Jump to content

alre

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alre

  1. microsoft is not trying to propose new ideas with AoE 4, it's trying to make a game that plays just like AoE 2 but is totally oriented towards online gaming, competition, timed events, and the such.
  2. "for every map you can independently choose a biom, this is the thing I like most of AOE 4" -quote from one of the videos above. I like the torching, although a better animation may actually be that soldiers move around a torch near the ground next to the building.
  3. why would you garrison a trader into merchant ship for +20% profit, when you can make another ship for +100% profit? traders aren't cheap.
  4. I think it's safe to guess that he meant "attack and destroy".
  5. Between a24 and a25, the biggest change has arguably been unit pushing. This new feature has succeeded in smoothing unit movement considerably, but has made much more than that: it has changed they way units move and look, and the way they approach and engage enemy targets. I always felt like in this regard, mine was a minority opinion, but after discussing with a friend who was much more enthusiast than me about unit pushing, I think we can possibly agree on some way to enhance it, so I will speak out about what I think it's wrong about it. Units interpenetrate basically every time you move them. When you have a whole bunch moving together, they form queues so tight that they look like solid worms of people. In some cases, it may be hard to tell how many soldiers there are, making it particularly difficult to predict how a battle is going to go. It is even more difficult to tell how many soldiers are getting killed, because they are so densely packed in the melee that people dying are invisible inside the mob. Rams can sometime interpenetrate so deeply that two of them may look like there is only one, while they are attacking a building. Choke points are no longer of any real strategic relevance, you have to fit melee units into them to make them effective, and that's usually impossible/unfeasible. And the slightest gap between two buildings allows a whole cavalry army to pour in between in a couple of seconds. Any passage, narrow or large, can fit an army as large as you want. I think it wasn't necessary to deviate so strongly from how unit movement looked before, the new pathfinder is more andanced and effective, but it went too far on this new road. It is ok if a big mass of units struggles to go trough a narrow passage, that's how things work in reality anyway. And besides that, I think the look of battles is worse now than before, less clear and more hazardous. In any case, unit interpenetration is bad and should be avoided if possible. Thank you for bearibg my rant, let me know what you think.
  6. by this same reasoning, they already have no sense, except for gates.
  7. archer civs already have that bonus. not all 4 of them, but carth doesn't need it, and kushites can have another one, like one about husbandry as already being asked (free corrals?) = ultimate boom+turtle civ.
  8. yes but would you like to have vision decreased as soon as you get near a tre?
  9. structures are buildings. is that what you referring to? forest groves are in delenda est only, I don't know how much are they compatible with this kind of aura design.
  10. one could have an aura applied to units in the forest, that: - lower their vision range - make them invisible to enemy units - make them capable of seeing other invisible units. Provided that forest grooves are implemented, all these changes seem not too hard. Hardest thing seems to me to make the aura of the groove responsive to deforestation. I'm not sure about how to do point 2 e 3 either, but the undying nephalim did those already.
  11. I've tested an interesting set of parameters: - damage: 9 pierce every 0.7 seconds - spread: 5 - range: 40 - speed: same as archers - everything else: same as cs crossbowmen template. with this proposed stats, han crossbowmen will be 12-13% more effective than javeliners against massed infantry units (javs are already very effective btw), and will also have an advantage of range, making them a menace from further away, provided that the enemy units are quite dense, because their accuracy is terrible from max range. being both relatively slow and short ranged, they will be uneffective against enemy ranged units, especially if well managed (btw archers definitively deserve a buff). couriously enough, because of their main particularity of having high damage-high spread output, they can be micromanaged to win against opposing ranged troups, by ordering them to get close enough so that spread is irrelevant (almost hand to hand), but that won't work if the other player is paying attention.
  12. right. and sword cav is much stronger still.
  13. sword cav is OP, I have already compared them to axe cav to show how far superior they are, without even considering their effectiveness against buildings, which isn't so relevant in the balance of the game (if you chop down enemy cc with cav, you have won anyway).
  14. to be fair also the gastraphetes wasn't really expensive, and its use is depicted totally wrong in the game. Also to be fair, slingers could launch as far as 400m with remarkable accuracy, so they weren't just "middle range" units. but this is all OT.
  15. we also have a cavalry_crossvowmen template, I don't know why is that. anyway, for one, the repeat time is not the same of the chu-ko-nu, also the spread should be at least 4, probably more. I've made some tests though, and I've found that accuracy does not depend only on the spread value, but apparently also the other ballistic parameters have an effect.
  16. in practice you were buying too much of the same resources. try to gather them instead. you can buy some resources if you have a more or less urgent need, but you need a balanced economy, and try to gather everything you need. be aware of what kind of resources you are going to need in each phase, and plan your economy accordingly.
  17. han crossbows were very fast and had very very low precision, so much so that had a very short effective range. could have stats and usage comparable to those of javeliners. by the way, if they don't have javs they are not much different from kushites. they are probably the worst civ in this alpha, but they were very strong last one, let's not give too much importance to the current meta.
  18. If it was for me, I'd make all ships move by rowing. That's how naval warfare was done in the mediterranenan, and that's also how ships would move up into rivers. However, it would still be a stretch to say that this would be a totally realistic solution: oceanic gallic ships relied mostly on wind and sails, fishing vessels also generally did.
  19. come on! we all love it! tell us more, what are the current issues, how can we help?
  20. I would rather nerf cavalry giving them wide turns than slow acceleration, but it's hard to say without trying.Anyway, I hope that would make cavalry only stronger in the open, which is realistic and adds strategic depth.
  21. yes, a ship that magically has wind always coming from its back will indeed bend to the outside when turning, for what it's worth. but anyway, I love the U turn movement, tell me more about it! what do you think about applying it to other entities too, like rams, chariots, formations, cavalry?
  22. seleucids are not wow's favourite serious edit: maurya are quite a bit too skewed, and in general differentiation is nice if geared towards preferences and play stiles, what are those here for each civ? I suspect this rework is simply going to turn into some civ being OP and the others being sub-par because some particular combination of boni turns out to be simply too effective in building up a good army quickly, which is how the game works now. nice ideas though, I like the persian ice houses. very pretty.
×
×
  • Create New...