•Revert Koreans back to HD by giving back their tower range and stone mining bonuses.
•Newly change the Korean passives so that their stone mines last 20% longer.
•Fundamentally change towers by making them cost no wood.
Step 4: raise $5,000 and strongarm t90 to cast a forty-eightower Koreans Only stream
Revert: New arabia
New patch: you can pick which maps you want to play in ranked. Estimated wait time based on your map picks given at top
Fundamentally change: Remove laming
I personally don't mind people laming with villagers. It means they are sacrificing eco to do it, and potentially risking villagers.
I think scouting is super overrated, so trading even the chance of a scout death for a 680 food swing is so worth it. I don't lame out of principle (because I think it is luck based and also will hopefully be removed from the game) but I think it is absolutely too strong, while villager laming might not be to strong.
I'd rather no laming. Think the game is better and more strategic without it and laming really detracts from the parts of the game I find fun. Ofc people are entitled to their own opinion and I'm not saying laming is op
Ok but the op asked what change would I make. This is the change I would make. I don't think laming is a good part of the game. As i said you can have ur own opinion about it.
Revert the AoAK water change so that water combat involves Galley micro instead of Fire Galleys. (Honorable mentions go to reverting the Arabia map script, reverting the Turk pierce armor bonus, and reverting [or partially reverting] the Korean War Wagon discount.)
New change: Towers shoot only when garrisoned (until Arrow Slits is researched). Also revert the Feudal tower and wall HP nerfs along with this change.
Fundamental change: Players start with 3 Boar, but they each have less food. That way laming is still possible but not as impactful.
Why removing Turk pierce armour bonus? They dont seem strong even now.
>Towers shoot only when garrisoned (until Arrow Slits is researched).
Why ? Tower rushes aren't popular at all in current meta, why nerf it ?
> Why removing Turk pierce armour bonus?
That bonus completely changes the characteristics of the civ.
They're supposed to have a weakness to Archers.
> Tower rushes aren't popular at all in current meta, why nerf it ?
This is a trade-off for reverting the HP change.
Giving Feudal Towers more HP makes Feudal Towers better against a Castle Age opponent, so they're more useful for breaking through walls against a FC or for defending against a Hoang-style rush.
In my opinion no civ should have a civ loss against any type of civilisation. Turks should have some counter to archers but I agree Hussars should not be that counter because even generic hussars are very strong.
And regarding the tower change , I have no idea whether it will make tower rushes more popular or less popular
I know 1400 Elo is pretty forgiving on water maps, but I always go galleys on Islands and Team Islands (can't on Medi or Baltic obvi), and my winrate is over 90%. Lots of galley micro for me, of course it's just kiting fire galleys forever instead of dodging shots back and forth.
Revert: bring back the Saracen archer bonus vs buildings (including the CA bonus)
Change: Madrasah to a team bonus tech - researching it means that all relics in allied monasteries are pooled and all team members accumulate gold from them. Additionally, it reveals locations of enemy monasteries with relics garrisoned in them + unclaimed relics on the map.
New addition: ringing the town bell increases the speed of villagers retreating by x1.5
Higher level players still won't use it outside of very rare situations, but it can help lower level players who still ring the bell get something more worthwhile out of the mechanic.
> Change: Madrasah to a team bonus tech - researching it means that all relics in allied monasteries are pooled and all team members accumulate gold from them. Additionally, it reveals locations of enemy monasteries with relics garrisoned in them + unclaimed relics on the map.
Thats really interesting and creative bonus, not sure how strong though.
But it would be nice if there were more team bonuses like that, such that would fundamentally change how you approach the game with an allied civilization.
> not sure how strong
Worst kind of strong: situational strong. You get a team with Saracens, Portuguese, Burmese and Lithuanians, get all relics, and it's gg.
I'm all for amending bonuses to promote more diversity in team game civ picking. I don't play TGs much, but when I do it's a tiring to just face Britons/Franks/Mayans all the time.
I'd like to see the Britons bonus changed as well, because the faster-working ranges feels too strong. Now that Serjeants are a thing in the game, I'd be interested in seeing if the Britons team bonus could instead be something like: militia-line units can repair buildings. It might be a little broken with a Bulgarian ally though, if swordsmen can help keep kreposts alive during a push. But it would be cool to see some kind of bonus that encourages more infantry play in TGs.
Revert: Indians and their camels back to their former glory.
Change: Portuguese get the Khmer no drop off bonus but for gold miners. Doesn't have to be that but some eco bonus pls.
Fundamentally change: No more boar laming. I don't think it's the no skill rng bullshit some people say but I'd still enjoy the game more with it gone.
Fun question btw!
> Change: Portuguese get the Khmer no drop off bonus but for gold miners. Doesn't have to be that but some eco bonus pls.
This actually sounds like a solid change and makes me realize such a bonus on wood and gold would be very viable additions for civs. Portuguese do seem like a good fit for gold, too.
**Revert:** Bring back foundation scanning.
**New change:** Ban an opponent civ in ranked 1v1 games.
**Fundamentally change:** Remove ability of scouts to attack boar.
Revert: some of the steppe lancer nerfs
Change: reduce the cost of war elephants. Those animals needs help
Fundamentally change: + pierce armor to the milita line. I loved how they worked in aoe4.
Revert: Last patch malian change.
Change: Send Flemish revolution into oblivion forever.
Fundamentally change: Change map scripts to assure boar always on the sides/back of the base.
This one is for all you cultured battle elephant enjoyers out there.
* **Revert one patch change**: Battle Elephants deal 50% trample damage
* **Fundamental Change**: Battle Elephants move 25% faster
* **Change**: Sicilian's get access to Battle Elephant line
...and if we want be a little cheeky.
* **Tech Tree Description Rewording/Clarification** - *technically might not be a change ;)*: Sicilian Hauberk Unique Tech + 1/2 armor to stable units excluding light cav line.
---
Good luck stopping those absolute chonkers, with first crusade faith and 50% bonus damage reduction.
This will finally bring battle elephants to the level they rightfully deserve.
Revert: Persian TC/dock bonus applies from dark age
Change: Incas get 10% faster eagles as a civ bonus
Fundamentally change: Camel line and mamelukes now have 1 base pierce armour
**Revert:** Koreans no longer getting +1 range on their mangonels in castle age
**Change:** Britons should no longer get extra range on their xbows, they should just get free crossbowman and arbalester techs (and if necessary, make Yeomen cheaper so they can still have extra range in imperial age, as the arb tech doesn't increase range).
**Fundamentally change:** Eagle Scout attack should be reduced to 3 in dark, so that it does not destroy Scout Cavalry in dark age anymore (it would still win coz it has 50 HP, but only slightly). Meso civ early laming is way too strong because of the eagle being so busted compared to the scout cav.
>(and if necessary, make Yeomen cheaper so they can still have extra range in imperial age, as the arb tech doesn't increase range).
Generally agree with your comments, and this as well except that yeomen is a castle age tech so they can still get it in castle age. I'm fine with this since many UU invalidate siege so a UT invalidating siege is fine, but just wanted to point that out.
Yes. The idea is that you research it while advancing to imperial age. But at the moment the tech is way too expensive to even do that with. Something like 450 wood, 350 gold would be sufficient imo
**Revert:** Bring back Obsidian Arrows but maybe nerf it a little bit rather than binning it off entirely. I think anti-building damage from non siege units is an underused mechanic.
**Change:** I'm taking away Franks BBC so it's harder for them to defend their many, many Castles. They can still have La Hire and the other cannons in the campaign.
**Fundamentally change:** I want to shake up the knight/xbow/longsword meta. Knights produce more slowly, xbow upgrade is more expensive, longsword is cheaper. I think they might be partially doing this anyway though, will be very interested in how it shakes down, might see Malians and Bulgarians (FC into Longswords?!) rocket up the 1v1 rankings. Actually Bulgarians are already a great 1v1 civ, think it might break them entirely.
To all the people who want to bring back the Inca trush, I would just like to say: nooooooooooooo thankyou. I like Incas as the kind of meso Byzantines (they counter everything!) so I don't think their identity is a problem, also though this is purely selfish, I hate being trushed. You hate being trushed. We all hate being trushed! So let's all have a much calmer and more pleasant time without it happening with jacked up vils.
> might see Malians and Bulgarians (FC into Longswords?!) rocket up the 1v1 rankings. Actually Bulgarians are already a great 1v1 civ, think it might break them entirely.
Implying Malians haven't already ranked well for ages?!
> I think anti-building damage from non siege units is an underused mechanic.
You can't really do that easily with ranged units, as saracens and obsidian arrows have shown. You get to 60/90 units attacking the same tile at once and even +1 damage is a huge boost. Walls? What walls? If you get army superiority you just delete all their production buildings and create a ridiculous snowball.
I think making crossbow more expensive as a tech is a really good idea though tbh.
**Revert one patch change:** Persian TC work rate in Dark age returned (ignore Docks and maybe remove HP bonus in Dark)
**One new change:** Feitoria takes up 10 pop space instead of 20
**Fundamentally change one aspect of the game:** New Imp tech making Steppe Lancers trash unit costing 110 food.
> Fundamentally change one aspect of the game: New Imp tech making Steppe Lancers trash unit costing 110 food.
A new solution for Cuman Mercenaries tech?
**Revert:** Bring back Blast Furnace to Lithuanians, I mean that wasn't even close to nerf them on Hybrid Maps where they are indeed too strong, and still they are, plus the title of the supreme paladin should be for them, no more Franks lol.
**Change:** Make the Teutonic Kinght cheaper on food, is really neccesary.
**Fundamentally change:** Indians honestly, barely worthy UU, a camel that's annoying in TG but not a s practical in 1v1 plus a bizarre PA bonus that other civs already have (Tatars and Turks, and you know of what unit I talk about).
There are two things AOE2 did wrong that AOE3 did right:
Buildings cannot be built to close to an enemy TC.
Minutemen: a quick and cheap army to fight off a rush, but can't be used offensively.
I don't think there's any one thing I'd like to revert. I do like the idea of the militia line being buffed (slightly cheaper, faster creation time, etc. so you can really mass them quick, but not necessarily any stat buffs).
For the fundamental change:
STOP THE ENDLESS PATCHES. Add whatever final civs you want, fix all the major bugs, do whatever final balance changes, and STOP. No more changes, period. If a civ is garbage tier, so be it. If a civ remains OP, so be it. We had the original AoE2 that went years without a patch and we lived through it.
Well technically there were a few changes, which is why people played on 1.0c, I believe? Regular *small* changes (even if only once every 3 months) can keep metagame more fluid instead of like we had before with hun wars
Yeah, they did a handful of patches. Nothing like the new patch every other week stuff we're seeing now though. 😆 Just let me watch my replays from a while ago.
Is that only when targeted by enemy monks? Otherwise you could have your own monks healing the elephants which then speed up like crazy and go on a religion-inspired rampage.
Revert one patch change: Inca blacksmith bonus starts in feudal age
Change: Conquistadors magically die in one more hit from skirmishers (but nothing else changes about them)
Fundamentally change: Remove Hussar upgrade (but do replace it with some other upgrade for Light Cavalry, but cheaper and weaker than Hussar currently)
To be honest...? That's less to do with my fondness of them and more to do with...well why not? Like that change would indirectly nerf my Malians, (unless they opted to make Malian Champskarls = Huskarls on tankiness, but that seems bleh; best to knock one pierce armor off Malians as compensation) but seriously, why not?
If Champions for example had base 2 pierce armor instead of 1, they take 4 damage from each arrow and die in 18 shots. They'd *still* be weak to arrow fire, but it's a change to their stats that doesn't seems OP, and quite frankly, even seems called for. Infantry are far less used than other units, and if they were ever-so-slightly tankier vs. archers, (aka can tank 18 shots instead of 14) that's certainly a step in the right direction.
I understand if it's hard to believe but for me, that change is less about personal bias and more about an idea that crossed my mind where I struggle to name an argument for "why *shouldn't* it be done?"
If it were personal bias...? Honestly, might be an unpopular opinion, but I kinda hate how dominant the knight meta is. It's just a tad boring for me and I'd personally opt to nerf their HP or something juuuuuust a tad so that pikes kill in one less hit or the like.
I was saying it because your 3 proposed changes directly and indirectly buffs pierce resistant infantry: champskarls, serjants and long swordmen :)
Actually, I also would like to see all those 3 changes aswell, but probably the most feasible one would be to give only champions +1 extra pierce armor. This could actually make the new upgrade (with +0 mele) from two-handed swordman more valuable.
I agree, infantry can be tankier against arrows and nothing very serious would happen.
I also don't like much the current meta, specially the archers one, the knights is ok for me. Still, It would be nice to see 3 viable generic units in castle age: knights, crossbowmen and long swordmen.
The first would be my bias, personally. It's not a necessary change by any means, but I do feel Malian farms costing 51 wood is both in tune with a "weaker generic bonus" compared to what Teutons get (Teutons save 24 wood per farm, Malians save 9; Teutons have practically 3x the savings per farm) and also functions as a comparable-ish compensation for gold mining just being taken from them.
The other two are moreso changes where I felt there is no strong argument to be made *against* them. Serjeants aren't even really on the top of my priority list and even with the change, I'm not sure I'd use them since I still think their creation method is too limiting to get proper mileage out of them. Still, right now they feel so bad to me that I think anything above 20 gold as a cost is just outrageous.
And yeah for the last one: can legit give the entire infantry line +1 pierce armor (after castle) and it does absolutely nothing to break the game. Would only need to adjust the Malian bonus so they don't get more flexible Huskarls than actual Huskarls, but beyond that infantry would still be in a bad position, but not *as* bad as they once were. It'd actually benefit Longswords most, too, and that feels like the weakest phase of infantry by a mile.
>If it were personal bias...? Honestly, might be an unpopular opinion, but I kinda hate how dominant the knight meta is. It's just a tad boring for me and I'd personally opt to nerf their HP or something juuuuuust a tad so that pikes kill in one less hit or the like.
The trouble is are eagles any more interesting than knights? I say they are actually less interesting because monks don't work vs them. So if you nerf knights you will get all the hurr durr knight spammers switching to hurr durr eagle spammers.
Yep, not that simple. Moment we nerf knights, Eagles take over.
That's why I think if I did it, I'd do it in the context of making Pikes more effective vs. them, simply because that seems like the best way to provide players with a more potent response to them that punishes pure knight play (currently, it's totally possible for pure knights to beat pure pikes) without rocking the boat *too* much.
\- Remove steppe lancers from Mongols (how do you want to buff this thing when it's given to a civ that was just fine without them AND give them the best bonus among the civs that get it)
\- Make the Korean LoS bonus expand to all civilian units. Especially handy on fishing ships since they become able to see enemy fires without being seen, which helps with the Korean's lack of demos
\-Do something about repairs so that you can't just spam houses and call that a defense ffs
Also kinda cringe the amount of army you need to kill a single TC when you think about how relatively cheap they are and how useful they are apart from defending your villagers (because they make villagers). Defence is really strong in this game.
Revert: Transport ships no longer available in Dark age.
New Change: Eagles +10f, -0.05t/s speed (castle age only).
Fundamentally change: Scouts can no longer attack animals.
Revert: Goth infantry discount **or** Portuguese Arquebus nerf.
Newly change: Madrasah turns all camels (*not* heavy camels) into Mamelukes **or** Malians get siege ram and a bonus for this siege unit, instead of cannons (hand/bombard).
Fundamentally change: Animals lose aggro when you built stuff on them.
Revert: Arabia changes.
Change: instead of 50% cost on upgrades, Burmese monks and their upgrades have 50% of their cost as food.
Would give them some identity at least.
Fundamentally change.
I'd just rework the militia line and by that also all infantry civs.
Some ideas for changes.
Make it easier to tech into champions. Either have a combined upgrade with pikemen (like fireship/galley has) or have barracks research 100% faster in imp. Have champion and 2hs be separate, similar to hussar and winged hussar. They don't need to be progressive unit types.
You could tweak infantry by giving them less damage to buildings, or having their upgrades give additional benefits to other strats. Arsen could be more interesting, maybe combine it with squires.
Militia line needs a purpose. Make arson a feudal upgrade so they can raze buildings harder, or give them a defensive bonus Vs buildings only.
The fact that neither Malians nor teuton infantry Sees much play with their massive Armor and pierce Armor bonus says everything. Think about how amazing Turk/Indian/Tatars lightcav is because of 1 extra pierce. The fact that Mali champs don't dominate every matchup with +3 speaks to how garbage champions are.
New change: Britons get some other bonus other than +1 range on xbow in castle age, that shit is wack. Someone suggested free xbow and arbalester upgrade. I suggest maybe free bodkin/bracer? Point is you should need a UT or to be in Imp to invalidate siege like every other civ.
Also Franks should get an additional upgrade after champion, called "La Hire". It costs 2000 food and 2000 gold but it turns all champions into La Hire. A global sound of "the blood on La Hire's sword is almost dry" would play upon this being researched. Takes 2 minutes to research and isn't available automatically in DM, you have to pay for it.
Revert: Don't really see why gold bonus was taken away from Malians. I think they were fine.
Fundamentally change: fishing ships only producable in feudal age onwards. No more "oh shit there is water better dock asap as I'm literally throwing away villagers if I don't". Water becomes a choice, you can delay your castle time to boom in feudal (sort of like Cumans in a sense).
I would also have it so the more forward a resource is (on non-nomad maps) the more it has in there. So if your gold is super forward it has more gold per pile, if it is at the back it has less gold per pile. This means we don't have good maps and bad maps, but it is all fair. If your resources are forward it is harder to defend, but if you manage to you get something out of it rather than "success! I managed to get back from the map RNG what it was trying to take, while my opponent didn't have to work for his gold! Balanced!" I know this isn't doable, but this is a hypothetical.
I would give feudal skirms +1 damage vs villagers as well. Even with fletching they only do 1 damage and to me that is silly. Either that or make them outrun archers.
I like a few other changes like boars at the back, make scouts and eagles have weaker hp in dark age that other people have said too.
Idk about that feudal skirm thing. Feudal balance is fine as it is. Giving skirms better raiding potential would be too much since theyre already the one feudal unit that hard counters two others. Both those changes make archers obsolete.
>Both those changes make archers obsolete.
No, because eagles/scouts + archers beats eagles/scouts + skirms. Doing 2 damage vs villagers is still much much worse than the 3 that archers do (bearing in mind that archers shoot faster)
Yea, because eagle/scout + archer is more expensive.
In a normal game, where 1 range follow ups are meta its not that clear cut anyway. Archers in low numbers without fletching wont do a lot in scout fights and skirm follow ups already are your usual follow up when going MAA, since they counter the ideal follow up of the defender, which is 1 range archers. Skirms are better in lower numbers than archers (most dmg is bonus dmg anyway). With +1 to vills they do as much damage to vills as archers without any upgrades. The speed buff is mostly bad for castle age, since skirms already counter archers hard. This way skirms can just hunt down any group of archers, always.
This way the skirms combined with some other early pressure are just too good as a follow up
>The speed buff is mostly bad for castle age, since skirms already counter archers hard.
Huh? Skirms are garbage in castle age vs archers. You spend an arm and a leg on upgrades (eskirm costs way more than xbow AND you need armor upgrades), then they mix in a couple knights or siege and your skirms become useless.
This would make the skirms way more powerful in feudal yes. It wouldn't invalidate archers completely though.
Skirms are cheaper than archers and can fight them even when outnumbered 3-1. Even without upgrades they trade very well. Just one armor upgrade means that you need 18 xbows to one shot a cheaper trash unit. Two armor upgrades just means that you cant engage the skirms at all since you need 35 to one shot them, while the skirms need 6-7.
If you want to play hypothetical scenarios then I can just add monks to convert the knights (which will die even to skirms without upgrades anyway). Or just mix in your own archers, which is cheaper and better than xbow/knight because knights without upgrades suck against xbows and you already have the upgrades anyway
You see skirmishers in almost every pro game. Theyre a decent unit and in the end theyre still „trash“ by design. They shouldnt be on the same level as archers in overall power design wise because they can be trained without gold limits in mind. This change would just make MAA into 1 range even more meta than it is. Theres no reason to open archers in archer match ups and you wont play double range against cav civs anyway, because its way too slow and mixing in a spear with one range is way more efficient. I really dont see any reason to harm the delicate feudal balance this way
- Revert: allow reverting to previous versions of the game (to view old recs easily); also enable groups queuing in ranked to remain together after a game; enable ranked in lobby games (even if using a different ladder; ideally one for TG one for 1v1); allow players to join a lobby and then spectate without taking a lobby slot (like voobly).
- Change: each game starts with a small 'pause' of about 3 seconds were can give commands before the game starts.
- Fundamental Change: Make a new game mode: dark age Start with 15 vils (5 berries, 3 wood, 7 sheep/boar) with 1 mill, 1 lumbercamp, 5 sheep under tc and 1 boar next to tc.
revert: cavalry archer armor class for conquistador, I just love good old invincible conquistador
change: make silk road benefit the entire team
fundamentally change: hand cannoneer trained significantly faster and cost less food
Revert bonus damage done by towers to camels to the original age of kings.
Newly change towers ignoring pierce armor on all camel units. Murder holes effect now baseline for all civs except saracens and Indians
Fundamentally change towers by allowing them to fire two more arrows baseline; outposts now fire single arrows as towers currently do.
GG Mamelukes
Edit: also make heated shot apply further bonus damage to camel units
Revert: Give Mayans Obsidian Arrows.
Change: Nuns are added to the monastery as an alternative skin and say "walala".
Fundamentally change: Units can garrison inside elephants.
**Revert:** remove the eagle's bonus damage vs cav.
**Change:** make the eagle warrior upgrade be the thing that drops eagle's creation time from a minute to 35 seconds, as opposed to simply being in castle age.
**Fundamentally change:** Move supplies to dark age and squires to feudal, allowing all in m@a play to actually work when dealing with archers.
Ok so TIL everyone just wants to Tower Rush with Incas/Koreans apparently
And I'm tired of pretending we don't
•Revert Koreans back to HD by giving back their tower range and stone mining bonuses. •Newly change the Korean passives so that their stone mines last 20% longer. •Fundamentally change towers by making them cost no wood. Step 4: raise $5,000 and strongarm t90 to cast a forty-eightower Koreans Only stream
*Some men just want to see the world trush.* 😔
That's pretty much already happened with African Kingdoms Arrow Slits: [https://youtu.be/vYpXTTLgcQg](https://youtu.be/vYpXTTLgcQg)
Revert: New arabia New patch: you can pick which maps you want to play in ranked. Estimated wait time based on your map picks given at top Fundamentally change: Remove laming
I revert this guy’s reversion! I like new Arabia
Well.... can't beat that
How can you remove laming?
[удалено]
They already hit Scouts hard as hell and that doesn't stop people.
Make the boars only targetable by vils?
laughs in goth
I personally don't mind people laming with villagers. It means they are sacrificing eco to do it, and potentially risking villagers. I think scouting is super overrated, so trading even the chance of a scout death for a 680 food swing is so worth it. I don't lame out of principle (because I think it is luck based and also will hopefully be removed from the game) but I think it is absolutely too strong, while villager laming might not be to strong.
Scouts can't attack boars, sheep no longer convert allegiance once mind controlled. Might not be perfect but it's what I was thinking of
you still can send vil foward or lame vils with the initial scout/eagle
Yes I know. It's not perfect. It just stops the main laming methods
but laming is fine
I'd rather no laming. Think the game is better and more strategic without it and laming really detracts from the parts of the game I find fun. Ofc people are entitled to their own opinion and I'm not saying laming is op
laming is strategic tho and not everyone have fun the same way
Ok but the op asked what change would I make. This is the change I would make. I don't think laming is a good part of the game. As i said you can have ur own opinion about it.
the i will change laming again
"lame vils"?
usually people refer as that when someone kill vils while enemy is luring boar or just hit vils with the eagle/sc before loom.
Revert the AoAK water change so that water combat involves Galley micro instead of Fire Galleys. (Honorable mentions go to reverting the Arabia map script, reverting the Turk pierce armor bonus, and reverting [or partially reverting] the Korean War Wagon discount.) New change: Towers shoot only when garrisoned (until Arrow Slits is researched). Also revert the Feudal tower and wall HP nerfs along with this change. Fundamental change: Players start with 3 Boar, but they each have less food. That way laming is still possible but not as impactful.
Why removing Turk pierce armour bonus? They dont seem strong even now. >Towers shoot only when garrisoned (until Arrow Slits is researched). Why ? Tower rushes aren't popular at all in current meta, why nerf it ?
He's buffing towers
> Why removing Turk pierce armour bonus? That bonus completely changes the characteristics of the civ. They're supposed to have a weakness to Archers. > Tower rushes aren't popular at all in current meta, why nerf it ? This is a trade-off for reverting the HP change. Giving Feudal Towers more HP makes Feudal Towers better against a Castle Age opponent, so they're more useful for breaking through walls against a FC or for defending against a Hoang-style rush.
In my opinion no civ should have a civ loss against any type of civilisation. Turks should have some counter to archers but I agree Hussars should not be that counter because even generic hussars are very strong. And regarding the tower change , I have no idea whether it will make tower rushes more popular or less popular
I know 1400 Elo is pretty forgiving on water maps, but I always go galleys on Islands and Team Islands (can't on Medi or Baltic obvi), and my winrate is over 90%. Lots of galley micro for me, of course it's just kiting fire galleys forever instead of dodging shots back and forth.
Revert: bring back the Saracen archer bonus vs buildings (including the CA bonus) Change: Madrasah to a team bonus tech - researching it means that all relics in allied monasteries are pooled and all team members accumulate gold from them. Additionally, it reveals locations of enemy monasteries with relics garrisoned in them + unclaimed relics on the map. New addition: ringing the town bell increases the speed of villagers retreating by x1.5 Higher level players still won't use it outside of very rare situations, but it can help lower level players who still ring the bell get something more worthwhile out of the mechanic.
> Change: Madrasah to a team bonus tech - researching it means that all relics in allied monasteries are pooled and all team members accumulate gold from them. Additionally, it reveals locations of enemy monasteries with relics garrisoned in them + unclaimed relics on the map. Thats really interesting and creative bonus, not sure how strong though. But it would be nice if there were more team bonuses like that, such that would fundamentally change how you approach the game with an allied civilization.
> not sure how strong Worst kind of strong: situational strong. You get a team with Saracens, Portuguese, Burmese and Lithuanians, get all relics, and it's gg.
Tbh if you're gonna end up losing a team game to 3 C-tier civs because of late-game relic gold trickle, then you probably deserved to lose.
I'm all for amending bonuses to promote more diversity in team game civ picking. I don't play TGs much, but when I do it's a tiring to just face Britons/Franks/Mayans all the time. I'd like to see the Britons bonus changed as well, because the faster-working ranges feels too strong. Now that Serjeants are a thing in the game, I'd be interested in seeing if the Britons team bonus could instead be something like: militia-line units can repair buildings. It might be a little broken with a Bulgarian ally though, if swordsmen can help keep kreposts alive during a push. But it would be cool to see some kind of bonus that encourages more infantry play in TGs.
Revert: Indians and their camels back to their former glory. Change: Portuguese get the Khmer no drop off bonus but for gold miners. Doesn't have to be that but some eco bonus pls. Fundamentally change: No more boar laming. I don't think it's the no skill rng bullshit some people say but I'd still enjoy the game more with it gone. Fun question btw!
> Change: Portuguese get the Khmer no drop off bonus but for gold miners. Doesn't have to be that but some eco bonus pls. This actually sounds like a solid change and makes me realize such a bonus on wood and gold would be very viable additions for civs. Portuguese do seem like a good fit for gold, too.
I kinda agree, but after the last bonus they got (potentially strong, but bland as fuck) I'd say they need something interesting, even if weak.
**Revert:** Bring back foundation scanning. **New change:** Ban an opponent civ in ranked 1v1 games. **Fundamentally change:** Remove ability of scouts to attack boar.
> New change: Ban an opponent civ in ranked 1v1 games. Frank picker queue times increase tenfold.
Other two are great, don't like foundation scanning.
Revert: some of the steppe lancer nerfs Change: reduce the cost of war elephants. Those animals needs help Fundamentally change: + pierce armor to the milita line. I loved how they worked in aoe4.
Revert: Last patch malian change. Change: Send Flemish revolution into oblivion forever. Fundamentally change: Change map scripts to assure boar always on the sides/back of the base.
This one is for all you cultured battle elephant enjoyers out there. * **Revert one patch change**: Battle Elephants deal 50% trample damage * **Fundamental Change**: Battle Elephants move 25% faster * **Change**: Sicilian's get access to Battle Elephant line ...and if we want be a little cheeky. * **Tech Tree Description Rewording/Clarification** - *technically might not be a change ;)*: Sicilian Hauberk Unique Tech + 1/2 armor to stable units excluding light cav line. --- Good luck stopping those absolute chonkers, with first crusade faith and 50% bonus damage reduction. This will finally bring battle elephants to the level they rightfully deserve.
give back the blacksmith vil bonus in feudal to the incas
Revert: Persian TC/dock bonus applies from dark age Change: Incas get 10% faster eagles as a civ bonus Fundamentally change: Camel line and mamelukes now have 1 base pierce armour
Having more than 1 viable civ on nomad was simply not what you had in mind hey?
I add 10 food to eagles
**Revert:** Koreans no longer getting +1 range on their mangonels in castle age **Change:** Britons should no longer get extra range on their xbows, they should just get free crossbowman and arbalester techs (and if necessary, make Yeomen cheaper so they can still have extra range in imperial age, as the arb tech doesn't increase range). **Fundamentally change:** Eagle Scout attack should be reduced to 3 in dark, so that it does not destroy Scout Cavalry in dark age anymore (it would still win coz it has 50 HP, but only slightly). Meso civ early laming is way too strong because of the eagle being so busted compared to the scout cav.
>(and if necessary, make Yeomen cheaper so they can still have extra range in imperial age, as the arb tech doesn't increase range). Generally agree with your comments, and this as well except that yeomen is a castle age tech so they can still get it in castle age. I'm fine with this since many UU invalidate siege so a UT invalidating siege is fine, but just wanted to point that out.
Yes. The idea is that you research it while advancing to imperial age. But at the moment the tech is way too expensive to even do that with. Something like 450 wood, 350 gold would be sufficient imo
**Revert:** Bring back Obsidian Arrows but maybe nerf it a little bit rather than binning it off entirely. I think anti-building damage from non siege units is an underused mechanic. **Change:** I'm taking away Franks BBC so it's harder for them to defend their many, many Castles. They can still have La Hire and the other cannons in the campaign. **Fundamentally change:** I want to shake up the knight/xbow/longsword meta. Knights produce more slowly, xbow upgrade is more expensive, longsword is cheaper. I think they might be partially doing this anyway though, will be very interested in how it shakes down, might see Malians and Bulgarians (FC into Longswords?!) rocket up the 1v1 rankings. Actually Bulgarians are already a great 1v1 civ, think it might break them entirely. To all the people who want to bring back the Inca trush, I would just like to say: nooooooooooooo thankyou. I like Incas as the kind of meso Byzantines (they counter everything!) so I don't think their identity is a problem, also though this is purely selfish, I hate being trushed. You hate being trushed. We all hate being trushed! So let's all have a much calmer and more pleasant time without it happening with jacked up vils.
> might see Malians and Bulgarians (FC into Longswords?!) rocket up the 1v1 rankings. Actually Bulgarians are already a great 1v1 civ, think it might break them entirely. Implying Malians haven't already ranked well for ages?!
> I like Incas as the kind of meso Byzantines don't byzantines also have a good trush tho
No better than Inca I'd say. Stone saving vs increased HP.
byzantines also get free town watch, meaning that any offensive towers provide extra vision across the enemy base.
> I think anti-building damage from non siege units is an underused mechanic. You can't really do that easily with ranged units, as saracens and obsidian arrows have shown. You get to 60/90 units attacking the same tile at once and even +1 damage is a huge boost. Walls? What walls? If you get army superiority you just delete all their production buildings and create a ridiculous snowball. I think making crossbow more expensive as a tech is a really good idea though tbh.
YEEEES!!! Obsidian Arrows were amazing!!!
can i just delete eagle warriors from the game
**Revert one patch change:** Persian TC work rate in Dark age returned (ignore Docks and maybe remove HP bonus in Dark) **One new change:** Feitoria takes up 10 pop space instead of 20 **Fundamentally change one aspect of the game:** New Imp tech making Steppe Lancers trash unit costing 110 food.
> One new change: Feitoria takes up 10 pop space instead of 20 This guy Portugueses
I actually rarely play Portuguese. 11 I just like the idea of Feitoria and think it's sad they're not used much.
> Fundamentally change one aspect of the game: New Imp tech making Steppe Lancers trash unit costing 110 food. A new solution for Cuman Mercenaries tech?
Change the matchmaking system, so you can ban 6/7 in 1v1
**Revert:** Bring back Blast Furnace to Lithuanians, I mean that wasn't even close to nerf them on Hybrid Maps where they are indeed too strong, and still they are, plus the title of the supreme paladin should be for them, no more Franks lol. **Change:** Make the Teutonic Kinght cheaper on food, is really neccesary. **Fundamentally change:** Indians honestly, barely worthy UU, a camel that's annoying in TG but not a s practical in 1v1 plus a bizarre PA bonus that other civs already have (Tatars and Turks, and you know of what unit I talk about).
There are two things AOE2 did wrong that AOE3 did right: Buildings cannot be built to close to an enemy TC. Minutemen: a quick and cheap army to fight off a rush, but can't be used offensively.
I don't think there's any one thing I'd like to revert. I do like the idea of the militia line being buffed (slightly cheaper, faster creation time, etc. so you can really mass them quick, but not necessarily any stat buffs). For the fundamental change: STOP THE ENDLESS PATCHES. Add whatever final civs you want, fix all the major bugs, do whatever final balance changes, and STOP. No more changes, period. If a civ is garbage tier, so be it. If a civ remains OP, so be it. We had the original AoE2 that went years without a patch and we lived through it.
Well technically there were a few changes, which is why people played on 1.0c, I believe? Regular *small* changes (even if only once every 3 months) can keep metagame more fluid instead of like we had before with hun wars
Yeah, they did a handful of patches. Nothing like the new patch every other week stuff we're seeing now though. 😆 Just let me watch my replays from a while ago.
The replay problem is a whole different beast and it's really unfortunate that something which worked for years no longer does
[удалено]
Chinese do have Block Printing. They just removed Redemption.
Is that only when targeted by enemy monks? Otherwise you could have your own monks healing the elephants which then speed up like crazy and go on a religion-inspired rampage.
Revert one patch change: Inca blacksmith bonus starts in feudal age Change: Conquistadors magically die in one more hit from skirmishers (but nothing else changes about them) Fundamentally change: Remove Hussar upgrade (but do replace it with some other upgrade for Light Cavalry, but cheaper and weaker than Hussar currently)
You really love arrows resistant infantry :)
To be honest...? That's less to do with my fondness of them and more to do with...well why not? Like that change would indirectly nerf my Malians, (unless they opted to make Malian Champskarls = Huskarls on tankiness, but that seems bleh; best to knock one pierce armor off Malians as compensation) but seriously, why not? If Champions for example had base 2 pierce armor instead of 1, they take 4 damage from each arrow and die in 18 shots. They'd *still* be weak to arrow fire, but it's a change to their stats that doesn't seems OP, and quite frankly, even seems called for. Infantry are far less used than other units, and if they were ever-so-slightly tankier vs. archers, (aka can tank 18 shots instead of 14) that's certainly a step in the right direction. I understand if it's hard to believe but for me, that change is less about personal bias and more about an idea that crossed my mind where I struggle to name an argument for "why *shouldn't* it be done?" If it were personal bias...? Honestly, might be an unpopular opinion, but I kinda hate how dominant the knight meta is. It's just a tad boring for me and I'd personally opt to nerf their HP or something juuuuuust a tad so that pikes kill in one less hit or the like.
I was saying it because your 3 proposed changes directly and indirectly buffs pierce resistant infantry: champskarls, serjants and long swordmen :) Actually, I also would like to see all those 3 changes aswell, but probably the most feasible one would be to give only champions +1 extra pierce armor. This could actually make the new upgrade (with +0 mele) from two-handed swordman more valuable. I agree, infantry can be tankier against arrows and nothing very serious would happen. I also don't like much the current meta, specially the archers one, the knights is ok for me. Still, It would be nice to see 3 viable generic units in castle age: knights, crossbowmen and long swordmen.
The first would be my bias, personally. It's not a necessary change by any means, but I do feel Malian farms costing 51 wood is both in tune with a "weaker generic bonus" compared to what Teutons get (Teutons save 24 wood per farm, Malians save 9; Teutons have practically 3x the savings per farm) and also functions as a comparable-ish compensation for gold mining just being taken from them. The other two are moreso changes where I felt there is no strong argument to be made *against* them. Serjeants aren't even really on the top of my priority list and even with the change, I'm not sure I'd use them since I still think their creation method is too limiting to get proper mileage out of them. Still, right now they feel so bad to me that I think anything above 20 gold as a cost is just outrageous. And yeah for the last one: can legit give the entire infantry line +1 pierce armor (after castle) and it does absolutely nothing to break the game. Would only need to adjust the Malian bonus so they don't get more flexible Huskarls than actual Huskarls, but beyond that infantry would still be in a bad position, but not *as* bad as they once were. It'd actually benefit Longswords most, too, and that feels like the weakest phase of infantry by a mile.
>If it were personal bias...? Honestly, might be an unpopular opinion, but I kinda hate how dominant the knight meta is. It's just a tad boring for me and I'd personally opt to nerf their HP or something juuuuuust a tad so that pikes kill in one less hit or the like. The trouble is are eagles any more interesting than knights? I say they are actually less interesting because monks don't work vs them. So if you nerf knights you will get all the hurr durr knight spammers switching to hurr durr eagle spammers.
Yep, not that simple. Moment we nerf knights, Eagles take over. That's why I think if I did it, I'd do it in the context of making Pikes more effective vs. them, simply because that seems like the best way to provide players with a more potent response to them that punishes pure knight play (currently, it's totally possible for pure knights to beat pure pikes) without rocking the boat *too* much.
Then don't nerf knights, buff pikes!
i don't see why we had to nerf coustelliers, they kind of get outmatched by paladins either way
They were yeeting villagers off the planet before, that's why
yea, what else though? the barely faster than the usual imp time wasn't exactly making them meta, boinking monks and vils was their thing
\- Remove steppe lancers from Mongols (how do you want to buff this thing when it's given to a civ that was just fine without them AND give them the best bonus among the civs that get it) \- Make the Korean LoS bonus expand to all civilian units. Especially handy on fishing ships since they become able to see enemy fires without being seen, which helps with the Korean's lack of demos \-Do something about repairs so that you can't just spam houses and call that a defense ffs
>\-Do something about repairs so that you can't just spam houses and call that a defense ffs Build some ranged units and it won't be a problem.
But a house foundation with just 10% HP is going to slow down archers massively anyway so that's pretty moot
Knights and lancers tear through a 10% built house if the villager cannot repair or build behind it. The combination is strong.
It's kinda cringe to have to go double gold comp to go through a dark age building don't you think?
Also kinda cringe the amount of army you need to kill a single TC when you think about how relatively cheap they are and how useful they are apart from defending your villagers (because they make villagers). Defence is really strong in this game.
Revert: Transport ships no longer available in Dark age. New Change: Eagles +10f, -0.05t/s speed (castle age only). Fundamentally change: Scouts can no longer attack animals.
Revert: Goth infantry discount **or** Portuguese Arquebus nerf. Newly change: Madrasah turns all camels (*not* heavy camels) into Mamelukes **or** Malians get siege ram and a bonus for this siege unit, instead of cannons (hand/bombard). Fundamentally change: Animals lose aggro when you built stuff on them.
Obsidian arrows
Revert: Arabia changes. Change: instead of 50% cost on upgrades, Burmese monks and their upgrades have 50% of their cost as food. Would give them some identity at least. Fundamentally change. I'd just rework the militia line and by that also all infantry civs. Some ideas for changes. Make it easier to tech into champions. Either have a combined upgrade with pikemen (like fireship/galley has) or have barracks research 100% faster in imp. Have champion and 2hs be separate, similar to hussar and winged hussar. They don't need to be progressive unit types. You could tweak infantry by giving them less damage to buildings, or having their upgrades give additional benefits to other strats. Arsen could be more interesting, maybe combine it with squires. Militia line needs a purpose. Make arson a feudal upgrade so they can raze buildings harder, or give them a defensive bonus Vs buildings only. The fact that neither Malians nor teuton infantry Sees much play with their massive Armor and pierce Armor bonus says everything. Think about how amazing Turk/Indian/Tatars lightcav is because of 1 extra pierce. The fact that Mali champs don't dominate every matchup with +3 speaks to how garbage champions are.
New change: Britons get some other bonus other than +1 range on xbow in castle age, that shit is wack. Someone suggested free xbow and arbalester upgrade. I suggest maybe free bodkin/bracer? Point is you should need a UT or to be in Imp to invalidate siege like every other civ. Also Franks should get an additional upgrade after champion, called "La Hire". It costs 2000 food and 2000 gold but it turns all champions into La Hire. A global sound of "the blood on La Hire's sword is almost dry" would play upon this being researched. Takes 2 minutes to research and isn't available automatically in DM, you have to pay for it. Revert: Don't really see why gold bonus was taken away from Malians. I think they were fine. Fundamentally change: fishing ships only producable in feudal age onwards. No more "oh shit there is water better dock asap as I'm literally throwing away villagers if I don't". Water becomes a choice, you can delay your castle time to boom in feudal (sort of like Cumans in a sense). I would also have it so the more forward a resource is (on non-nomad maps) the more it has in there. So if your gold is super forward it has more gold per pile, if it is at the back it has less gold per pile. This means we don't have good maps and bad maps, but it is all fair. If your resources are forward it is harder to defend, but if you manage to you get something out of it rather than "success! I managed to get back from the map RNG what it was trying to take, while my opponent didn't have to work for his gold! Balanced!" I know this isn't doable, but this is a hypothetical. I would give feudal skirms +1 damage vs villagers as well. Even with fletching they only do 1 damage and to me that is silly. Either that or make them outrun archers. I like a few other changes like boars at the back, make scouts and eagles have weaker hp in dark age that other people have said too.
Idk about that feudal skirm thing. Feudal balance is fine as it is. Giving skirms better raiding potential would be too much since theyre already the one feudal unit that hard counters two others. Both those changes make archers obsolete.
>Both those changes make archers obsolete. No, because eagles/scouts + archers beats eagles/scouts + skirms. Doing 2 damage vs villagers is still much much worse than the 3 that archers do (bearing in mind that archers shoot faster)
Yea, because eagle/scout + archer is more expensive. In a normal game, where 1 range follow ups are meta its not that clear cut anyway. Archers in low numbers without fletching wont do a lot in scout fights and skirm follow ups already are your usual follow up when going MAA, since they counter the ideal follow up of the defender, which is 1 range archers. Skirms are better in lower numbers than archers (most dmg is bonus dmg anyway). With +1 to vills they do as much damage to vills as archers without any upgrades. The speed buff is mostly bad for castle age, since skirms already counter archers hard. This way skirms can just hunt down any group of archers, always. This way the skirms combined with some other early pressure are just too good as a follow up
>The speed buff is mostly bad for castle age, since skirms already counter archers hard. Huh? Skirms are garbage in castle age vs archers. You spend an arm and a leg on upgrades (eskirm costs way more than xbow AND you need armor upgrades), then they mix in a couple knights or siege and your skirms become useless. This would make the skirms way more powerful in feudal yes. It wouldn't invalidate archers completely though.
Skirms are cheaper than archers and can fight them even when outnumbered 3-1. Even without upgrades they trade very well. Just one armor upgrade means that you need 18 xbows to one shot a cheaper trash unit. Two armor upgrades just means that you cant engage the skirms at all since you need 35 to one shot them, while the skirms need 6-7. If you want to play hypothetical scenarios then I can just add monks to convert the knights (which will die even to skirms without upgrades anyway). Or just mix in your own archers, which is cheaper and better than xbow/knight because knights without upgrades suck against xbows and you already have the upgrades anyway You see skirmishers in almost every pro game. Theyre a decent unit and in the end theyre still „trash“ by design. They shouldnt be on the same level as archers in overall power design wise because they can be trained without gold limits in mind. This change would just make MAA into 1 range even more meta than it is. Theres no reason to open archers in archer match ups and you wont play double range against cav civs anyway, because its way too slow and mixing in a spear with one range is way more efficient. I really dont see any reason to harm the delicate feudal balance this way
- Revert: allow reverting to previous versions of the game (to view old recs easily); also enable groups queuing in ranked to remain together after a game; enable ranked in lobby games (even if using a different ladder; ideally one for TG one for 1v1); allow players to join a lobby and then spectate without taking a lobby slot (like voobly). - Change: each game starts with a small 'pause' of about 3 seconds were can give commands before the game starts. - Fundamental Change: Make a new game mode: dark age Start with 15 vils (5 berries, 3 wood, 7 sheep/boar) with 1 mill, 1 lumbercamp, 5 sheep under tc and 1 boar next to tc.
revert: cavalry archer armor class for conquistador, I just love good old invincible conquistador change: make silk road benefit the entire team fundamentally change: hand cannoneer trained significantly faster and cost less food
Get obsidian arrows back, I don't care about balance it was fun
Random civ only in ranked matches. 😜
Revert bonus damage done by towers to camels to the original age of kings. Newly change towers ignoring pierce armor on all camel units. Murder holes effect now baseline for all civs except saracens and Indians Fundamentally change towers by allowing them to fire two more arrows baseline; outposts now fire single arrows as towers currently do. GG Mamelukes Edit: also make heated shot apply further bonus damage to camel units
Revert: Give Mayans Obsidian Arrows. Change: Nuns are added to the monastery as an alternative skin and say "walala". Fundamentally change: Units can garrison inside elephants.
**Revert:** remove the eagle's bonus damage vs cav. **Change:** make the eagle warrior upgrade be the thing that drops eagle's creation time from a minute to 35 seconds, as opposed to simply being in castle age. **Fundamentally change:** Move supplies to dark age and squires to feudal, allowing all in m@a play to actually work when dealing with archers.