you can do this with any melee unit, it’s a “remainder” of the old behavior when you could stack tons of melee units in same tile and stack their attacks. I’m not sure how to reproduce it although it seems to me that when 2 units “perfectly” overlap (like in your image), i.e. they are in the exact same spot, not like 0.25 tiles apart, the game thinks it’s same unit and allows both to attack normally.
It’s hard to reproduce but possible. Anyway the bug is rare enough that there is no reason to concern ourselves with it for all practical aspects, although in theory it would best be removed (but archers stacking in same tile needs to be limited too somehow, I am fine with like 6-8 archers stacking in same tile as opposed to the usual 4, but right now you can stack 30+ and that’s unfair).
i think if you are extremely accurate you can maybe become consistant in it, but for me it was probably just luck i got it with some units and not with others.
So yeah, i can’t really conclude from that that shrivs have different collision sizes than the other melee units. But from my in-game experience and what I saw they somehow feel like they are way easier to handle. It’s easier to get the good engagements with them than with the other melee units.
But possibly that is also just a result of their higher speed.
Feels like SR has less collision radius than knight or other cavalries. Could also be some bug with patrol though. Path finding is really weird ever since DOI.
How did the comment start keep gurjaras as they are but end with radically changing their eco bonus (unless you mean keep the garrison thing but also train sheep). Either way spending 50 food to get a 100 food sheep (less with decay) seems weak no? Only situation i can think of where its useful is a long as game where wood is finished and you cant sustain farms.
Arena FC can be OP with trainable sheep.
Make like 12 sheep + some farms and then have an insane eco in castle age. with 70 F /min from your mills. 22 night be a bit too much, but 12 is possibly viable.
Sure brother.
Just being objective here, I love this game but I try to not get blinded by this love.
Good design examples:
Huns
Byzantines
Vikings
Malians
Ethiopians
Khmer*
Japanese
Mongols*
Spanish
Berbers*
Lithuanians*
Aztecs
Magyars*
Koreans
Bulgarians
*Has a little viability/conceptual issue with their unique/regional unit.
Roughly third of the civs are well designed.
Sadly none of the new civs. It seems like a trend which is quite dissapointing.
1v1 tournaments? Not quite.
Team tournaments? That’s true to a certain degree, there’s a high chance for third of the civs to be picked in a tournament, also, you’re missing here: Britons, Burgundians, Sicilians, Vietnamese, Mayans and Hindu. Which are top tier tournament civs, unlike my long list of civs.
I dont think they’re “trash”, even the worst ones has nice features and ideas that could be great if implemented correctly.
The major measurement of a good design is first and foremost its identity and how it adds up to the diversity of the game. Followed by the viablity of this uniqueness when it comes to an actual playable level.
Huns for example has two features that makes it so well thought, first the eco bonus of not needing houses to gain pop, which leads to such an amazing gaming experience, arguably the most versatile eco bonus in the game, and the most perceptible, and another feature is their CA, which normally is a niche unit, but here it reaches maximum viability so elegantly.
What makes Huns so intellegently designed is also its drawbacks, it might have a smooth early game economy, however nothing to offer at the latter phases of the game economy wise, even late Castle Age, when people can afford a Builder Vill that’ll take care of the houses, you pay -100w and the ability to quick wall with a house. Their CA lack the last armor tech and the Onager tech, which makes them a little more vulnerable to Arbalesters. (That’s where the Tarkan comes to the picture)
Burgundians however, the opposite, an example of a relatively poor design, arguably of the worst ones, what I call over-conviniency as the core identical component of the civ, boom into Knights, unlike Cumans, this boom cant even really be punished that heavily, and unlike Lithuanians these over the top Knights dont rely on any map control/Relics/timing.
I dont mind predictability, however it becomes strategically bad when you lack any win condition against it.
The civ must have drawbacks, not just for the sake of being counterable, but also for the gamer’s experience, you want to player to make a risky strategic decision (just like Cumans 2nd TC, rushing a Castle as Spanish, overly reling on the market as Saracens, or rather just booming with Vikings supirior eco while having no strong militaristic options to boom into)
With Burgundians you just tech into all these eco techs because it’s worth it, it’s 50% less the food one age earlier, it’s worth it no matter the situation, which makes it less strategic. (And I’m not even talking about the UTs)
Strategy has principles that’re beyond AOE II, luckily most civs are above OK and even great.
The worst ones:
You’re not completely wrong.
It increases the chances for the civ to be flat bad. Having a single option.
Consider Aztecs (Eagles), Spanish (Conqs), Mongols (CA), Vikings (Arbs)
These civs have pretty much one overly viable option, while the rest is either lacking techs or doesnt fit with the economical structure of the civ. Yet they’re a well polished design.
Let’s check Mayans, I really don’t mind their Archer nerrative, the problem is the fact we’re talking about a discount over a highly meta-viable unit ON TOP of two other eco bonuses! (15% longer lasting res, highly relevant in Dark Age hunt, and 1 extra vill by the end of Dark Age), Why though? We end up with 3 eco bonuses when one chooses to go for a simple Archer build. It’s too convinient.
I dont mind predictability, it just must pay a strategic price.
I’d take away one of these 3 bonuses and Mayans would be a decent civ, lacking proper Onagers, Hussars and BBC (obviously), and Champion, we’re left with just Eagles and Archers, this civ heavily relies on gold while being kinda predictable. It has strategic components, the only problem is their triple eco bonus at Early Feudal Age. (similarly to Britons, just worse)
A civ doesnt have to be the jack of all trades, however it helps to add another dimesion, another way for the player to make a decision regarding his future in the game. We want to avoid this text-book buildorder civs.
They aren’t badly designed, you just don’t like them, and think every civ has to match your ideals. News flash: It doesn’t. With the possible exception of a few civs on that list, the civs are all actually fun to play. They don’t have to be “strategic”, they need to be enjoyable and balanced, which most of them are.
Doesn’t matter if the civ is one trick pony or a strategic board of war possibilities
At the end it is a game and has to be enjoyable; balance came after, meaning that you have the 50/50 chances o wining
Sicilians is basically the same as Byzantines, an annoying civ that can do nearly anything and unless this is about First Crusade (which let’s be honest is not THAT big of a power spike and you still need 5 TCs and you make a sluggish unit), I fail to see how Sicilians are “badly designed”. If anything, their design makes sense, they excel vs counter units but struggle vs gold units, specifically they die to full Arbalest play, Paladins etc.
Countering Archer-line without Hauberk Cavaliers for them in particular is very hard.
not sure what’s wrong with Franks either? Assuming 1v1s since I don’t care that much about TGs, in 1v1 Franks make sense. They are strong the first 25 min in the game but if they fail to create a lead here, they fall hard after and have awkward transitions and tech tree.
Hindustanis is basically the Byzantines of India, they can do anything, currently they are too strong in terms of their power level but there is nothing wrong with a civ being “versatile” and having options. Some civs have broad tech trees, while others specialize in 1 style. I think you are confusing here the civ being too strong with the civ being ill-designed. Hindustanis and their design make sense. It’s Camels and gunpowder with average CA, and usable Halbs, their Archer-line sucks.
I’m growing more and more convinced that for you, a poorly designed civ is simply one you don’t like/don’t like playing against.
I’m also surprised you list:
as “well-designed civs”. Koreans + Spanish are pretty much “cheese civs” with limited options that rely heavily on Castle-dropping the opponent and spamming UU. I am not sure how anyone can think that the duality of getting up a Castle or not getting it is interactive gameplay, for me, Nomad-style maps (or even the odd Arabia game where this happens) which are about Castle dropping the opponent’s face into UU spam are some of the least interesting gameplay this game has to offer.
As for Aztecs, I “like” their gameplay but I don’t see how someone can say that their design is incredibly solid, it is basically spam 1 hard-to-play-against unit (Eagles) and unkillable Monks (OP unit in small number battles) to create an all-in with high steamroll potential. While I like that some matchups are about micro and not booming to Imp on 3 TCs, I don’t think you can necessarily call Eagle + Monk all-in amazing design. It’s alright at best.
As for Byzantines, sure, what’s more fun to play vs than a civ that has discounted counter units, booms behind walls into cheaper Imp where they spam Arbalest and again mass counter units. The civ also gets access to Camels for some reason just to make holding Knight all-in in Castle age extra easy. Basically a giant “don’t push me” sign in Castle age is what this civ is.
Hauberk- Worst UT in the game that’s not one time use.
It makes their (Already FU) Cavaliers have more melee armor (and therefore win every other generic Cavalier), more pierce armor- which makes them more efficient against Archers than Paladins, conversion resistance and on top of it all- Halb resistance.
They basically created a monster. The least they could do is either take Husbandry, Bloodlines, or just Blast Furnace. (and give Elite Serjeant +2 damage) This unit has it all, and that’s why ever since we got introduced to this tech- we see Sicilians in the pro scene, which are being played very predictably. Boom into Hauberk.
One unit to rule them all mustn’t exist in a strategy game. It’s a generic unit that we’re talking about, it’s only a matter of price, the price of the tech. (still cheaper than Paladins)
Other mono-unit-compositions like Mangudai, Cataphract, Boyar, Woad Raider, at least have a drawback of training time / viability, since they require castles, plus they have counters, even if it’s a minor one.
Funny enough, the only counter to Hauberk Cavalier is a FU Paladin which is one of the rarest units in a 1v1 game. That’s not how strategy works.
First Crusade. Out-of-the-world gimmick, the worst part about it is the fact it relies on mass TC’s kind of a strat, you basically encourage the most convinient and ugly playstyle of them all. (which is very meta these days). We want a calculated boom rather than a chaotic reckless inflated overboom.
An eco bonus that kicks in mostly at the latter part of the game, allows no versatility, no decision to make, nor anything playable.
Having FU Siege Onager and a FU Infantry line including an (amazing) Infantry UU, that act as options for the sake of options, no viablity, at least Byzantines lack Blast Furnace and Siege Engineers. This one is full-on tech tree and at the same time a deserted strategic field. (imagine Vikings with this tech tree)
Donjon, a wonderful concept, sadly non-existant. Yes it also related to the fact Trush is a dead strategy these days, but I judge civs according to the current meta. So we end up with a 4 tiles skin to a tower rather than a whole new playable nerrative.
**I dont understand the comparison to Byzantines to be honest. (Jack of all trades?, many civs are)
And this is what it takes to create a lead, if you lost achieving an advantage with Franks early on, then you deserve to lose, I dont understand that point. Having 3 eco bonuses is great, Berries, Farming and Stone (cheap castles is an eco bonus, since that’s the only thing you do with this resource pretty much) is enough to drag the game long enough so you can rise with your predictable Knight play.
Other civs that have eco bonuses equal to this one like Mayans, Vikings and Chinese, at least don’t have an absurd unit to boom into. Franks has it too convinient, while other Paladin civs have to really fight their way to their win-condition.
Cumans have to take a big risk going 2n TC.
Teutons have to struggle lacking Husbandry.
Magyars have no eco to support their inetntions.
Persians have a double-edged-sword kind of a boom.
Over-conviniency kills strategy. Same exactly goes for Burgundians. No idea how developers came up with this one.
You like to compare civs to Byzantines, being versatile I guess. Obviously nothing is wrong with that, many civs are “Byz” if that’s the case. (In fact most of them to a degree)
Very few civs actually specialize in 1 style, and it’s a very childish uninspired design to be honest.
Britons, Franks, Goths. Again, I’m not saying it’s bad. It just requires more thought, they’re much harder to implement elegantly.
Currently not. Severe degree of conviniency, they have everything a civ needs on top of one of the best eco bonuses. It’s unheard of. They gave Eagles to a civ that has FU Hussars and a BBC.
I bet next patch they’ll remove access from either these two or Halb tech.
Lacking Knights doesn’t justify this much of a reward.
Ad hominem fallacy. Why though? I trigger you emotionaly negatively? I said something personal to you?
I used to love Indians. I even suggested that they should make Shatagni give +2 range. It’s currently OP because they have too much to accompany these HC.
I also love Sicilians, and Goths (even though they’re awful) I’m not driven by hate or frustration, I’m approaching it carefully with a lot of appreceiation yet criticism, no need to be overly defensive, we both want this game to remain great.
No, you dont need to “drop” the castle on your opponent in order to establish a win condition.
Yes, they do rely on their Unique Units. And nothing is wrong about it. Their UU are extremely Viable.
In fact Spanish are borderline artistic in their design, having an awful civ when it coems to a vanilla play, no eco bonus nor Xbows, yet having the best UU in the game in the Castle Age, allowing them to form a win condition in the most unexpected situations.
Some civs rely on their eco advantage (Vikings, Slavs, Teutons), some rely on their early Feudal powerspike (Japanese, Magyars, Mongols), and some rely on an early Castle Age powerspike by playing into their UU, very few civs have this feature, and it should be like this. Diversity is the key.
Byzantines and Lithuanians are the only two civs that can pull out a Skirm+Spear play in Feudal Age, 2 years ago it was more viable due to Trush being more viable. And if this wasn’t enough they go for a 1TC fast Imp play, just like TheViper did in his last game today (no spoilers). I never considered them as a defensive civ tbh, the ability to mix cheap Camels with Xbows make their Castle Age double-gold-composition even scarrier.
And Cataphract, such a great unit to play some situations. And I remind you, all this versatility and high viability while lacking an eco bonus. Unlike Chinese who have multiple eco bonuses, they actually make it work.
What a BS.
Sicilians with hauberk is solid. It’s cheaper and faster than paladin but it’s only about as strong as paladin vs the counters. In most battles it is actually weaker than palas.
The only thing about that tech that it is obviously constructed to somehow make the civ “Balanced”. It’s out of place and it basically prohibits to finalize the civ.
The Serjeant was so a nice idea but they butchered it by giving it a bit too less melee armor and no strong backline to dish out the damage. It’s just bs to make a good frontline but with no backline…
Some people say the donjon would be bad, but I think that is very situational. Sometimes it’s better sometimes worse than regular towers.
I feel just sad about sic now because I just think devs missed a great opportunity with that civ. The serjeant idea is awesome but they botchered it. And instead of trying to make the serjeants better included they add pierce armor for the cavalry… Just… Why?
FU Cavalier is nothing special, and overall it’s mostly an early Imp tech but falls off hard after. FU is not like FU Arbalest, it’s weaker, it’s an early Imperial Age tech and then you generally transition into something else like Halb + Siege or full trash.
so it’s not OK for Sicilians to win Cavalier 1v1 due to UT but it’s OK for Teutons or Lithuanians or Magyars? What is the difference between Sicilians Cavalier with ONE extra melee armor and Teutons getting +2, a better eco, FAR better Siege, Hand Cannoneer, etc.? It sounds like Teutons got more than generously compensated for “lacking Husbandry”, and overall on a map like Arabia I’d rather roll Teutons than Sicilians for sure (on Arena too prob if I played the mode).
dies to full Halb, dies to superior Cavaliers like Lithuanians, Teutons etc. and most importantly takes forever to tech into. Like if your argument is “Hauberk Cavalier is hard to counter”, then sure, let’s take Elite War Elephants or 40 FU Khmer Elite Ballista Elephants and compare them to Hauberk Cavalier, we clearly are in the realm of “anything is possible and the opponent is AFK and doesn’t prevent our tech switches and we are allowed to gather any resource type without harassment”. In this sort of scenario FU Elite War Elephant is the strongest unit in the game, fight me.
which is intended design, I’m happy to trade Hauberk for giving Sicilians the last Archer armor, they would be better off overall. Having to counter full Arbalest play with full Cavalier, having to invest into a Castle etc. etc. if anything makes Sicilians weak to Archers.
none of these unit compositions work as a “1-unit spam”. For example, Mangudais need meatshield or Skirms, even something like Burmese Skirms, heavily outclass them.
so making 5 TCs is according to you, easy? If anything, it makes pushes extremely convenient. Basically 5 TCs means you renounce to making any army at all.
because Sicilians are an “infantry and cavalry civ”. Their weakness is the archery range. FU SO is to give them an alternative to Cavalier in countering archers.
yeah shame that Trush is a dead strategy, it’s such a fun and engaging strat, would love to see more of it. You see towers all the time, for example MbL, in recent 3v3 tournament and occasionally in 1v1 tournaments also to punish FC plays… overall I’d say Trush is in a good spot, it doesn’t need to be the go-to strat every game.
there are other civs like this also, Lithuanians if they don’t use their starting food bonus, Mongols, Magyars etc., all these civs have basically no bonuses in Castle age if they don’t create a lead in Feudal.
if the Knight play is predictable, drop 2x Monastery and counter it?
you can get 2 medium-sized eco bonuses or a big one (e.g Britons). What matters is the total amount of extra resources gained, even if it’s over 1000 bonuses.
no it’s not, eco bonus is something that allows you to gather resources at a faster rate or save resources on ECO upgrades. You don’t wanna build a Castle every single game hence this is not an eco bonus.
so the issue is that they are OVERTUNED, not badly designed, like I claim? Nerf their Ghulam, their Camel attack rate etc., to me the civ looks like it’s fine design-wise.
again you confuse badly designed and overtuned. Hindustanis are overtuned but not badly designed. Badly designed is something like Cobra Car that has no weaknesses.
Having to rely on 1 strategy = bad design because it makes the civ predictable, at the same time since they are predictable, their UUs need to be very overtuned to accommodate for the fact that opponent can more or less blindly make counter units and guess right. In any case, Castle dropping, whether at home or on the enemy face is not particularly engaging game design because Castles have no counter in the Castle age.
you overrate how much an eco bonus is worth, something like Lithuanians eco bonus for example, which is 1 of the better eco bonuses, is basically 2 free Scouts, that you need to:
a) micro
b) translate into villager kills because otherwise let’s say opponent kills 1 of your Lithuanian vills, if this happens in Feudal, it’s hundreds of lost resources, nothing comparable to 150f. Overall, playing well matters far more than starting with extra 150f or having faster hunt, which is why you see players like Viper win as Goths vs Malians all the time, the Feudal age micro and associated kills along with making the right units (more Skirms, or more Spearmen etc.) massively prevails over any eco bonus.
Byzantines are literally like A tier on… basically any game mode atm, mostly because it’s so hard to stop them from hitting Imperial age and do damage to them (cheaper counter units, a very good Monastery, free Town Watch which is a very underrated tech etc.).
Incidentally I’m dying to hear how you would justify Byzantines being classified as A-tier on basically any game mode by pros. They don’t have an eco bonus so they should suck and be put into their place by Mongols, Franks, Lithuanians, Celts etc. (all civs with an eco bonus). I would also like to hear how Burmese, Celts and Goths are all bottom tier civs in spite of having an eco bonus. It seems to me based on the distribution of eco civs and tech tree civs, that both aspects matter, having a good tech tree and having a good eco bonus, if you get a good mix of both, you are a good civ, if you get only 1 of those aspects, you are a terrible civ, even if your bonuses are OP (say Goths who have big discounts on infantry but no good tech tree). It’s time to admit that tech tree is a beauty in itself and is a “nice to have” much like eco bonuses.
