What China needs next in the PUP

I don’t know which school you went to take math courses but its pretty simple 190/28 = 6.7 vs 170/28 = 6.071

So its always 7 hits. Also early knight got 3 armor as baseline so it wont matter what the results are without upgrades. It always ends up 7 hits even with the hp reduction.

I went to the school that taught me how to read.This game has this thing called armor on heavy units? And in game tooltips instruct me that “if a unit hits for 10 dmg and the unit being struck has 2 armor the result dmg is 8dmg taken.” (paraphrase).

So… I’ll let you catch up mr 2v2 smfh

I clearly see that But lets play a ball game if the HP is lowered to 170 which I have nothing against. Heck nerf early knights as much as needed. The results won’t change. They just steam roll over you and moment you have to commit to spears it becomes just defensive survival battle. Cavalry just keeps running away and not picking the fight and moment they hit castle they just steam roll over you or got massive advantage by having all resources safe and been able to do what they want.

But in all honest if I was asked heavy cavalry should be nerffed to ground harder than chinese siege and grenadiers combined.

Also it wont matter if I play 2v2 or 1v1 result would still be the same, but I would be enjoying game less in 1v1=) Or do I hear good argument coming “prove it”

There are ppl in all types of games that are pro at 2v2 3v3 4v4 etc team games but they can’t play 1v1 in said games. I dont trust your lack of PROVEN experience in 1v1.

In 1 v 1 spear/horseman is a decent comp vs knight archers ASSUMING 2 things.

1. Knights haven’t reached critical mass
2. Archers haven’t reach critical mass

Resource for resource it’s a whomever has the better unit management takes fight. Something like 9 to 10 archers plus 6 knights vs 15-18 spear plus 5 to 6 horsemen.

You see in 1v1 the maps are smaller and typically easier to wall off choke points AND unlike team games you have to field your own support units. And your support units are slow so it forces some engagements you may not want but you have to take.

Depending on the eco behind these armies any of the two compositions can force the issue.

If it only requires 2 spears to challenge 1 knight you go from needing 15-18 spears vs that 6 knights down to 10-12!! That’s a big deal. Huge deal.

60% health, 70% damage and 20% range reduction are no small nerfs dude. We are talking about over-nerfing a unit from top to trash, for a 1000 resource unit. Make sure you understand what over-nerfed means.

So what is the real China’s problems? Their infantries, ranged infantries, cavaries are all mediocre, can’t stand their ground cost effectively with other civs. Their only saviors were sieges which are now also gone. That’s the real China’s problem.

Its funny how how you talk about experience from 1v1, yet you’ve advertised that you only do BBQ / TR. So I wonder are you the one who is lacking experience?

This also applies to TG’s and it has way bigger snowball effect than it has in 1v1. If player is playing with duo partner and is in discord then they have massive advantage but if player like me who plays with random allies and ping is only way to quickly communicate it takes my ally usually lot more to react so I have to compensate that. Also if one of your army is out of position even for 5 seconds it can mean that game is completely lost which happens quite lot. (Not saying it can’t happen in 1v1 because it can, but the snowball affect in 2v2 is much greater)

For example: Hill and Dale. My ally went for spears / longbow comp which essentially is fine but it requires player to position the units in such way that they can quickly respond. My allies choice was to try flank upcoming attack which resulted him being extremely late for the fight and because of this opponent got keep up to my face, because I had to wait my ally and I took fight bit faster than I wanted because I wanted to stop keep but keep got up and I managed to get out with half of my lancers while my ally lost everything and fight snowballed from there even tho we defended BBQ/TR rush easily with no dmg taken and opponent being a lot behind economically / tech wise it still resulted our loss.

Yes same thing happens in 1v1 too, but not same extend.

There is many things that are harder to execute in 1v1 than its in TG’s, but same applies to TG’s. Something is harder there is much easier in 1v1.

Sure it is easier to wall things off and its harder to control cavalry + infantry vs cavalry only or infantry only. Said many times its easier to micro one big group than multiple small ones, but its much harder to have your random allie to do the right thing when needed.

Clearly you lack comprehension … can you quote me where i said the nerf was small?? You can’t…but somehow you make ■■■■ up in your head about what i said???

Again I said the bombard unit in general got nerfed. This sentence means everyone’s bombards got their base hp nerfed by 40% and everyone’s bombard damage got reduced from 170 down to 100 base damage? Such also specify what everyone is?? This nerfs means EVERYONE is gonna have trouble keeping this expensive, now fragile and slow anti-building alive. THIS effectively will reduce the likelihood of this unit on the field or at least reduce the total numbers of this unit on the field.

So what SPECIFICALLY happened to Chinese bombards that DIDNT already happen to EVERYONE ELSE?? Chinese bombards LOST their 20% bonus range AND Chinese bombards reload bonus went up from 20% to 33%. The LOST of the 20% range means Chinese can NO LONGER use bombards as springalds/culverins. This means China has to actually make springalds and or dive on enemy siege.

Next item on the list.

60% of chinese games resolved inside of 10-30mins with a less than 45% win rate. And you want me to understand their saving grace was superior siege? Here’s a better idea, let’s fix chinese dark age feudal play. Or nerf castle and imp power spikes?

Is it you really can’t understand??? Let’s use your reasoning. I have ample experience playing only china bbq/tr in 1v1 rank and qs, right? And you have ZERO games playing as any civ any strat in 1v1? How did you miss that point? Also check mebak on aoe4world.com. in QS I’ve played dehli mongols english hre abbasid. Also while i mostly play aggressive bbq/tr china i have done other strats.

I didn’t read the complete rest of your post bc already i could see you attempting to draw parallels between team games and 1v1. Instead of rebutting my 190 down to 170 early knight nerf.

Yes yes you’re right sir. Didn’t bother checking your bs stats cuz I know you barely win games.

So? Just because I don’t have games played on 1v1. It doesn’t mean I cant comprehend or put things into 1v1 perspective?

Your knight change is not worst idea u had. But its not so big and impactful that changes the feudal. I would be more than happy if it got reduced by 20. It would make my games easier, but the impact isn’t as big as you think

Clear demonstrate how you lack the ability to understand something so you refer to ad hominin remarks PAHAHAHAHAH…sad.

I don’t think 51% win rate is barely winning games? I somehow struggle to make the connection how 51% is just barely winning?? YET… my “barely won games” at the previous platinum1-3 level in 1 v 1 is still more experience than your ZERO 1 v 1 games, THAT was the purpose of referencing my number of games played and not whether or not I suck??? So when you enter 1 v 1 forum topics DRAWING from your TG perspectives, you do that because you know you don’t have the experience, so you substitute, “hey, guys, I’m top team games player so I understand your 1 v 1 topic because I think TG and 1v1’s are correlated on these topics… though I have no experience of this correlation, I’ve watch others so I feel I can make a point…”

WHAT?? I mean it’s the worse idea but you’d be happy if it got implemented? So do you like the idea or hate it?? PAHAHAHAHAHA

STOP trying to dodge the FACT. YOU have NO 1v1 experience, period. It doesn’t matter if I’m a ■■■■■■ player… that has no bearing on YOUR LACK OF EXPERIENCE? So when you post ideas on these predominantly 1v1 topics, I want everyone to remember:

THIS GUY IS BORROWING FROM OTHER’S EXPERIENCES AND DRAWING CONCLUSIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO 1V1 STUFF.

Which by the way is FINE, that’s not an issue. But substantially it’s different from someone else drawing from their own experiences on the topic along with other’s.

Barely winning and barely positive is same thing? I don’t get you. With your book if you win a game once out of 100 times its still winning? Sure you win the match and still lose 99 and in your case you’re barely winning / positive side. For example past few days I have been purely losing. Sure I got wins here and there but lot of losses and im not describing it barely winning even if my winrate at this period would be 50%

It won’t change it from 3 spears to 2. Yes you will reduce the hit requirement slightly but you’re not factoring rate of fire. Early knight or knight regardless rate of fire is 1.38 meanwhile spear has 1.75 which is like 20-30% slower than knight. They’re also like 40% faster???

So essentially when units are at lower numbers. Like 6 spears vs 2 knights. French can just micro one back while one gets few hits and again. Your spears remain still at the HP they were when they fought, meanwhile french can send knights back to base and wait few minutes to heal up and meanwhile use 2 new knights. Thats why I like the chivalry upgrade nerf more than reducing their health. If all units were to generate their health after getting upgraded then sure 20hp is much more impactful and matters more.

Heck I have even toyed around with monks and their healing. Get the upgrade from monastery after all relics are taken and sent 2 monks to close to your opponents base. With right rotation and cycling through I was able to raid constantly without losing units. I think I had like 150-200 kills and 10-15 deaths after the game. Not something I would recommend doing unless game is basically over but was interesting to test out.

Ofc its different. If we compare you and me. You might find it hard doing thing X and I might finding Y hard but it can be easy for you to do Y.

Disagreeing with you about the knight change and I have explained why and Im putting it to 1v1 perspective. So do you understand the argumentation behind it or are you simply going to ignore it? Told you many times what civilizations like french gain from having early knights. It gives them kill potential on any villager, map control, self healing, mobile army and they trade very effectively against spears, also they scale much better for late game vs spears which become just less valuable unit.

So the HP change won’t really affect them. Yes they trade less effectively but they still have so many strong points over the spears and other units. If bombards were so stacked for china to deserve such butchering then French knights are in same position especially when they have strongest xbows in game too.

Yes you can zone knights out with right amount of spears but knights never have to take the fight if they don’t want to which creates the threat of something coming and forces response from you as defender. Meanwhile french can do what ever they want and this is where the strength of knights come from. You have to always respect the knights and the threat even if they got 20 less HP but it doesn’t mean you end up winning because french is civ that tries to be ahead from feudal to imp and reach it before you can as defender. Their imp may not be strongest suite but they replace it by having insanely strong feudal and even stronger castle.

I much rather have early game / mid game power as china main than late game power. If the siege / grenadier nerfs result china getting one of the strongest feudal / castle then Im more than happy with the trade off because it just means I can win the game in 10-15mins and not in 40mins

this!! SEE how you changed the rhetoric from barely winning to barely positive?? EXAMPLE why I can’t communicate with you; u lack integrity in your comments AND/OR you fail to understand the nuisance in what the two sentences of yours mean?

I was wrong I misunderstood “not worst” for “worst idea”. And I still disagree that changing the required spears to kill 1 early knight from 3 spears per knight to 2 spears per knight NOT being a HUGE deal.

MORE REASONS why… I have to wonder… does this guy just not comprehend? or is he DISHONEST??
The latter part of the paragraphed I quoted from you ADMITS MY POINT!!! That DESPITE your glorious accomplishments in this game and in GREAT many other games…

So you do understand what I said?? Because you can’t quote me anywhere saying there is no correlation between TG’s and 1v1s? or no correlations from other games and this game?? So why are you building a strawman arguments:

“B/c I never played 1v1s in AOE4 I can not draw any cogent correlations between my experiences elsewhere and this 1v1 AOE4 experience?”

Notice in no parts of my post can you find this concept coming from me??? But what you can find coming from me is this: