Siege spam would completely counter this.
Disagree with this satement, it’s neither true nor makes it sense strategically.
Agree that we have more archer play in TGs as usually both flanks have to go archers. Cause there is no alternative. That is way more archer play than usually on 1v1s.
But that’s also just because 1v1s are dominated by knight plays.
siege is useless. you cannot produce them early enough or fast enough because xbow can be spammed from feudal age
and because the devs dumbed down the game and let people choose front or back, the xbow spammer is always backed by a cavalry spammer who has a completely safe boom
and the siege has no mobility and no ballistics. it’s the same trap strategy as when new players make towers to repel archers. the towers don’t move, so they just buy themselves a few extra minutes wasting all resources on useless things, and then their whole team dies because the siege/towers/castles cannot move to where they are needed
this forum is filled with people who play or watch some 1v1 where things like skirmishers or scorpions might do something, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what matters in normal size aoe2 games
you want to see less xbows and knights? then buff their counters, instead of trying to rework the entire game’s economy
just for argument sake:
just a as hypothetical example: imagine pikes went from 55hp, 4dmg, +22 cav, 1.0 speed to 65hp, 4 dmg, +30 vs cav, 1.2 speed and no bonus damage from xbows. and cost 30/20 instead of 35/25
do you seriously think players wouldnt make pikes in TGs anymore? when they 4 shot knights, regardless of upgrades, compared to 6 if you lack even 1 atk upgrade. and die in 13 shots from xbow instead of a mere 7
the problem is the unit, not the economy. when pikes are already a bad option in a 1v1, what chance do they stand in TGs. the economy doesnt need a rework, because that affects every UU, siege weapon, MAA (which we dont see anyway), petards, techs…
if you nerf gold income, you actually turn the games into much more boomy games, because it becomes so much harder to punish booming (because you just nerfed the hard counter to booming, ie siege)
Well if you look at my history you will see that I actually proposed buffs to counters for a very long time already.
Have you read the concept? Cause it is actually well stitued to exactly adress this issue. I don’t just nerf gold income. I change it up so Gold collection becomes even slightly more efficient with a low number of vills but less efficient with higher numbers.
I did this for a reason.
For siege you don’t need that much Gold income actually. Siege you usually don’t spam (except for some TG scenarios).
When i encourage for not using up Gold as fast and even increase the potential total gold income?
But yeah I’m open for ideas to buff the trash counters. I already proposed to increase spearman speed and change up skirms so they more “actively” counter archers (but less spears) with lower armor, faster firin and changes to the bonus damage. It’s also debatable if skirms could get just slightly more HP so they can function better as some kind of damage soaker like the other trash units and don’t get testroyed by cav as fast.
Ofc when buffing trash we need to think about civs like byz with strong trash bonusses and how this would influence their performance/gameplay.
And if we tallk about TGs the best way to reduce that Double Gold is probably still just a change to trade. So trade gives less Gold but also Wood and Food.
I quite like the idea that it actually solve the knight xbow + many other extreme play style that solely by gold unit. By limiting the peak of gold income it encourage people to use more different type of unit. It is actually make the game healthy and also good for new player
I think the downside can be separated into two parts. But actually they are the same thing
acceptance of current player since it foundamentially change the income rate of one resource which affect almost all current build. Which I can say it foundamentially become another game.
It limit the number of gold unit in the field. Therefore it limit some creative play style which solely relyed on gold, which can be good and can be bad
I feel like this change like the removement of runes and mastery in League of Legends which was not so accepeted by the community at first but eventually it is quite nice. But also this is a really dangerous move so maybe developer dare to do so? Idk
@PlumpDucklin Yes it would be a soft approach that will be easily accepted by community. Like giving Bohemians Spearman-line deals +25% bonus damage to non meta civ which do not play cav and xbow. Yes this is boring but it affect the least