User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

08 Oct 2017, 18:01

Garja wrote: you can build strats around that to outlast the opponent in the long run.


Oh hey, a new style.

Garja wrote:the meta would just adapt to this and then you would see stuff like TC+vill naked FF instead of semi FFs. Basically what remains is that some civs would benefit more than others and it would change all timings.


These aren't necessarily bad things, I don't want to play the same game with nothing new to explore. I want a reason to make videos and get back onboard

I'm sure there are many old fans out there who feel the same way.

___________

I think the important thing to take away from this discussion is that moving the covered wagon to the colonial age is at least interesting.

I quite like the idea of making more styles playable. I like the idea of adding more options in age 2, TC wagon facilitates a more macroy style than current builds. Perhaps the other 50% of politicians (bishop and naturalist) could be made to see some play. Not necessarily making them must use choices, but at least usable in some specific circumstances.
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
Ninja
Donator 03
Posts: 12359
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

08 Oct 2017, 18:06

hmm actually that TC vs Bank wagon graph makes the TC sort of viable?

That being said, in the current meta I don't actually think it would see play. It requires too much of an investment.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

08 Oct 2017, 18:11

The TC takes 14 minutes before it becomes more worthwhile than a bank (assuming none of those extra vils gets belled up from your lack of units...)

EDIT: you'll also be plowing through your hunts/mines much faster then surely unable to push out for more?

It is a big investment

But French and Germans etc don't have banks so it is an option. I wonder though how worthwhile an option it is given that stagecoach is something they can do too.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 01
Posts: 4719
ESO: Garja

08 Oct 2017, 18:34

TPs are shared so stagecoach it's not necessarily always viable.
A TC is personal.
It is basically the same thing as giving schooners to Germans and French. If you still wondering, yes they would be quite OP with that.

I'd rather prefer seeing an extra TC build limit per age than moving the covered wagon. That would be interesting but the game should be completely rebalanced around that.
User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

08 Oct 2017, 19:22

I'm pleased you think it's interesting :), I hope there are some other interesting changes that are less controversial
__________________

I just feel like an ATP build would be at least as good as a secondary TC, perhaps better

But we don't really see that as French/Ger

You have to make 34 extra vils at the second TC before it becomes more worthwhile than a bank (and have the hunts/mines for that), most games will be over by then and you'll have been behind the whole time.

4.5 mins in discovery + 30 seconds to send TC + however long it take to build + 14 mins to train vils, it's a big investment
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Dragoon
Posts: 237
ESO: HUMMAN

08 Oct 2017, 19:33

I believe in order to do these changes, you need to have 10 times bigger player base. I am all in for rebalancing meta game like other popular strategy games (dota, heartstone, etc.) The problem is aoe3 is a nostalgic game at least for the half of the players. They only make same strats and builds, i mean come'n people still play vanilla not wondering tad/wc civs. So a group of players are against any change, they just want to play the game they know. In all games there is a group like that, but in aoe3 it is relatively high that they wont assimilate. If you have more new players and eager players; basically when there are more players it is easier to adapt a patch.
Right now if you are bored of the game meta watch some Aizamk stream.
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Jaeger
Posts: 4267
Location: Paris

08 Oct 2017, 19:38

Sorry but I really don't understand how you would need to prod 31 vils to make your second tc worth more than a bank (= 4 vils). I think there's a problem in the maths there.

Anyway: Garja has a point, it would change the game too much. Maybe it sounds funny and interesting, but realistically, we would need to rebalance everything if we let people have an extra tc (be it a shipment or not) in colonial.
kickass_OP wrote:lbs vs cavs no is good

look wrote:Detail, garja was cattle for slaughter in my hands.

look wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 01
Posts: 4719
ESO: Garja

08 Oct 2017, 19:43

ATP requires a second card in age1 that Fre and Germans don't have. But they have better eco than most civs at that point, plus 400w and in fact they can grab the TP line without ATP. ATP is extremely good on some maps and still the TP line is shareable so it's inherently more risky than a personal TC.
The math behind the TC effectiveness is somehow flawed, I can tell you that. Pretty sure after 7-8 vills the TC is already as good as a bank.
Basically the equivalent cost is
4.8 vills
+ some extra vills because you don't get them all at the same time
+ 100f for each vill
- the resources saved by the TC wagon buildings by itself
- extra value in term of 10 pop space, map ctrl, vill garrisoning, long term potential advantage, etc.
Besides any civ would build banks if they could on top of their respective bonuses.
As I said the meta would adapt accordingly. Right now Ger and Fre try the age up way becuase they can't outboom civs like Brits for example. But with a 2nd TC they can. Surely then Brits can do the same so the card just becomes meta, but then all timings are alterated and fortress cards like 8 skirms etc. lose value so likely those civs are better off with the current meta.

I don't think the game needs anything likethis to be interesting. There is so much stuff left unexplored just because it is marginally not viable (e.g natives).
User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

08 Oct 2017, 20:54

AOE3 is a nostalgic game, yes. Thousands will flock back to experience it - perhaps even 10x the current user base - who knows...

What I do know though is that MS have sunk thousands into this franchise reboot and will likely spend thousands more. That AOE4 trailer voiced by Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister) probably wasn't cheap at all. That announcement at Gamescon... they gave away $1000 as a graphics card alone, like it was nothing - they just handed it someone, no contest or 'submit your answer to out dumb quiz bs'. Did you see that stage, the lighting? The venue, the announcers, that super edited mini documentary with a bunch of old devs, all these things. They look pretty serious about this to me - this doesn't look like the the same 'hey guys, it's on Steam now' crap they did for AOM, 2HD & 3. I'm sure you've seen that in AOE1DE, every model has been remastered to look good in 4k - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNXXsMQpow4). If they do the same for the other DEs and make them all compatible with their windows store like this one - that's gotta be several hundred hours of dev time, surely? Not to mention everything else they would have to spend money on such as a triple AAA modern RTS called 'Age of Empires IV'. They've got to know the expectations people have of that for that right? Perhaps unrealistic expectations. No one announces that game willy-nilly damnit

Honestly, I think it's going to be worth it. I personally think making big changes to AOE3 would be justified.

Especially with regards to capturing nostalgic players. They aren't nostalgic about shitty all-in Jan rushes or broken Iro Fast Fortresses. Or about how the native scout snares. For an old timers, the nostalgia comes from reliving their experience of the game - for many that will end at the campaign... especially if they log online after and get facerolled by something as retarded and bland as current Ottoman. Nostalgia is looking at all the cards again, building decks again, thinking up strategies and playing them with & against your friends. Sure, that can be done on current patch or even ESOC patch. But not for long. The content is old hat. There's nothing new there. The nostalgia will surely wear off and then people will start remember why they stopped playing in the first place.

Making more civs playable, with more colonial options (given that is essentially where the game starts) is essential. More politicians. Revamped cards. New BOs. A different meta. Why are all these things so taboo here? I'm not saying this change to the covered wagon shipment is the answer. But it's these kind of discussion I want us here at ESOC to have.

If MS continues to invest in this reboot in the way that they have then they're not going to leave us with one update on a retarded patch. There's got to be at least several years of patches in the bag from what we've seen so far. And ESOC patch has mostly fixed the core of the problems anyway. All that's left is the meta

For us still playing now, I highly doubt it's nostagia that keeps us here. My grandparents don't continue to watch black and white TV because they extract pleasure from it. Nostalgia is just a nice feeling of remembering how things were from the perspective of how things are. We're still playing because the gameplay is good. Not because we're change hating masochists that refuse to find a good time. For us here it's because the game is good. It's fun. The pacing is right. The historical era is cool. We understand cards/shipments for the multilayered strategy engine that they are. The unit counter system is nice. We're here for the gameplay, not the shity RE patch.

All we've been doing over the years is complaining about balance, the meta or making patches. RTS Sancturay Fan patch was a super high effort project seeking to make the game we love more fun. ESOC patch, is the exact same but this time was done through minimalism because we learned from out mistakes and realised getting people to adopt is really hard. If WoL and NE aren't example of people wanting to play this game but differently then I don't know what is.

All these are projects are about augmenting the game, bringing what's good about it out to the front.

Balance changes, and alterations to make the meta more fun/interesting aren't a bad thing guys. How many of us here at ESOC lurk on the forums but don't play. Probably lots. There's no reason to play, it's the same. But how many of us would get stuck in to the promise of a fresh meta? Probably almost all of us. For me, the best part of any game is figuring it out. I know so many friends over the years that stopped playing for newer games that allow you to do that.

I want us to start talking about 'interesting' changes. Forget about balance for now. If Microsoft were to see the desire for change and actually wanted to do something about it, let's have some damn ideas ready for them. They and the future community (us) can fine tune the balance. There'll be plenty of time for that if I'm right. AOE:DE had a beta right? I didn't get in, but I'm not an AOE1 player.

We are however, all AOE3 players.
User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

08 Oct 2017, 20:56

With regards to the maths

TC opportunity cost = 700 (top tier colonial shipment) - 100 (TC provides 10 pop) + 100 for each vil + 10 for each vil (cost of 1 pop for each vil you wouldn't usually make)

Bank = 700

Resources are payed back at 1/s for vils (roughly how fast they gather food with hunting dogs and steel traps)

For banks, they pay back 2.75/s
Attachments
TC vs Bank 1.png
TC vs Bank 1.png (72.28 KiB) Viewed 298 times
TC vs Bank 2.png
TC vs Bank 2.png (76.22 KiB) Viewed 298 times
Great Britain Hazza54321
Jaeger
Posts: 3468

08 Oct 2017, 21:42

It would be an awful change, makes 1v1s even more passive than they already are
Venividivici_w: i heard h20 signed up last minute. Prob waited for roby not signing up so he wouldnt get smashed again

Well, Im the best thing that happened to aoe3 - vane stoilov 2k17
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 01
Posts: 4719
ESO: Garja

08 Oct 2017, 21:45

Interjection wrote:
spoiler

Hmm that shows the point where the return on the investment is the same for tc and bank. But at that point the Tc has paid back 13200 res vs 2131 in absolute terms. Same for the difference between cost and payoff. It's not that the math is wrong, but simply the % has very little meaning when the two options work on a completely different scale.

Imagine two investments in real life that have same return in term of % (and same risk of course) but one requiresmway more capital and pays off way more than the other. Obviously the big investment is just better provided that you have the money for it. The percentual return only express the efficiency of the investment (ratio between investment and payoff in this case) but tells nothing about the actual payoff.

Try adding a column "= payoff - cost" and see where the tc and the bank break even.
Last edited by EAGLEMUT on 09 Oct 2017, 17:31, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: fixed spoiler end tag
User avatar
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1417

08 Oct 2017, 21:49

Noice maths buddy, while the calculations are clean I have a few points on your findings.

Your final column isn't a metric I'd value in a game of aoe3. When comparing worth of the builds you're better off just looking at 'Res paid back' subtract 'Opp cost'. According to your spreadsheet the town center overtakes the bank between 375 and 400 seconds, call it 6 and half minutes, which sounds a lot more reasonable than 14 minutes.

Of course the other point is that there's a whole host of additional variables, some calculable:

    Bank wagon build time
    TC wagon build time
    Villager seconds lost on picking up 700w
    Villager seconds lost in between gathering hunts

but most won't be unless we have a supercomputer.

Edit: Dayum got Garjaaa'd
User avatar
European Union bwinner1
Dragoon
Posts: 300

08 Oct 2017, 21:51

Interjection wrote:With regards to the maths

TC opportunity cost = 700 (top tier colonial shipment) - 100 (TC provides 10 pop) + 100 for each vil + 10 for each vil (cost of 1 pop for each vil you wouldn't usually make)

Bank = 700

Resources are payed back at 1/s for vils (roughly how fast they gather food with hunting dogs and steel traps)

For banks, they pay back 2.75/s

It's obvioulsy not the same Investment paying for a vil every 30s than paying all in the begining because have more eco when the game advance. I mean, if you have to invest for a 100musk batch (with the cost of 100musk) in age 2, nobody would do this, whereas in some game you still make 100 musk in age 2. That's just not the same investing all in one time.
Also you don't take in consideration that 100w not equal 100f and that a 2.75/s production of gold is not the same as a 2.75 production of food. You may say that's an approximation, but your 1st approximation is almost of 100% and the 2nd like 50%, so your result has not meaning... (I mean the time could be halfed aswell)
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 2446
ESO: Mitoe

08 Oct 2017, 22:03

I actually think this is the sort of change that could be very healthy for the game. Even just changing the way the TC build limit works like LordRaphael or Garja have suggested so that they're buildable in Colonial or increase by 1 every age would go a long way in adding some more depth to the game.

It's sort of similar to what GoodSpeed was naming as the core complaint about AoE3 in proposal thread. Lots of people feel like they're locked into very specific strategies from the very beginning of the game, and they're correct to an extent. Finding ways to add to those options in new and exciting ways throughout the game would go a long way to reviving the game, in my opinion.
User avatar
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1417

08 Oct 2017, 22:14

Mitoe wrote:I actually think this is the sort of change that could be very healthy for the game. Even just changing the way the TC build limit works like LordRaphael or Garja have suggested so that they're buildable in Colonial or increase by 1 every age would go a long way in adding some more depth to the game.

It's sort of similar to what GoodSpeed was naming as the core complaint about AoE3 in proposal thread. Lots of people feel like they're locked into very specific strategies from the very beginning of the game, and they're correct to an extent. Finding ways to add to those options in new and exciting ways throughout the game would go a long way to reviving the game, in my opinion.


Good idea but after a while I think it would become pretty clear that it's too strong or pretty shit and we'd be back to one dimensional play at which point you'd need to tweak it again.

Now if we could be sure DE would offer balance support for a certain time after release you could reliably tweak things so a lot more strategies offer roughly the same strength. *Hint hint*

Grenadier buff anyone? :devilrazz:
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 01
Posts: 4719
ESO: Garja

08 Oct 2017, 22:21

Interjection wrote:AOE3 is a nostalgic game, yes. Thousands will flock back to experience it - perhaps even 10x the current user base - who knows...

What I do know though is that MS have sunk thousands into this franchise reboot and will likely spend thousands more. That AOE4 trailer voiced by Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister) probably wasn't cheap at all. That announcement at Gamescon... they gave away $1000 as a graphics card alone, like it was nothing - they just handed it someone, no contest or 'submit your answer to out dumb quiz bs'. Did you see that stage, the lighting? The venue, the announcers, that super edited mini documentary with a bunch of old devs, all these things. They look pretty serious about this to me - this doesn't look like the the same 'hey guys, it's on Steam now' crap they did for AOM, 2HD & 3. I'm sure you've seen that in AOE1DE, every model has been remastered to look good in 4k - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNXXsMQpow4). If they do the same for the other DEs and make them all compatible with their windows store like this one - that's gotta be several hundred hours of dev time, surely? Not to mention everything else they would have to spend money on such as a triple AAA modern RTS called 'Age of Empires IV'. They've got to know the expectations people have of that for that right? Perhaps unrealistic expectations. No one announces that game willy-nilly damnit

Honestly, I think it's going to be worth it. I personally think making big changes to AOE3 would be justified.

Especially with regards to capturing nostalgic players. They aren't nostalgic about shitty all-in Jan rushes or broken Iro Fast Fortresses. Or about how the native scout snares. For an old timers, the nostalgia comes from reliving their experience of the game - for many that will end at the campaign... especially if they log online after and get facerolled by something as retarded and bland as current Ottoman. Nostalgia is looking at all the cards again, building decks again, thinking up strategies and playing them with & against your friends. Sure, that can be done on current patch or even ESOC patch. But not for long. The content is old hat. There's nothing new there. The nostalgia will surely wear off and then people will start remember why they stopped playing in the first place.

Making more civs playable, with more colonial options (given that is essentially where the game starts) is essential. More politicians. Revamped cards. New BOs. A different meta. Why are all these things so taboo here? I'm not saying this change to the covered wagon shipment is the answer. But it's these kind of discussion I want us here at ESOC to have.

If MS continues to invest in this reboot in the way that they have then they're not going to leave us with one update on a retarded patch. There's got to be at least several years of patches in the bag from what we've seen so far. And ESOC patch has mostly fixed the core of the problems anyway. All that's left is the meta

For us still playing now, I highly doubt it's nostagia that keeps us here. My grandparents don't continue to watch black and white TV because they extract pleasure from it. Nostalgia is just a nice feeling of remembering how things were from the perspective of how things are. We're still playing because the gameplay is good. Not because we're change hating masochists that refuse to find a good time. For us here it's because the game is good. It's fun. The pacing is right. The historical era is cool. We understand cards/shipments for the multilayered strategy engine that they are. The unit counter system is nice. We're here for the gameplay, not the shity RE patch.

All we've been doing over the years is complaining about balance, the meta or making patches. RTS Sancturay Fan patch was a super high effort project seeking to make the game we love more fun. ESOC patch, is the exact same but this time was done through minimalism because we learned from out mistakes and realised getting people to adopt is really hard. If WoL and NE aren't example of people wanting to play this game but differently then I don't know what is.

All these are projects are about augmenting the game, bringing what's good about it out to the front.

Balance changes, and alterations to make the meta more fun/interesting aren't a bad thing guys. How many of us here at ESOC lurk on the forums but don't play. Probably lots. There's no reason to play, it's the same. But how many of us would get stuck in to the promise of a fresh meta? Probably almost all of us. For me, the best part of any game is figuring it out. I know so many friends over the years that stopped playing for newer games that allow you to do that.

I want us to start talking about 'interesting' changes. Forget about balance for now. If Microsoft were to see the desire for change and actually wanted to do something about it, let's have some damn ideas ready for them. They and the future community (us) can fine tune the balance. There'll be plenty of time for that if I'm right. AOE:DE had a beta right? I didn't get in, but I'm not an AOE1 player.

We are however, all AOE3 players.

I don't expect these remakes to grab many new players. To me they are more a way for MS to finally manage the AOE franchise properly. And by that I mean:
- put the old titles in line with todays new standards for what concern graphics and playability;
- please the the fans of the respective titles;
- produce some money to finance the real new title (AOE IV) while also building up the hype;
- strengthen the cross selling strategy driving more user to win10 (this is probably the key point).

With that said, I wouldn't mind new contents or some gameplay twists as long as they rebalance things accordingly, otherwise I would very much prefer the current state of things.
Also it is not black and white. They could simply pick the current state of things and release some trivial balance patches like they always did.
New graphics + balance patch and voilà the game is gonna last for 5 more years easily, which is more than enough considering that AOE4 is going to cannibalize the previious titles anyway, subtracting something like 90% of casual AOE players.

As for the specific change you propose in this thread I don't think it can be considerated independently from balance. It's a current card afterall.
It would have been different if the proposed change was to add a +1 TC build limit for each age for example.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 2446
ESO: Mitoe

08 Oct 2017, 22:21

WickedCossack wrote:Now if we could be sure DE would offer balance support for a certain time after release you could reliably tweak things so a lot more strategies offer roughly the same strength. *Hint hint*

This would be ideal, yes.
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Dragoon
Posts: 237
ESO: HUMMAN

08 Oct 2017, 22:25

WickedCossack wrote:
Mitoe wrote:I actually think this is the sort of change that could be very healthy for the game. Even just changing the way the TC build limit works like LordRaphael or Garja have suggested so that they're buildable in Colonial or increase by 1 every age would go a long way in adding some more depth to the game.

It's sort of similar to what GoodSpeed was naming as the core complaint about AoE3 in proposal thread. Lots of people feel like they're locked into very specific strategies from the very beginning of the game, and they're correct to an extent. Finding ways to add to those options in new and exciting ways throughout the game would go a long way to reviving the game, in my opinion.


Good idea but after a while I think it would become pretty clear that it's too strong or pretty shit and we'd be back to one dimensional play at which point you'd need to tweak it again.

Now if we could be sure DE would offer balance support for a certain time after release you could reliably tweak things so a lot more strategies offer roughly the same strength. *Hint hint*

Grenadier buff anyone? :devilrazz:

Thats the point of meta game, balance is changed regularly in order to keep game interesting.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 2446
ESO: Mitoe

08 Oct 2017, 22:33

HUMMAN wrote:Thats the point of meta game, balance is changed regularly in order to keep game interesting.

The problem being, of course, when balance never changes to accommodate or disturb different meta changes.
User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

09 Oct 2017, 00:09

Could I argue that 2.75 c/s from a bank translates to the equivalent of 4.16 vils with placer mines (2.75/0.66)? Which for the sake of standardisation/comparison; there same value 'retasked' to food income is 4.16 f/s. Food income is how 'resources paid back' is calculated for the Covered Wagon so it's only fair the bank wagon uses the same units of measurments (right?). This would change the cost-benefit analysis of the bank to look significantly better, see spreadsheet below.

Eitherway, it doesn't matter.

What my calculations DO show though is that if you can spend those resources on multiple banks instead of an extra TC then you should because banks return their investment more quickly. Dutch can make multiple banks (and if the above is accurate), banks are significantly better than a second TC (if it's not accurate then they're slightly better than an extra TC). Eitherway, if you can spend the same resources on banks as a TC then banks are better. Dutch can do this. In absolute terms, Dutch isn't a super powerful civ - so then, surely making a TC isn't that good either.

I also highlighted earlier that making a secondary TC pays off VERY slowly to begin with. After 3 minutes, you'll be ~1000 resources down compared to current standard builds (e.g., cav semi, samwise build)... that's 10 fewer musks, or 5 huss or 9 skirms or ageing significantly sooner... and this assumes those extra vils don't get belled up and you actually have sufficient hunts/mines.

If you spent the same amount of resources instead investing/booming with banks, after 3 minutes you'd only be ~450 down (OR you wouln't be down at all, it would be fully paid off if the below spreadsheet is correct).

I guess the question is then, is it worth doing a TC build? Vs a contain is does come with extra TC fire and MM, which banks don't so that is interesting. I'd love to see it tested.

Garja wrote:Right now Ger and Fre try the age up way becuase they can't outboom civs like Brits for example.
I wonder how much TC would help, especially since Brits could get one too as well as their mannors. Eitherway, it would be interesting to see how much better/worse a TC build would be compared to current standard fortress pressure.
Attachments
TC vs Bank 3.png
TC vs Bank 3.png (71.54 KiB) Viewed 158 times
User avatar
European Union Interjection
ESOC Media Team
Donator 03
Posts: 254
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

09 Oct 2017, 00:20

Finally, before I go to bed. I just wanted to say that I kind of agree that changing the TC build limit to +1 per age (or similar) would be a much 'cleaner' way of handling this.

I categorically agree with Mitoe.

Mitoe


It would be nice/fun to test it.

I am pleased multiple players have said this topic is interesting. That was the point of this thread, to spark people's ideas.

I'd like to do this again some time
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
Ninja
Donator 03
Posts: 12359
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

09 Oct 2017, 00:56

I am still not sure itd even matter. Lets start off by saying that in age 3 building TCs is definitely not worth it. But thats at a later point in the game like kaiser pointed out. So maybe if youre getting a tc much earlier on will it be worth the investment. The thing is, I dont actually think banks are that insane, and a TC is arguably worse than a couple of banks; it starts paying off more slowly and takes longer to pay off. I wonder how long it takes before one TC starts overtaking investing in banks. Notice btw how getting 6 banks (old ep) was usually not even viable as it was too slow to pay off. Also I think banks are better than they seem because they give a ton of experience. 3 banks sorta givr you the 4th for free (in the form of an extra shipment).

Another comparison is to british manors. Those pay off much faster, and have, at first, a similair investment cost. Id, intuitively speaking, say that if you manor boom youre economically better off: if you invest 600w in a town center, and have enough vills on food to sustain that TC, youre going to be worse off than if you invest 600w in manors and then use the vills you already have to gather wood and get more manors. Basically you get 4 villagers right away and then you'll be getting wood at approximately the same rate as the towncenter is getting vills. But in reality manorbooming to 200 is rarely actually good, and if its done its done instantly (so quickly gettimg 20 manors) which is much better than building manors at the same rate that you would build vills from a tc, which is about as good as the TC wagon.

So standard play is better than full on manor boom which is better than gradual manor boom which is economically as good as the TC wagon but much more flexible. That being said, if any civ had the bonus brits have itd be OP probably, so maybe TC wagon is almost viable?

I have not managed to convince myself.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
Ninja
Donator 03
Posts: 12359
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

09 Oct 2017, 01:39

Actually imagine a standard vanilla civ basically up against ports. Ports starts with 1 extra villager but the other civ gets 3 vills, ports ships eco theory so is behind about one vill. Upon aging the other guy ships a TC wagon, but ports get their TC up much earlier so they make up for the vill difference. Ports end up being ahead 700 resources, the shipment that they didnt need to spend on the TC wagon. And then yes maybe this civ gets a bonus, like maybe its france with 3 CDB so youre actually 2 vills ahead during aging, and you could ship 4 CDB afterwards, but even then I dont think that makes up for you being down 700 resources. And then port colonial is actually weak, they start snowballing whem they get that thirs TC and even that is weak on RE.

This makes me think the TC wagon would not be viable.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Norway oxaloacetate
Dragoon
Posts: 205

09 Oct 2017, 11:39

Garja wrote:RIP port unique feature


I've noticed that you like to use your perspective of what the developers intended as an argument (which is problematic in itself, since you can only deduce it), and in this case it is really obvious that they did not think it ruins the uniqueness of the portuguese civilization bonus, based on the count that it actually is a part of the game.

Addendum: It may very well be the case that it does interfere with the porto civilization bonus. It most likely does exactly that, I am just tired of faulty logic being made to further ones own point.
Add. 2: This is a general statement, not some vendetta against Garja specifically.
Chess, Go, toothpicks. In that exact order.

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest