Jump to content

Dakara

Community Members
  • Posts

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Dakara

  1. 13 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    I am for removing stables and putting cav back into barracks. Problems with stables:

    1. Wastes space and nerfs cav strategies. If the enemy sees that you have stables then they know for sure you are doing cav, ruining the element of surprise. Also it makes switching between inf and cav and back too difficult. 

    2. Stables themselves are a liability. They not only cost more resources and time to build but also are easy to capture. Furthermore you don't always have enough space to build them especially when the host picks a pizza map

    Absoluty @#$% building ! don't be age of empire like please

    Only stable for persias like old alpha 

  2. 2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    The proposition is that:

    • The Fortress is now pretty boring. The game should not have boring things. Having Champions trainable in the Fortress was more interesting.
    • Champions at the Fortress separates them more from regular troops, thematically.
    • Champions in the barracks and stable ruin some of the benefits of the Gymnasium and Syssition and Academy.

     

    Some possible cons I see: 

    • Moving Champions back to the Fortress might make them less used.
    • Moving Champions back to the Fortress could unbalance the Fortress?
    • There is the notion that the Fortress should simply act as a strong defensive/offensive position, like a large overpowered defense tower instead of a uber barracks.

    Hello,

    I appreciate your ideas for boosting the fortress but I think we can do more than just move production back from champions to castles.

    Yes in the most of game fortress are not building cuz not needed. I really think is useful to had 

    Yes im most of game fortress is boring. I really think this building have to be useful and defensive building.

    Better make changes on fortress for less annoying instead just producing building.

    At the moment, i like the tech in barack and stables for make champ (compare to old alpha where some civ can champ on barack and orther civ need fortress, it was no fair) so i don"t want champ in fortress. People like spam champ in barack/stable; let them do it.

    How improve utility ?

    1-We can up garnison by 20 so it is total of 40 spots garnison

    2-Capacity of 3 siege engines on the top of fortress. Siege engine put on fortress can't move but player can select the target. He is not a random attack. Ennemy team can attack only the siege if he want, it separate of the buidling. Siege are just deploy on fortress. So range = normal range of siege + bonus of where the castle is built).

    For example archer on wall stone can be killed without attack the wall.

     

    Also don't forget fortress have role in the area of player (fortress keep zone right if centre civid is destroyed?)

     

    3 -Then we can imagine an orther idea with a tech. An free income of unit military, for exemple every 60 seconde you gain 6 units (u choose with a button beetwen distance, sword or piques)

     

  3. On 23/02/2022 at 10:01 AM, alre said:

    I didn't mean that I'm not going to play anymore, ever. that doesn't depend just on me either, my friends may be sticking to the game and I would keep playing with them, but to be honest I've been growing disillusioned with the game development for months now and I'd probalbly rather switch to another game, if I gave it a try some time.

    You sould say why, please

  4. Fortunately, unlike age of empire, you can't see the scores of your opponents in part, so there is no impact in having a bad scoring system. But how to improve it? Sometimes killing units doesn't win the game, so don't spend your resources either, so good... But having a system allows you to compare yourself and as you do it well, you know how to compare players with all the criteria and not only the overall score.

×
×
  • Create New...