Yes it is, and you don’t make yourself any friends here with that. Really, it’s no wonder so many people always get in heated arguments with you. Cause they are annoyed by your bogus arguments.
They are slightly disbalanced in certain maps. But it wasn’t even what I was talking about. I was talking about strategic restrictions that come with the gimmicky design of the civ. Again you try to shift the basis of the argumentation to something completely different. You don’t even try to respond to the points I made.
Disagree. And I actually think Magyars are one of the coolest civs in the game. I would like to have more civs like Magyars (not too much ofc cause then it would be nothing special anymore).
And poles with obuch and a 2-ranged winged hussar would be unique I can tell you. Unique in the good way without any gimmickyness neede. Like a lot of the “good old” civs.
You can make castle drops or use your early imp powerspike with the cav spam. Ofc it isn’t as strong as the early agression thing, but it’s actually afaik a decent arena strat. Just not as strong.
The strategic diversity restriction is more for the opponent. Cause on open maps you have to pressure the poles early. If you don’t do that you will be just swarmed by szlachta knights and it’s over.
Possibly on arena cause Poles have anti/off-meta gameplay which cofuses traditional arena players and then games get messi ofc. The question what I ask myself is why the arena players that usually loved their heavily restrictive gameplay “allow” poles in their realms. Have they become bored of their own meta?
This is by no means specific to Poles or Winged Hussars. Most medieval cavalry used lances of some sort. I’m not sure why the Knight line don’t have lances - they did in alpha and beta versions of The Age of Kings but the graphics were changed late in development. As for Poles, my guess is any historical inaccuracies are there to differentiate them from Lithuanians, who were culturally similar and (amongst other things) already had lance-wielding cavalry for their unique unit.
I don’t really get why people say this. Is there a disclaimer in the game saying it’s not historically accurate? Not as far as I know. The game makes many claims about historical events and peoples. When one makes a claim about history, one implicitly asserts that that claim is historically accurate. What am I missing here?
Agree partially. I think they intentionally wanted to make poles gimicky. Possibly they wanted to test how far they can go also.
Don’t agree that much. Ofc there were similarities cause of the proximity, but especially in the non-shared warfare they were different. Lithuanians actually were more infantry focussed which is - weirdly enough - not well represented in the game.
And then ofc they don’t wanted poles to have that strong heavy cav like the lithuanaians have (inaccurately). It’s a bit weird and I agree on you upon that the devs made actually already a bad decision in how they represented lithuanians and wanted to differentiate poles from that even if they knew it is inaccurate.
But imo if poles just get a decent eco (not as OP as currently if not preasured), solid heavy cav and the Winged Hussar like a better version of steppe lancers there would be absolutely eough distinction between the two civs.
I didn’t demand anything. i proposed some changes, but in no way do i expect them to go through. but at least i am willing to propose them. you on the other hand just say “change the civ to be more accurate” and expect others to do the work for you.
and it was 12 civs, not half of them. but good try. whose the one making bogus claims now?
furthermore most my changes were relatively minor. nothing like let’s completely overhaul a civ.
this is ironic coming from the guy who wants to change poles.
Poles would’ve been a Lithuanian copy-paste, thats why they are in the game like that. Also Winged Hussars don’t belong to a Medieval game, so be grateful the devs added them.
I already made a proposal how I would go after it here
But I am not of the opinion it is the “only solution”, so I keep it more vague in this thread to not spoil the others here.
Yeah you are ironic, you want to change just for the sake of you having influence in the game. You don’t even care about what the results of it are. It’s only about you gaining power. Power over the devs.
Sorry but it’s how I perceive you.
I know I’m imperfect, but I look into depths what causes Issues and try to fix them. I know I’m not perfect. But I try to name the things I see as problematic and sometimes make proposals how I would adress them. Sometimes I stay more vague cause I want only to make others see the issues and encourage them to look for their own solutions.
Maybe I am not achieving or reaching out what I intend to. But at least I try to be a positive influence.
It’s debatable, I think the name came up in the early 15 hundreds (sorry if i’m wrong with that, i don’t have the source here). But there were predecessors that used similar weaponry and combat tactics.
actually im perfectly fine if my ideas don’t make it in. heck some of those aren’t even originally mine, and i wouldn’t claim that i influenced them making it in the game seeing as someone else proposed those before i did.
i am just giving ideas for people to discuss and for the devs to consider as possible ways to change the game.
lol dude if i cared about power i wouldn’t be a lowly security guard.
I don’t want to discuss on this level with you anymore.
The reason I have problems with the poles is that of gameplay. At least on most open maps the poles design heavily restricts the strategic options of the opponent. This will drive away players from the game over time.
Maybe for the people who only watch pro games these gimmicky things are funny. But it’s not as funny for many competitive high level players. Including the Pros themselves.
Really haven’t seen this… I don’t play arena so can’t speak for them there, but I’ve never seen anyone have an issue with poles on the more popular modes.
Neither do they only have remotely 1 playstyle. Their wide tech tree allows for a lot of different options and if anything forces the player to play differently in some cases. For example many cav civs can use the cost efficiency of hussars to simply out spam arbs, not so easy with poles
Similarly you can field cavaliers more easily but they aren’t the jack of all trades like most civs use cavaliers
yes, so if you have such a problem then maybe it isn’t the game for you. Because this applies to literally every civ in the game and almost every unit. Or are we to believe the entire knight line is not misrepresented? Massive roving armies of hunnic paladins.
Meso arbs dodging Ethiopian siege onagers.
Japanese trebuchets packing and unpacking faster than you can shoot at them with goth bombard cannons. Terrible goth cavalry. Etc etc
You can’t seriously think Devs need to waste time overhauling a brand new civ , when older less used, more generic civs exist?
Seriously now, you have to consider the bigger picture. There isn’t an infinite amount of dev time.
I have heared several opinions of pros and/or casters on poles and they are very similar to what I said here. Though they often don’t explain exactly why they criticize the same balance/gimmick issues as I do.
So don’t even try to irritate me. I know what I am talking about. And it is an issue on high-level competitive play.
Trash-knight flood is just not fitting in the game, it’s a really bad idea cause it makes a strategic bottleneck. The same is for the folwark eco and also for the stone mining bonus.
It’s just too much, it’s only for people who want to force others to play “their” game.
But high-level competitive AOE is about interaction of the different strategic decisions. And decision is the key-word here. Bonusses that restrict the decision-making of the opponents so heavily have no place in the game.
Edit: The same is also for other gimmicky features like the cuman 2nd TC, the button and other similar things. Though surprisingly the button is of them the least problematic as it comes so late.
Are you McSeriously offended by A GAME!? Ah yes my polish heritage they I don’t care about because I cling to the future and not the past is SOOOO hurt because the Poles don’t have lancers.
How sad that this top tier civ doesn’t have perfect history and because it’s polish it’s more important than accurate representation of Africa or Aztecs right?! Honestly people get offended too easily. There are hundreds of years between when the civ is supposed to be in the game and now. They’re nothing like you especially if you’re talking here on the inter webs.
And if it’s history you want precise… read a book or Google search if you’re like me.
There is too much pop history to trust much of what gets published, though some works genuinely try. You can even find this problem in academia, made worse by the fact that certain fields require you to know the languages if you want to learn anything in depth about it. Academia is a conversation and is supposed to be self-correcting. There is a reason why graduate students in fields such as history, classical studies, and theology study their languages (Typically 2, sometimes more). There are some useful standard works, but always beware as information changes over time. With translations, try to find ones with as detailed of footnotes as you can get. Actual research involves reading works like Eric Cline’s Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. It can be quite the mundane, and tedious task.
