Treaty Patch |1.5|
-
- Crossbow
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Jan 9, 2017
- ESO: InsertESOUserName
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4| [April 2017 Update]
Just looking on patch notes, and some numbers don't add up very well. Hand motars got 32x or 40x vs tepees? (i've not checked on the patch yet in-game). Nothing major but still shouldn't be conflicting information in the patch notes.
Changes from 1.3: "Hand Mortar bonus vs buildings reverted to 16"
From RE: "Hand Mortar new bonus vs Teepee: x2 (x40 vs Teepee in total)."
Changes from 1.3: "Hand Mortar bonus vs buildings reverted to 16"
From RE: "Hand Mortar new bonus vs Teepee: x2 (x40 vs Teepee in total)."
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
I'm seeing that the Improved Buildings card for India lost its team effect while still retaining only a 25% hp boost for buildings, which is not in line with other civilizations (40%). Is this an intended nerf, or an oversight? I'm probably in the minority, but I like/liked using this card.
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Most likely an oversight as every card that is TEAM on RE lost its team effect.
- QueenOfdestiny
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Aug 9, 2016
- ESO: QueenOfdestiny
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
EAGLEMUT wrote:queenofdestiny wrote:When will we see 1.5?
The aim is currently set for after TTTT and before ESOC Autumn.
New regular EP to come before autumn?
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Darwin_ wrote:EAGLEMUT wrote:queenofdestiny wrote:When will we see 1.5?
The aim is currently set for after TTTT and before ESOC Autumn.
New regular EP to come before autumn?
This next release will contain changes to the standard patch as well, but not on a new-balance-iteration level. There will be some fixes and new features.
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
EAGLEMUT wrote:queenofdestiny wrote:When will we see 1.5?
The aim is currently set for after TTTT and before ESOC Autumn.
Oh how do you know more than me? XD
- dicktator_
- Howdah
- Posts: 1565
- Joined: Nov 14, 2015
- ESO: Conquerer999
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Lukas_L99 wrote:EAGLEMUT wrote:queenofdestiny wrote:When will we see 1.5?
The aim is currently set for after TTTT and before ESOC Autumn.
Oh how do you know more than me? XD
Probably because he's part of the dev team.
Pretty sure I already sent this to niceking, but I'll repost it here. 1.5 changes:
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
youve missed "remove spain"
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
You forgot remove cow booms
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
cptlethal wrote:You forgot remove cow booms
U forgot to uninstall
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
sergyou wrote:cptlethal wrote:You forgot remove cow booms
U forgot to uninstall
i like the cut of your jib princess
keep up the good work
xx
-
- Crossbow
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Aug 26, 2016
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
I feel like Spain needs a buff. The 50% lancer attack nerf vs HI has weakened them too much, and the extra ten pop just isn't enough to compensate for this. Lancers lose to everything now except light infantry. Their attack vs artillery and cavalry was already very low, but now they also get hard countered by heavy infantry which they used to do ok against. Lancers have no durability atm.
Until their lancers come back, Spain will only be a shadow of its former self
Until their lancers come back, Spain will only be a shadow of its former self
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Interesting opinion xd how many tp spains did you actually face to say that ?
- JakeyBoyTH
- Howdah
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Oct 15, 2016
- ESO: Ex-Contributor
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
FloKo83 Aoe3 wrote:Interesting opinion xd how many tp spains did you actually face to say that ?
Don't forget to put Gendarmes back to RE as well.
Advanced Wonders suck
- Aizamk
Ugh Advanced Wonders suck
- Aizamk
- Aizamk
Ugh Advanced Wonders suck
- Aizamk
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
JakeyBoyTH wrote:FloKo83 Aoe3 wrote:Interesting opinion xd how many tp spains did you actually face to say that ?
Don't forget to put Gendarmes back to RE as well.
No
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Why not give otto 210 pop or stm
- Gichtenlord
- Howdah
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Nov 15, 2015
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Hazza54321 wrote:Why not give otto 210 pop or stm
Interesting idea, since otto struggles to keep a decent army size out, because of their long training times.
Imo, changing abus pop to 1.5 would be perfect, but I dont think thats possible :/
r]
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
What would the danger be of having Otto train units at the same speed as other civs
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
cptlethal wrote:What would the danger be of having Otto train units at the same speed as other civs
Variety
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
Gichtenlord wrote:Hazza54321 wrote:Why not give otto 210 pop or stm
Interesting idea, since otto struggles to keep a decent army size out, because of their long training times.
Imo, changing abus pop to 1.5 would be perfect, but I dont think thats possible :/
Yea I considered that too but it would work
- dicktator_
- Howdah
- Posts: 1565
- Joined: Nov 14, 2015
- ESO: Conquerer999
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
If abus pop is brought down to 1.5 then bombard pop should be brought up to 7 imo (it is 6 atm). Seems like it would be an elegant change.
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
If abus is 1.5, and you have odd number abus in army. What will the pop count as?
Like 5 abus = 7.5 pop, will be taken as next whole number?
And this 0.5 increment, will it result in decrease in otto pop throughout the game?
Like 5 abus = 7.5 pop, will be taken as next whole number?
And this 0.5 increment, will it result in decrease in otto pop throughout the game?
- Gichtenlord
- Howdah
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Nov 15, 2015
Re: Treaty Patch |1.4|
1.5 pop will probably not work, because they mostlikely used Integer numbers to implement pop. An ugly workaround would be to multiply max pop and every units pop by 10
r]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests