I just think that if the Conq wasn’t a Castle UU but an Archery Range one, the devs would feel less guilty about disabling it in El Cid campaign
No. They are too classic. And Castle Age gunpowder is the main theme for those 4 civs with gunpowder UU.
3 Likes
Then not an upgrade to anything else but straight out replacement, available since Castle Age in Archery Ranges (slower training speed ofc as building a Range is cheaper and faster than building a Castle).
Ok. What I wanted to state here is actually the following.
I think your +10/+15/+20/+25 HP proposal could work with the following
- Remove free Hand Cart
- Remove Blast Furnace
If that ends up in too much of a nerf for Vikings, there would be several ways to adjust them again. Like adding Thumb Ring, BBC or Hussar.
And what I like even more about your Idea is that we could take the 20 % HP from Vikings, put it together with an improved version of the Franks Berry Bonus and we already would have an amazingly synergetic base layout for a new civ.
generally speaking unit upgrades have no downsides (other than opportunity cost). Conqs are not affected by Ballistics, while Mounted Crossbowmen presumably are.
Also: DONT RUIN ANOTHER CLASSIC CIV
4 Likes
Paladins swing slower than Cavalier and the Trade resource cost techs technically do if gold or stone is more available than wood or gold but otherwise full agree
i know, that’s why I said “generally speaking”. the only other exception I can think of is Hussars moving slightly slower than LC
OFC, I don’t want any changes without allowing to load an earlier patch and play it with friends. This is just me brainstorming how to deal with Conquistadors in El Cid but I don’t want anything like it if it means fucking stuff up
They move at the same speed. LC moves slower than Scout Cavalry.
1 Like
oh yeah, that’s the one
I wish Saxons don’t get any regional units or unique building, and be similar to AoK civs like Goths/Teutons/Britons.
3 Likes
Tbh I don’t get the heavy focus of devs on new UUs and even buildings.
It looks like the construct of a young fellow who really wants to give their stuff their specific uniuque touch. But in man cases I don’t really see the point in it. A lot of the gimmicks are quite useless or actually bad for the design, make units unnecessary snowbally((how was the word again if it can flip one or the other direction).
I would also prefer basic civ designs. I don’t think you need that much uniqueness to from an interesting civ. And it only sets a weird differentiation between “old” and “new” civs where the new ones seemingly “need” that to get their “place” on the draft. I don’t even think so. I think it’s very misleading. Many of the new civs are actually driven by other aspects than that.
The worst example are ofc the traction trebs and Heroes. The latter ones are completely useless (which is actually good) and the traction trebs… just weird attempst to find a balance between BBC and trebs. Completely unnecessary and ofc as so - easy target for the rage. And understandable.
4 Likes
Personally, I like the new Civs. They are much more interesting than most of the base Civs (I’m looking at you, Brits).
Yeah, the new mechanics are more unique than the base mechanics, and sometimes they don’t have much impact on the game, but that’s fine when some are more there for the favour.
New regional units and non-castle unique units are necessary for the new Civ because there is a limit to the number of things and bonuses that you can create with just the base grid of units without it becoming repetitive and Limited to represent the history of a civilisation.
If this were the case, the Saxons would, in my eyes, a huge disappointment and not worth a penny.
2 Likes
that’s very much a minority opinion. depsite brits being fairly weak at the moment, they remain one of the most popular civs.
which provides a clear place where they should stop adding civs.
Idk. As far as I am infomed from the competitive AOE2 scene, they like the new civs.
And I also agree in general. Many of the new civs feel amazing to play and actually also good to play against (with the excepptions ofc when some of them were broken balnce-wise). Their base design from a pure multiplayer perspective is actually very good.
Just a lot of unnecessary stuff that makes (some of them) unnecessarily complicated.
An nobody of us knows actually what the minority or majority thinks. We all only share our own opinions and what we heard from other people.
what the actual fuck??
could you misquote me any worse? I am not saying the minority likes the new civs. I am clearly quoting him when he is saying:
IE that the new civs are “much more interesting”. There is a big difference between the two statements
1 Like
I don’t really care if this opinion is considered minor or not, but this is my opinion and I stand by it.
For understanding I am not talking about strength of the civ in the current meta. For me, they are boring because everything about the civ is an Archer or an Archer with a little more range. Don’t misunderstand me, I think longbowmen are cool, but why should I build archers when I have them? So, the complete Civ kit only has this one option. I would like a few changes, such as Langbowmen as an Archer upgrade and Billmen as a new Castle Unique Unit (UU). However, these would be extreme changes and they are popular, so I don’t think they will change them. I am okay with that, but at least make the new civ more interesting.
For you, it’s proof for that. But for me, it’s just an opportunity to expand the game. And i like The Supporte the Game has get in recent years, (The patches, the tournaments, the free visual change, QoL,etc). and would like to the it continuing. But to be realistic, something like that costs money and will only continue as long as it brings in more money than it costs. And DLCs featuring campaigns and Civ seem to be the most successful approach so far. But I’m open to it—if they manage to find another way, then I’m all for it. I don’t need a new Civ every 6 months. But campaigns yes, more is better.
As I said, I want the support to continue.
2 Likes
I responded literally to the main qoote that you replied to. I just made it clearer what part.
If you only wanted to reply to the part in the bracket you could and should have just quoted that.
And I also think that you meant what I replied to. I haven’t heard anything of you against it yet. So I stay to my statement as long as you don’t make clear you didn’t want to state what I replied to.
don’t get me wrong you are welcome to your opinion. I just wanted to point out that lots of people like Britons as they are.
Imo new civs (if they add any) should follow the trend the popular civs set, and be rather simple, with minor differences between them.
I do have to disagree with this though. AoE is one of the most successful game franchises in history. They DO NOT need to sell low quality shovelware DLC (like V&V) to be profitable. AoE2 is frequently in the top 100 best selling games on steam.
Servers are super cheap to maintain (assuming they are reasonably well optimized), especially since MSFT owns the server infra.
Way more computationally heavy games manage to maintain dedicated servers without resorting to micro (or rather macro-) transactions like aoe2. Aoe2 servers don’t even manage to resolve sync issues, they are glorified proxies.
1 Like
I don’t really care if this opinion is considered minor or not, but this is my opinion and I stand by it.
For understanding I am not talking about strength of the civ in the current meta. For me, they are boring because everything about the civ is an Archer or an Archer with a little bit more range. Don’t misunderstand me, I think longbowmen are cool, but why should I build archers when I have them? So, the complete Civ kit only has this one option. I would like a few changes, such as Langbowmen as an Archer upgrade and Billmen as a new Castle Unique Unit (UU). However, these would be extreme changes and they are popular, so I don’t think they will change them. I am okay with that, but at least make the new civ more interesting.
For you, it’s proof for that. But for me, it’s just an opportunity to expand the game. And i like The Supporte the Game has get in recent years, (The patches, the tournaments, the free visual change, QoL,etc). and would like to the it continuing. But to be realistic, something like that costs money and will only continue as long as it brings in more money than it costs. And DLCs featuring campaigns and Civ seem to be the most successful approach so far. But I’m open to it—if they manage to find another way, then I’m all for it. I don’t need a new Civ every 6 months. But campaigns yes, more is better.
As I said, I want the support to continue.
And here I disagree with the complicated statement, too. I don’t know why people say that ther are complicated. for me, none of the new stuff is really mechanically complicated. Maybe it’s because I play more other games, or maybe I have a different understanding of the phrase ‘complicated’, or maybe I’m more open-minded about new stuff. But for me, all the stuff is easy to understand, but sometimes hard to utilise.