production of villagers in 2Tc should be nerfed
Honestlyā¦ I have now left the game after waiting and waiting and waitingā¦
The hackers are a huge problem, and there is absolute radio silence about almost anything in forums from the devās side.
What is being done? Noone knows.
No roadmap!!!
The support is very very lacking and the radio-silence has become unbearable.
After I opened a thread about the attackmove, attackprio and pathing, my thread was closed and a dev/mod messaged me to please not talk about it on the forums, because ādevs are on itā.
This was half a year ago.
I asked, what will the solution look like and by when we can expect it:
No answer.
This is really unacceptable, Iām out.
M$crosoft is not gonna get a Cent from me for any DLC until they finally invest into the game and are transparent about their actions and future plans about the game.
IF (!) there are even any plans, becauseā¦ how can we know?
Radio silenceā¦
What? this canāt be true, who said this? You canāt post about errors in the game without devs/mods deleting and asking you to shush? I did noticed that on this specific subforum mods tend to close bug threads, but for them to write to you and tell you to not talk about them on the official forums is beyind insane.
Feel free to privately share me said message.
After looking through your post history, there was indeed this thread where someone from the dev team replied:
There was also this thread:
And there was another one thatās meanwhile private that you occasionally bumped from July to March before it got closed.
1 Like
Thanks for your message!
You cannot establish a control group independent of other units, if I have selected several units it will put the same control group on all of them, even though I have moved, with Tab, to a specific unit
1 Like
Yes, I would recommend that you wait two years for the game to fully improveā¦
Anything that simulates a 2Tc should not be cheap like the cost of the dock. I think I should make a thread dedicated to that topic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/1d6idw4/what_do_you_dislike_about_water/
You can increase the hp of the dock but it increases its cost significantly, Abasid has had the dock at half the cost and it is not the best in water, so for what reason is it cheap? It only allows those who have better units to be abused in the early game.
1 Like
I think fishing should be slower. Cost is fine and building time is fine but maybe it has to be slower so it doesnāt force you to go fishing or lose, and you can try to take down the dock.
As some civs itās near impossible to take down or contest a dock (eg abbasid, because you take longer to age up for example).
1 Like
I think this deserves some attention. I donāt like playing by fishing and being forced to fish to stay competitive is not something I enjoy. I donāt mind if the other player goes fishing, but I would like to have something I could do without being at a disadvantage for not fishing. This would provide more gameplay options instead of everyone being forced to fish.
I have no idea what could be done, but I would like the person who goes fishing to be rewarded. However, I also want the player who chooses another path not to be penalized just for not choosing fishing.
Currently, I see that if there is fishing on the map, everyone is forced to compete for it, because if one player doesnāt fish, they will fall behind in the game regardless of what they do.
2 Likes
Considering the cost of the fishing boat is 50% higher than the cost of a villager, the latest nerft to the deep water collection rate is enough incentive to āfightā for the water; The problem is that the cost of the dock is so low that it only benefits civilizations with the ease of having a larger army or having better early game units.
The water is important because it is very difficult to recover it with land units, only in the age of castles the espingardas could harm a ship, but letās suppose that the dock costs 500 wood, then the return on that investment would take a little more. and that time gives a window of opportunity to the player who does not play boom but rather produces military units
Pretty much this.
The fishing is a fail-design.
Look at Malians, they were awful on water maps, why?
Because you go pitmines with them and if you use the early wood for water, you lose their entire civ bonus.
The Devs honestly donāt think about the big picture when making design choices.
They just create content and donāt think about how things work as a whole.
Same for not giving Malians men at arms/crossbows and then a civ like Byzantines - hello limitanei+horsemen+longbows ! - or HRE - hello men at arms + landsknecht - exists.
When you create something unique, DO think how it is affected by other parts of the game and vice versa.
Donāt just impulsively throw something in and see how it works out AFTERWARDS.
Anyways, I havenāt been playing the game for a long while now and I donāt see myself coming back.
The game has just so many technical shortcomings (attackmove, pathing, micro, ā¦) and so many design-flaws which make the game extremely annoying and onesided to play, that I just canāt feel like it being anywhere close to where a multiple year old polished (!) game should be.
And looking at the speed/pace/attitude of patching and working on the game, I donāt see any hope anymore for it to get to an acceptable state in the coming years.
The community will shrink too much before that can happen.
I would have loved aoe4 to be my longterm game that I play over and over, but it has let my expectations down.
There is still zero communication from the Devs or a representative of Microsoft about the state of the game, no roadmap.
I have absolutely no hope.
They might release another DLC or 2 to grab some last cash, but then the game will slowly disappear as the playerbase becomes smaller and smaller.
RIP
1 Like
If you want to play on maps with water, you have to fish. Playing on a map and ignoring a part of it is just silly.
What would help is a wider map pool and more options to control your preferred maps.
And I would still change the MAA of the HRE for the Teutonic Knight of AoE 2ā¦
Yes, I think we will have dlcs at least until 2027ā¦with this yearās one there would be 22 civs, next yearās 28 civs, in 2026 34 civs and the last one in 2027 40 civs (that is, 20 civs and 20 variants)ā¦
Every map has deer, but some civs only go for bushes or go straight to farms (same for boar).
Every map has a market, but itās optional to use it.
Every map has a sacred site, but fighting for it is optional.
All civs have wonders, but they are rarely present in a match.
Having a resource on the map should not make it mandatory; this ensures versatility and strategic options. Obviously, all resources have their benefits, but none should be so crucial as to monopolize the game to a single style on certain maps.
Having the sea and taking advantage of its benefits is welcome, but currently, the sea offers so much advantage that itās impossible to go without it, and some civs are much better at sea than others, which is undeniable and makes some civs unsuitable for the sea.
Iām not criticizing the sea, I just believe that players should have means and options to choose from and not be dependent on a single path to compete.
At launch, the sea was terrible, and a rework has improved it, but I still believe itās far from being ideal.
There is nothing wrong with someone mastering all elements of the game and utilizing everything within their reach. The sea will continue to bring benefits, but it should not be a resource that guarantees a win.
1 Like
Balancing boar and berries has long been a part of getting the resource balance right, and individual resources are pieces in a larger system. Your analogy maps to the choice to use specific boats - not ignore water completely. Thatād be like ignoring land completely, or ignoring all resource types.
Your other analogies relate to victory conditions that can be turned on or off, and if reduced to a single victory condition - and ignored - would cost you the game.
You have the option to do whatever you want. Thatās separate to being rewarded for any options you choose. Some will always be mandatory. In this case, choosing a water map comes with the requirement of having to deal with water. Otherwise youāre asking to be rewarded for not engaging with a part of the game your opponent is presumably investing resources into. Thatās inherently unfair.
Every investment must have its risk. Iām not saying there shouldnāt be benefits; obviously, there must be. But there must be a risk if the other side opts for something more aggressive.
If someone goes for a boom with 2TC or fast castle or whatever they have in mind, it will yield returns in exchange for something at that moment.
If someone spends all their resources on the military and fails to cause damage, they also face losses.
Iām not saying to reward players on land; when a player decides to invest in something, they should see returns. However, they should have to sacrifice something in return. But the sea covers all these aspects.
To me, the sea is something completely poorly planned in Age.
You have a single structure, the dock, which is used to create workers, military units, and tradeāall at a lower cost than a second TC or building other establishments. Again, I donāt think this is wrong; I just think itās poorly planned. And even though I disagree, and some people enjoy playing on the sea, we can see that itās not a very prevalent resource in the game. If we look at 30 matches, how many were played on the sea or on maps with water?
I think itās fair if something is rewarding, but in my view, itās something completely poorly planned.
You didnāt mention the civs that are terrible at sea compared to others that are much stronger. In my opinion, thereās no problem with one civ being better or worse at something specific compared to another. But poor planning of such a resource can cause an imbalance.
I strongly support unique civs with unique mechanics and enjoy seeing this present in the game. But for this to work, the game needs proper balance so that a resource has its utilities but is not predominant in the game.
Agree to disagree 
The sea rework many updates ago was imo necessary, and theyāve made some small updates since then, but at the same time Iād appreciate them doing more for water combat / economy. I just think the basis is sound.
1 Like
CAUCASUS deserves a civilisation.