Jump to content

LetswaveaBook

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

LetswaveaBook last won the day on October 24

LetswaveaBook had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About LetswaveaBook

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

LetswaveaBook's Achievements

Triplicarius

Triplicarius (5/14)

441

Reputation

  1. @Reyhan You could look at some things differently. If you are attacked and are 3v1, you are not being bullied by your enemies. The bullies are your allies, they should made it a 3v3. I think TG meta is entirely wrong. You should always rush and any team mate should contribute to that. Booming is a strategic mistake, because if you boom you cant prevent your ally from being attacked. At least that is my view.
  2. I agree that such an idea is better suited for a mod. The main issue I see with the idea is that some factions have more diversity than others, so that causes some balance issues.
  3. So here is an example in less than a minute of effective use of the extra range of polearms.
  4. When enemies do that, the attacker can easily spot his units capturing the buildings and order them to attack. For Elephant archers and bolt shooters it is very difficult to see what they are targeting. conquoring is fine. attacking buildings/fields with pierce attack is not.
  5. You are right, but it is behaviour that is more undesirable than soldiers who try to capture. That is indeed also some defealt behaviour that is undesirable. I think that this also needs to be addressed.
  6. There is something wrong with elephant archers and bolt shooters. If there are no enemy units around, they will attack nearby enemy building and do not change focus unless the building is destroyed or the player orders them to do something different. In gameplay that is hugely annoying, since these units do little damage to buildings. I don't complain about them attacking buildings, what bothers me more is that they don't automatically switch targets when an organic unit appears.
  7. The game is limitless in its ''features''.
  8. In the scenario editor there is still an artillery and bolt tower for Carthage. So if you want to make a scenario, they are available.
  9. It is indeed not the very best example, but it has a few merits. The not scaling is one and the CC allows for a unit that can be trained in larger batches and can't be trained at the barracks: women. So an early p2 player could use that to boost his eco with women, while the standard player is booming with infantry. That is exactly the idea. Also, there is another benefit of faster working CCs, it makes having extra CCs more important, which is something the game could improve on IMHO. An extra CC in 1v1s is currently very risky as p3 is often the better option.
  10. I am happy to believe this is the case. What I think these options do not describe, is what kind of advantages there should be. I tend to think as bonuses a generic(or flat) if they help with any strategy and I think as bonuses as specific(or strategic) if they help with particular strategies. Extra health for all soldiers upon again up is what I would a generic bonus. The issue with generic advantages is that if you see that the attacker uses p2 for his strategy, then as a counter measure the defender can simply research p2 for himself to gain the same bonuses. I would prefer that the defender instead of mirroring the opponent, he would need to think more about what really fits his strategy. If there is a specific bonus, such a faster production at the CC then if you have 3 barracks you don't actually get a lot by the extra production speed as you have sufficient production speed. If the cavalry would get more HP by the breeding technology, then the defender can't simply counter that by mirroring the opponent. So I think specific bonuses give more diverse gameplay.
  11. There was an AoE4 tournament and the finals are on youtube. The game does not seem to be like my taste.
  12. A raider is also called a plunderer, which you can translate to German by writhing it with a capital letter and putting an umlaut on the first U.
  13. Hey CJ, you know, This is an OG gangsta gaming community from Grove Streat. What's up with OG Loc, is he still rappin'?
  14. There are some alternatives that I was hinting on or at least thinking about, but I did not mention them explicitly. Those strategies would be something like a mercenary rush(which does only rely on the OPness of mercs). Or strategies like what aslan did in some team games(which I posted in LetswaveaBook TG replay dump on the forum), namely getting p2 around 70 pop and then going for cavalry archers with 4 stables. Also Vali has played against me as gauls twice and did some strategies where he used an early p2 for extending his rush with fanatics or sword cavalry (which both worked due to my mistakes). Personally I tried some strategies with Mauryas where you go p2 with around 60-70 population and then go for elephant archers, which turns out not to be a very good strategy. These strategies focus on something else that building 3 barracks and spamming units. If we have the regular boom, with 3 barracks then getting better batch training at the CC is not that impressive. If instead you had no or only a single barracks then the faster batch training compares entirely different. For the 3 barracks player the change would mean something like +4.5% production capacity for CS infantry and for the play with no barracks it would mean +17% for CS infantry. It is not over the top, but it is something that helps. That is a valid concern, but it can be shown in the structure tree. If you want to play competitively, I think it is fair if players are expected to get some knowledge. For casual players I guess the change makes little difference. I will also clarify an underlying argument, maybe it is fair to discuss this underlying argument. I think (nearly) every faction should get something in p2 that helps with being aggressive before reaching 100 pop.
  15. I think it is not because people hated them, unit pushing was the culprit. If you put your archers in box formation, they would move fairly smoothly, and units without a formation had path-finding issues. Not only is the path finding superior, also the fact that units can stack has been disadvantageous to archers. In A24, when the front row of skirmishers attacked the archers, the ones behind needed to path around their allies to find a spot from which they could shoot. In A24 you would never get all your skirmishers shooting at the enemy in a smooth motion. First of all, no matter how creative the solution is, archers seem to suffer from a material disadvantage in their stats. I think A24 mainly had good archers because turn rates made pathfinding awkward. Sometimes if you have the material disadvantage, there is not much you can do except getting better material. I ran some tests in the scenario editor with 10 basic pikes+10 basic skirms against 10 advanced spears+10 basic skrims, the side with the pikes won. If you do the same test with a weaker ranged unit, the advanced units get the win (which they deserve). Also the attack-ground(or attack group) would be a nice feature, but it does not solve the pike issue. All pike factions do have access to skirmishers and archers of some kind. Anyway, this is not about AoE4, whereas the OP wanted to talk about AoE4.
×
×
  • Create New...