I think AoE4 approach is from AoE2, the right one.
We need to balance units against each other, not the factions as a whole.
C&C did the right thing by its core units Tank vs Rocket Soldier vs Rifle Soldier.
No matter the faction
Rifle Soldier is cheaper and will take down the Rocket Soldier
Rocket Soldier can take down the tanks
Tank can crush the Soldiers
This way you always have to properly mix the 3 types of units.
Even as for example Titan Mech can crush Tanks, Mammoth Tank can shoot down air units
you can still take them down cost effective with Rocket Soldiers
You are always in a situation where the units you have, can win the match.
What AoE4 needs are functional core units.
so far:
we need a core unit against archers,
we need a core unit against elephants,
we need a core unit against siege units
Thanks for the insights! I genuinely hope that my prediction will turn out to be wrong. Only time can tell, of course.
“I’m not sure I’m convinced that balance needs to be done based on matchups, in theory it should be possible to set a standard power level and then bring each civ up to this power level.”
I wonder what your opinion is about the matchup that was showcased yesterday: Mongols vs Abassids. The Mongol player didn’t even go for his best horse archer (Mangudai), because they wouldn’t stand a chance against the camel archers. On the other hand, it looked like the Mongol player made some mistake very early on by deciding to settle his Oovoo at a different location than his base, so I am not generalising the entire matchup based on this one showcased match.
However I still wonder why a civilisation that is specialised in camels wouldn’t be extremely beneficial against any civilisation that has horses as its primary unique strength. This would mean that the matchup Abassids versus Mongols is not balanced well, correct?
“That seems to be a nice idea. Yet, wouldn’t your last example do the same as C&C Zero Hour?”
Hi, perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough. The ‘generals’ of Zero Hour are standalone factions that can be chosen. The ‘sub houses’ of Emperor Battle for Dune can be chosen as additions to the civilisation.
Zero Hour player: “Ok, against this GLA player I want an early airplane rush that they can’t stop, so I choose the USA Airforce General”.
Emperor player: “Ok, I am going to choose Ordos and then I will pick Sardaukar and Ix as my two sub houses”
What I think would happen in this case is the following: You are in an online lobby looking for a 1vs1. You are Mongols. Someone joins and sees you are the Mongols. Imagine that Abassids are a very good counter against Mongols (meaning that the matchup Mongols vs Abassids is not balanced well), so the player picks Abassids. You then think “Oh, damn, this I cannot win”, so you choose to pick the civilisation that counters Abassids. The other player then sees that you have picked the counter civilisation and changes his civilisation to counter the counter civilisation you picked.
So, it doesn’t really matter that most matchups are even. If every civilisation has one unique counter civilisation, then THIS is what people are going to behave like in the online rooms. I’d say that this is not desirable.
I don’t think we can really draw any conclusions from that match. The Mongol player made a lot of mistakes and got behind early and never recovered.
Yeah Abbasids have good cavalry counters, but I think that’s why everyone having the core units is good. As long as camels and camel archers have counters among the core units then everyone including Mongols has options.
I think that game would have ended even sooner if the Abbasids player didn’t even bother with the cavalry raid and instead brought them in on the flank to kill all the Mongol siege.
I think for that show match, the map did not favour using mangudai for raiding. It was too easy to wall off and there were no flanking opportunities. And yes, also the Ovoo location was hard to defend - there was one near his TC that would’ve been better. Plus, I was hoping he’d use towers to defend against the camel archer raids and give his lancers a speed boost when nearby. He also let his khan run forward and die way too much. I think on a different map we would’ve seen a totally different game and playstyle.
They take out 3 archers when nobody has any upgrades, and they take out 4 archers when everybody has all their upgrades. They also cost more in food and less in wood, so they are cheap late game when everybody has more food, and they only cost 1 pop space, which is the same as an archer, which makes them incredibly cheap.
Good luck taking out a mass of camel archers with archers, you don’t have enough pop space.
And camel archers buff and debuff nearby units, which increases their value much more than archers.
They are of course also significantly faster than archers, and can be used to harass. So much value.
I agree with your point that a cav focused civ would have a hard time into abbasids because they are so good at anti cav but IMO this just highlights the importance of giving each civ options so that they can adapt to being countered. I’d argue the Mongol player did that quite well but he was playing from behind from the time he built a barracks and it was further compounded when the abbasid player used the tempo he had to boom.
I am making no statement about camel archers being balanced currently. They seem quite strong. Balance will be an ongoing process.
Do you have a point though? Do you think something other than archers is supposed to be the counter? We know it’s not supposed to be cavalry, we know it’s not supposed to be spears since they do bonus damage to them.
I am making no statement about camel archers being balanced currently. They seem quite strong. Balance will be an ongoing process.
Do you have a point though? Do you think something other than archers is supposed to be the counter? We know it’s not supposed to be cavalry, we know it’s not supposed to be spears since they do bonus damage to them.
Aren’t crossbows countering cavalry including camels in this game?
Yep, crossbows are the best counter vs anything with armour (MMA, Knights, etc.)
For camel archers, I think infantry archers beat them for cost and then Lancers/Knights should also work (due to their armour, despite the 20% dmg debuff from camels).
