the ESOC-patch was created.

edit: otto cannon ff was even meta for a while in early DE before swedes were fully explioted

8 Likes

Fortunately, it isn’t a matter of opinion. In most ELO brackets, they are the number one most commonly picked civ. And, they often have a winning percentage within the top 4. This is simply a matter of statistical fact, there is nothing to debate or question.

1 Like

they need a buff in my opinion but otto grens need a nerf :slight_smile:

Yes, they are the most picked, and it doesnt bother me. They are fairly easy civ to play, also beginner friendly with tanky janissaries so it makes sense why they are picked the most, especially at low Elos. They are at top4 but not at the top, also top5-10 is fairly closer to Ottomans so when it comes to data reading, Ottos are nowhere near to top2-3 civs.

1 Like

What? Ottos have always been to tier.

2 Likes

There will be no military improvements for Aztecs in treaty?