WhAtEvEr HapPeNed To OtToMaN WORST CIV IN GAME BRING SHAME TO TURK LEGACY!
No seriously, I honestly think this was an oversight from the devs. Most likely they gonna tune down the great bombards survivability against anti-siege units.
2 Likes
Oversight?
They are professionals and had MONTHS for this patch.
Honestly it feels like their decisionmaker has no clue about his own businessâŠ
Just reading the patchnotes I INSTANTLY knew this is gonna be a huge problem, but
the balancing team couldnât see this coming? Come onâŠ
5 Likes
So called professionals xD
1 Like
Well, people always asked for ways to make the Ottomans powerful, now they are.
In fact, the biggest complaints were that the Great Bombards were very expensive, and the Janissaries did little âDamagexSecondâ, something that was corrected. And now the big bombards and janissaries, their unique attack units, are also functional now, more of their fans are happy, and in the previous patch there was no problem.
The current problem is that the new balance of the patch, specifically the Nerf to Springald, has made the countermeasure of using Springalds for civs that âOnlyâ have springald as a counter to Great Bombarda (They lack Culverin), making them very susceptible to Ottomans, greatly improving the victory rate of this civ in Imperial Age.
To delay the large bombards + janizaro combo, several things could be done without affecting the unitâs data (for which a lot of effort has been made to make it functional):
-
1.- Construction Time.- Add more construction time to the large bombard (although it is already long, but the Ottomans, being Ottomans, precisely reduce that)
-
2.- Technology to Enable it.- Make the large bombards unlocked by a technology (Like Yuan Raider and Zhu Xiâs Imperial Guard), and before that you can build regular bombards.
-
3.- Same as Rams: Receive 20% more damage in Melee, so that it is more susceptible to men-at-arms or cavalry who manage to reach it.
-
4.- Increase its minimum Range: which is currently the same as the Bombarda (3.75). It could be 4.75 or 4.5, because it doesnât make sense for a cannon twice the size of a bombard to be used equally close.
-
5.- Increase bonus for Light Cavalry against siege in general.- The other suggestion I had was to increase the bonus of light cavalry against siege a little more, not just 10, but like its anti-range bonus, which improves with the promotion of the unit (+10, +13, +16 or something like that).
â Note: Now, the funny thing is that this would only work for other civs, because the Janissaries are anti-cavalry, but hey, anything to improve the game, since right now we are in Season 6: part 2, âWars of Siegeâ. This measure will make more sense if in the future they add Incas or Aztecs in another DLC, because if the âshock infantryâ returns, I suppose they will need good anti-siege damage.
I think Ottomans will get nerfed. They are very strong atm.
I hope they dont nerf them wrong way because when the Ottomans came out it was impossible to win game with them they were so bad
1 Like
After Springald has been adjusted, Great Bombard has become unstoppable, Maybe 1v1 is still reasonable. But in 3v3 or 4v4, I donât know how to handle them. With his teammates to protect him, Ottoman only needs Janissar to repair around the Great Bombard, and the Great Bombard can attack unscrupulously. The Great Bombard only needs 5 or more, and Springald has no way to deal with them. Because the Great Bombard only needs one shot to destroy it. It takes 9 launches for Springald to destroy the Great Bombard. Springald has a population of 3 and costs 500 resources. Great Bombard has a population of 4 and costs 1250 resources. It takes the loss of 5 or more Springalds to destroy 1 Great Bombard. In 3v3 or 4v4 games, my opponent uses Ottoman, and my battle loss ratio often reaches 1:2, which is too unbalanced.
4 Likes
I personally donât think great bombard are the issue, they have already been nerf a few times. And i remember when people were complaining great bombard are useless⊠So if they nerf great bombard we would just go back to that.
Problem is Janissaries. They have too much of attack damage against Cavalry, which completely removes the option of countering great bombard with cavalry. Cavalry should be one of the main counter to Great Bombard, Cavalry should not be weak to range units, it makes no sense. this would increase depth of play as more units would ve viable.
They could simply remove some of the cavalry bonus damage (maybe +8 instead of +16) and they would still be incredibly strong against Cavalry. Just not completely overpowered strong against them.
But i think an even better solution would be to have janissaries toggle weapon like desert raiders, in range mode they would have no cavalry bonus, in melee mode they would have faster attack, less base damage, but good bonus against cavalry. I just think a ranged cavalry bonus doesnât fit well the game, also this would make Janissary more interesting to play.
They can keep trying to fix the great bombard but they have been doing that non stop since the release of ottoman and without success, and have never tried fixing janissaries⊠Which are the true reason bombard are so strong. I think itâs clear they need new solution.
1 Like
Despite I agree with you on the jann thing, I think the springald nerf was unnecessary.
Springalds need to be a good counter of siege, right now you need 3 springs to kill a mango and 9 springs to kill a great bombard.
Culverin is still great against GB, they need 3 shoots. but not all civs has culverin.
1 Like
How much shots need to kill normal bombard?
Devs are kinda clueless and budget for the Devs is super low.
This game - and especially the DLC - made extreme profits and yet itâs slowly dying, as the support is not even 10% of what it should be.
Aoe4 wonât live much longer honestlyâŠ
But that was Microsoftâs plan.
Make some quick money, milk the cow as hard as possible and then slaughter it.
Worked out.
1 Like
According to AoE4 world data, springald has 90 damage versus siege, and bombard has 240 health, so you need 4 shots to take down a bombard taking into account the ranged armor.
If the enemy has the university technology that gives HP and armor to siege units, you would need 6 shots to take down a bombard, since the damage of springald isnât increased in any way.
Despite needing 4 or 6 shots to kill a bombard, doesnât seem a problem since a bombard need 2 shots to kill a springald, and they have less range than the springald with the upgrade, and, if you canât kill them all, they not are a threat to your army, so maybe better you have to focus mangonels.
Whereas GB just need a shot to kill a springald, and has just 1 tile less of range if the springald are upgraded. If they are not upgraded, they have 11 tiles range, whereas springald has 10 tiles, so, itâs literally impossible to shot without lose your springalds.
You need 6 shots to kill a great bombard, and 9 with the university upgrade.
Maybe in lower levels itâs easier to make springalds shot more than a time, but in conqueror at the moment you show up the springalds, they will just attack queue them with the GB and you will lose them all, and if you are lucky you can kill a GB.
The problem is, at the moment you lose your one shot capability, then you canât kill anymore GB, because you will lose springalds easy to them, and jans will repair them, so you canât anymore kill more GBs.
3 Likes
Paying for the game to be supported for two years before a paid expansion even came out isnât what anyone would call âslaughteringâ anything.
Please read my post again.
It seemy you missunderstood it.
1 Like
What did I misunderstand?
âThis game - and especially the DLC - made extreme profits and yet itâs slowly dying, as the support is not even 10% of what it should be.
Aoe4 wonât live much longer honestlyâŠâ
Did you miss this part?
1 Like
No, in fact itâs kinda central to my point. You were talking about the game and its DLC. If MSâ strategy was to slaughter the game, itâd never have gotten to the Sultanâs release.
If you think that supporting a game with monthly patches and large quarterly updates, including an âanniversary updateâ that provided brand-new civs for free, before then working on paid DLC for the second anniversary (while providing substantial updates like reworking the terrain rendering and shadows) is âmaking some quick money and milking the cowâ, then you dont under business costs.
Making quick money would be cutting support in a year or less. Two and a half years in is not that, even if I agree resource should be higher. But I generally think that - the market doesnât generally inventivise post-release support that doesnât turn a profit.
1 Like
Ok, Iâll try and explain it better.
When you milk a cow, you take your profit off the cow throughout its lifetime.
In the very end, when the poor old cow doesnât give milk anymore, you slaughter it and sell its meat to Mcdonaldâs.
Thatâs the final part of the exploitation of the animal.
We are now - in aoe4 - getting closer to the final chapter.
The Sultanâs dlc seems still be part of the milking-process though.
According to the huge amount of cash they have made with this game, the support is extremely poor.
Central bugs (reported since beta) are neither fixed, nor even replied to!
Microsoft could have made this game amazing and kept the image of the series as THE triple AAA RTS in the market, but they chose to finally move the name of aoe to the graveyard.
Just poor greed and not giving a damn about their product.
Quick cash, no efforts. Thatâs it.
The updates and âsubstantial updates like reworking the terrain rendering and shadowsâ you are talking about, are things that were expected AT RELEASE in 2021.
Aoe used to be a series, which offered MASSIVE quality on release and was standing out.
Aoe4 was some very expensive and super poor early access.
The game does not deliver (quality).
Ottomen being completely broken for the longest time and the super lazy balance patches (just tickling the issues and make-shift solutions instead of bringing some deep balance) are another massive thorn in the wound of the disappointed fans.
Buffing an already very OP civ further, is just the most ignorant move the balance team could do.
Seems like there is just 1 guy working at it and they give him 5 minutes a day for this work.
Otherwise this canât be explained.
The speed and amount of balance/bug-fixing updates which is coming in, is extremely, let me repeat this EXTREMELY poor and disappointing.
And when they finally come in, they are not AT ALL thought through.
Sultanâs ascend has been the best-selling DLC in the aoe series so far.
This is a HUGE cash-cow.
Where is the support?
It took multiple months to just answer a tiny fraction of the OP sh!t which was introduced in that rediculous DLC of broken civs and things.
And the ranked play is still massively struggling with balance.
Was this understandable?
1 Like
Supporting the game for two and a half years is, once again, the opposite of âno effortâ.
Are things unfixed? Yes. Do the devs have resource constraints? Yes. Is the publisher invested in the product to turn a profit (as all companies are)? Yes.
Thereâs plenty of criticise, but âmilking the gameâ for âquick cashâ completely ignores the reality of the gameâs lifecycle to date.
2 Likes
Springalds need to be more effective against great bombards, they are supposed to be a counter to it but require more resources and more population to do that⊠and it gets worse when faced against multiple great bombards. If not for that I donât know if they would be too imbalanced, their eco is fairly weak when compared to other civs options.
I hope patch notes come soon and that they have balance changes for ottomans!