Siege of Kaifeng
Its hard to make justice to the Jin prowesses with the bows when the Mongols (who massively outclassed the Jin in mobile warfare) and Chinese (who used crossbow volleys to great effect agains tthe Jin) are right next to them
They always needed to look to be quite a bit less great than those two
Good change. It will make Fast Castle equivalent bewteen Chiken and dear maps.
Great change. Pity they didn’t restore the +5 carry Aztecs.
Good change, but traction trebuchet still lack of resistance against range units. They instant die VS few hand cannoneers.
As Hera told. 2 buffs was not necessary. First buff was enough.
Against hand cannons, traction trebs (115 hp, 8 PA) take 13 direct hits to kill and can retreat if needed (unlike trebs). For comparison, BBCs (80 hp, 5 PA) take 7. Other ranged units tend to cap out at 10 damage, so traction trebs aren’t taking much damage from them. I don’t see any issue with hand cannons being able to tear through wooden siege weapons with reasonable effectiveness, but I don’t see ranged units as a particularly serious threat to BBCs, let alone traction trebs, unless they’re left unescorted (in which case you deserve to lose them)
As I understand it, once massed, traction trebs could easily destroy enemy siege equipment (including BBCs) and deal notable damage to blobs of enemy units. And they have the mobility to retreat if needed.
Considering they replace the standard trebuchet, I compared to that one. And standard trebuchet are very resistant against HC.
Maaan what is this??? Just give them Bracer already! Not like they can get Arbs anyway.
(Yes I know the Kamandaran buff is a good one. Don’t think it will skyrocket their winrate or anything but.)
I rly don’t like most of these buffs. Power creep continues.
No need to go out to detail, it won’t change anything.
I guess I shouldn’t even be venting then. But disappointment remains.
In this case you can also avoid to post anything if you are not able to explain your statement.
Im more disappointed about cry baby posts
Yeah, really bad change. I’m wondering if the devs who approved this even know what a church rush is. And if they do, why make an OP, hard to counter, cheesy strategy even more OP?
Makimg Persians be in a better state than back in DE release when they were absurdly dominant is just a sign that power creep is out of control
Love most of the changes except buff to Elite Conqs without a nerf to their castle age version. This will make them more dangerous and scalable in Nomad and other fc uu maps.
It was nerfed twice - reduced attack on scorps as well as reduced discount on scorps. Top civ across elos is just a low elo militia line play issue. Just like how Goths received 3-4 buffs despite being a top-10 civ for lower elos in the past, Romans can’t be nerfed any further if they have to remain viable.
Lobbying was for buffs specifically on Janissary, so not necessarily.
You got a lot of love this patch with huge nerfs to Wu and Shu, so I guess there’s no need to complain even harder.
Are they gone? No? Then the complaining will continue until I cannot see them on the civ select screen.
No amount of complaining is going to permanently remove any existing civ from the game.
Indians are “gone”
I think the 3K need to get a faceloft alike Hindustanis personally
Indians are merely renamed to Hindustanis. If that’s what you are after, a mere change of civ name and uu, then sure it could happen someday.
They also received multiple balance changes and overhauls, to the point where the two civs barely resemble one another.
Let’s test that theory, shall we…
Well that’s not an issue, cause I would like the three kingdom “forces” removed from aoe2.
It would be nice and very helpful that the devs add a note for each buff or nerf, especially if it’s a big change; explaining what is the intention behind the change. Similar to what they do with AoM patch notes.
That could create a better understanding and, at least, one way channel communication with the community.
