Jump to content


Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Ryze

  • Rank
  1. Why "no armor"? Various civilizations had archers with varying degrees of armor protection...
  2. I think that in order to have a proper unit balance analysis we need to factor in cost-effectiveness. Thus a unit may be admittedly stronger than another as long as it's price (and, dare I dream, maintenance) is proportionally higher. E.g. horse-archer vs foot-archer This would allow tthe existence of heavily-armored horse-archers, which did exist as an elite component of several armies, instead of the suggestion above of nerfing their armor as part of a purely gameplay consideration rather than an historical example...
  3. Simple, the lance is too cumbersome to waive around and duel with swords...
  4. Yes, it would be more like a short campaign. The inspiration is more Empire Earth, which has a nice concept of "territories" with different resources which you had to dominate in order to exploit it...
  5. The 20 to 45 minutes part kind of puts me off... A game with such level of detail should be savoured like the finest of meals, not devoured as if it was fast food Would you consider adding a second game-mode (Empire Building?) where the game takes between 40 to 90 minutes? Then people could have time to develop more cities other than a huge metropolis and epic fights could ensue where one defeat in open battle doesn't mean total destruction, since even if that leads to the loss of your best city, you'll have places to retreat and try to claw your way back to victory... In short, a mode where (grand?) strategy is as important as tactics
  6. As stated in the other thread, I love the idea and I hope the team seriously considers this, if they think it feasible...
  7. THIS. Local resources. Please make this happen
  8. Love the idea As a player, I totally fall in the "Imperial" category. However, having recently played a lot of AoE2HD multiplayer, I do worry about the time necessary to "build-up" before actual fighting occurs... My suggestion is gto go for the two separate game modes ("Arcade" and "Imperial") and then, in "Imperial", starting with a map 10x bigger and with far more costly/complex Age upgrades, so that player can still enjoy early Age fights...
  9. You are forgetting the Xiongnu. They were sort of "proto-Mongols": they had a big emphasis in horse archery and tribal structures. Their confederation was so strong that it took the Han (at its heighest) nearly one century of 'total war' to subjugate them. Thought I'm not certain, I think that the Hun migration was (partially?) caused by the confederation's defeat against the Han. P.S.: Please correct me if I wrote something wrong. 0 - 500 AD history is a rather 'foggy' subject to me.
  10. Sorry, but that argument is flawed. Britons and Mauryans never fought each other and they are in. Don't get me wrong: they should be. My point is the eastern civilisations didn't fight with the western ones BUT the Chinese and the Koreans fought the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu fought with other steppe people, those steppe people fought Persians, Seleucids, Macedonians, Romans, etc. Therefore, the eastern civilisations are isolated because, to put it bluntly, the in-game civilisations stop in the steppes. What do people think? I think that those civilisations should be in. Maybe in a late patch (afterfall, game development does need priorities). P.S.: Playing a steppe civilisation would be lots of funs.
  11. In my opinion, the lack of Chinese, Japanese and Korean civilizations in the base game is a bit of a "flaw"...
  12. As long as the problem/issue is solved, I'm fine with it...
  13. I know. But until I have loads of free-time, it's pointless to think about it any further (because I won't have free-time in a LONG time xD).
  14. To some degree, yes. In Acropolis-style of maps, it should be highly viable, while in a flat desert map, rush would be more desirable. On the other hand, with too few resouces you are forced to rush in almost every map because your rusher enemy will otherwise have an overwhelming advantage in resources that can't be countered with farming and trading. To reaffirm my point: I just want enough resources available on the map so that a turtler still has some time to challenge a rusher's map domination. Key-word here is SOME. If the turtler fails to achieve it fast enough, he'll lose. What I ask is an amount of resources that will allow, for example, a 30 minute time window for the turtler to try it... Because, if the rusher strips the map of all resources, attemping to destroy and occupy is territory is a rather unprofitable endeavour (don't forget the population limit and the diminishing returns from farming). P.S.: Check out my topic about minable rubble; it would help a little in solving this problem.
  15. I agree with the OP because the scarcity of resources constrains the player to a single tactic: rush the resources faster than your enemy or lose (assuming an equally smart opponent, like a multiplayer game). A higher abundance of resources would give the choice between rushing and turtling: - If you rush, you can gather more resources from various locations on the map (giving you a distinct advantage over your opponent). - If you turtle, you sacrifice wealth for safety BUT, thanks to the abundance of resources, you still have time to challenge your opponent for control of those resources' locations. This^ would allow a greater variety of tactics while still favoring the rusher. The difference is that a very good player that turtles may be able to challenge the rusher's map domination. On the other hand, a very competent rusher will be able to overwhelm the turtler most of the time due to the disparity of resources gathered. What I say is, don't make the game with a 'One Tactic To Rull Them All' -style of gameplay (hooray for my totally uncreative pun).
  • Create New...