Venezuela Hazza54321
Jaeger
Posts: 3969

29 Oct 2017, 04:27

Mitoe wrote:@Hazza54321

You're going to have a provide an explanation for the "bland" and "doesn't require any thought process at all" arguments.


The reason people aren't playing Colonial games anymore has nothing to do with the fact that skirm/goon is too strong or anything like that. It's simply because the maps have more resources now, allowing you to remain safely in your base for a longer period of time; rendering Colonial contain strategies rather weak, as the defender will have plenty of time to tech up to Fortress and break the contain.

And, as you may be aware, there are actually plenty of maps in the map pool that promote exactly the kind of play you desire (e.g. Cascade Range, Pampas Sierras, Bengal, and Klondike, to name a few), and yet no one seems to want to play on them. Why not? Maybe because the types of strategies these maps tend to promote are unfun and are arguably easier to perform, making it difficult for a skilled player to differentiate themselves from an unskilled player (the all-in type strategies you want so badly), and also because even though everyone claims to want change, they don't want to actually have to play differently or invest time into learning new styles of play.

The game would actually be a lot more diverse if you all didn't insist on playing on the exact same type of map with the exact same type of resources every single game, what a shocker :O

you literally dont have to think about the unit composition, the build order, the micro etc, because its the same build and the same style of micro using only 2 units(mostly), same macro, literally the same units even with different civs. Always involving tp stagecoach

Now if you want to also promote different styles of play on maps that would typically cater towards boomy playstyles for example, you could look at a simple change like changing the Fortress politician age time: something I've wanted to change for quite some time.

It currently takes longer to age to Fortress than it does to any other age (110 seconds vs 90 seconds), unless you fast age of course (40 seconds). The key to making Colonial play more viable while also keeping Fortress as a solid option, you'd have to either increase the politician reward (e.g. 6 skirm > 7 skirm), decrease the age time (110 seconds > 100 or 90 seconds), and/or increase the age time for the fast age politician (40 seconds > 45 or 50 seconds).

This would make choosing which politician you age with a lot more important, and also opens more windows for punishment while still giving players a chance to outplay their opponent (or follow them up to fortress if their timing fails!).

Note that this change also improves current non-meta civs (Japan, India, China, Aztec, for example), while potentially weakening those current meta civs (German, Dutch, Port, France, etc.), but only in those situations.

I've suggested this change in the past, but no one seems to agree with me sadly.



Now if you want to avoid people only using skirm/goon compositions in Fortress, that's going to be harder; you'd have to seriously cripple the skirmisher (reduce damage) or reduce it's micro-ability (e.g. 20 range > 18 range). Somehow I doubt many people would be happy with either of these changes. You could maybe make skirms 5c or 5f more expensive? I could see myself losing games because I only got 4 skirms out in early fortress instead of 5.

OR

You could do things like making TCs cheaper! If TCs are viable then people may have to invest into units with higher siege (cannons, heavy infantry, etc.), or play more aggressively in fortress to deny said TCs, where certain unit compositions may be stronger than skirm/goon, since goons kinda need a decent mass to defend skirmishers effectively, which would be especially difficult to get if you're investing in a town center. :hmm:

OH WAIT.

Although in all seriousness the TC probably isn't quite cheap enough to warrant that, yet.

you literally dont have to think about the unit composition, the build order, the micro etc, because its the same build and the same style of micro using only 2 units(mostly), same macro, literally the same units even with different civs. Always involving tp stagecoach.
Its not the "all-in-style" that im so desirable about, did i not mention age 2 vs age 3 timings etc, also long colonials?
cheaper tcs will just involve the 2 falcs so thats irrelevant, you wont make heavy infantry in age 3 because theyre useless anyway so that siege argument is invalid.
Reducing the micro ability of skirms is the last thing everyone wants, just want to make age 2 play more viable with both maps and how gs mentions that the meta is "naturally shifting" to a semi tp meta, when all the age 2 civs are being nerfed directly or indirectly by ep (otto russia iro sioux azzy india japan) and all those civs being indirectly being buffed by ep and also directly buffed, providing a larger gap between the civs,brits, ports, dutch, france, prepatch german, china, etc
Venividivici_w: i heard h20 signed up last minute. Prob waited for roby not signing up so he wouldnt get smashed again
My recently started youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChh6jN ... 15ZhFONCBg
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7411

29 Oct 2017, 04:34

Mitoe wrote:
Jerom wrote:
somppukunkku wrote:Reminder: Sepoy: 190hp, 25 att
Musket*1.2 = 180hp, 27.6 att

Upgraded musket fights good vs skirm if you micro good. Like micro god somppu does.

This is actually hilarious to me. Due to people whining I've always thought sepoy were actually really strong but they're clearly not that insane at all.

He forgot to include (or purposely omitted) the 10% hp sepoy get from British consulate, and if you're not on British consulate by the time someone is fortress and has a skirm mass then you're probably going to lose anyway.

Anyway, I'm not sure the sepoy nerf was strictly necessary either (would have preferred a cost change, +5f or +5c), but don't understand why everyone is upset about skirm/goon? Most civs don't even use that unit composition.

China, Spain, German, Japan, Aztec, Russia, British, Otto. That's over half of the civs, and none of these civs focus on or use skirm/goon compositions, even Sioux arguably rarely uses a skirm/goon composition. Sounds to me like people dislike skirmisher-type units in particular, not skirm/goon unit compositions.


Jup, they dont use, and besides ger/brits who have equal or better combos, the non skir/goon civs are rarely played vs skir goon civs because easily outclassed. China is an exception sometimes, because of their cav, so they can actually make their melee in work, because cav isnt bothered too much by pathing issues the melee inf creates
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTDonator 01
Posts: 2769
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger Id: 346407

29 Oct 2017, 04:43

umeu wrote:
Spoiler


There are 3 ez fixes for that:

1) increase skirs bonus vs hi. Or better yet, make the arsenal upgrade easier to access (more accesible arsenal would be good in general)

2) buff bow pike so that they actuall can go toe to toe with musk huss. Again, more accessible arsenal could be good here. I think arsenal should just be available in age2. With some upgrades only available in age3. Advanced arsenal could just unlock more tech instead of making it age2.

3) revamp grenadiers to become heavy infantry killers.

Also the fact that age3 play is so dominant definitely correlates to skirm/goon combo dominance. With vill boxing, terrible pathing and auto siege modus, its very hard to get much done even vs small numbers of that combo. Unless you have tanky musk or tons of tanky cav. But ofc youre nerfing the former because its used too much. Even though skirm goon is used even more while there is no real argument why musk cav cannon shouldnt also be a fairly common and standard age3 combo. Not to mention skir dops or halbs. But ofc musk mass is boring and skir mass is pro.

Agree about the arsenal stuff. It's currently worthless in 99% (or more) games, despite being a healthy game mechanic in theory.

Don't really understand why you'd suggest buffing skirms damage vs HI when you already think they're too dominant?

I feel like Grenadiers should not really become big damage dealer. They should fit into some kind of siege-niche, which they currently don't. The Artillery Foundry is too inaccessible I guess, but I can't really see how to fix that without potentially making cannons a go-to in Fortress, but maybe that side-effect could be a good thing?

Hazza54321 wrote:
Spoiler

you literally dont have to think about the unit composition, the build order, the micro etc, because its the same build and the same style of micro using only 2 units(mostly), same macro, literally the same units even with different civs. Always involving tp stagecoach.
Its not the "all-in-style" that im so desirable about, did i not mention age 2 vs age 3 timings etc, also long colonials?
cheaper tcs will just involve the 2 falcs so thats irrelevant, you wont make heavy infantry in age 3 because theyre useless anyway so that siege argument is invalid.
Reducing the micro ability of skirms is the last thing everyone wants, just want to make age 2 play more viable with both maps and how gs mentions that the meta is "naturally shifting" to a semi tp meta, when all the age 2 civs are being nerfed directly or indirectly by ep (otto russia iro sioux azzy india japan) and all those civs being indirectly being buffed by ep and also directly buffed, providing a larger gap between the civs,brits, ports, dutch, france, prepatch german, china, etc

I'd like to hear what you think about what I had to say about maps and age up times, as they very clearly address the "literally don't have to think" problem you seem to believe exists. Maybe if you didn't always have 3 safe hunts and 2 safe mines in your base you wouldn't always take the decision to go Fortress so lightly.

You need to stop giving me simple statements like:

"you literally dont have to think about the unit composition, the build order, the micro etc, because its the same build and the same style of micro using only 2 units(mostly), same macro, literally the same units even with different civs."

...and instead give me more answers to the "why" question. Explain to me why you think civs are forced into these unit compositions or builds.

Always involving tp stagecoach.

Strongly disagree. Stagecoach builds in particular are very punishable (although ATP builds are admittedly difficult to punish): take a TP of your own or build a few more units to kill TPs before you follow them to Fortress and you'll find that it's not that simple. Whether or not you should go for stagecoach depends a lot on the matchup and how your opponent intends to play the matchup, and if you don't identify what he's doing before you commit to it you may find yourself heavily punished for doing so.

If you disagree with me then I challenge you to "ALWAYS" go stagecoach and tell me how it goes.


Agree about certain civs not being given equal or adequate attention when it comes to balance changes.



So what does everyone think about the Industrial Age? I can't see it getting much attention in the future if everyone wants to focus so much on Colonial.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7411

29 Oct 2017, 04:55

Mitoe wrote:
umeu wrote:
Spoiler


There are 3 ez fixes for that:

1) increase skirs bonus vs hi. Or better yet, make the arsenal upgrade easier to access (more accesible arsenal would be good in general)

2) buff bow pike so that they actuall can go toe to toe with musk huss. Again, more accessible arsenal could be good here. I think arsenal should just be available in age2. With some upgrades only available in age3. Advanced arsenal could just unlock more tech instead of making it age2.

3) revamp grenadiers to become heavy infantry killers.

Also the fact that age3 play is so dominant definitely correlates to skirm/goon combo dominance. With vill boxing, terrible pathing and auto siege modus, its very hard to get much done even vs small numbers of that combo. Unless you have tanky musk or tons of tanky cav. But ofc youre nerfing the former because its used too much. Even though skirm goon is used even more while there is no real argument why musk cav cannon shouldnt also be a fairly common and standard age3 combo. Not to mention skir dops or halbs. But ofc musk mass is boring and skir mass is pro.

Agree about the arsenal stuff. It's currently worthless in 99% (or more) games, despite being a healthy game mechanic in theory.

Don't really understand why you'd suggest buffing skirms damage vs HI when you already think they're too dominant?

I feel like Grenadiers should not really become big damage dealer. They should fit into some kind of siege-niche, which they currently don't. The Artillery Foundry is too inaccessible I guess, but I can't really see how to fix that without potentially making cannons a go-to in Fortress, but maybe that side-effect could be a good thing?

Hazza54321 wrote:
Spoiler

you literally dont have to think about the unit composition, the build order, the micro etc, because its the same build and the same style of micro using only 2 units(mostly), same macro, literally the same units even with different civs. Always involving tp stagecoach.
Its not the "all-in-style" that im so desirable about, did i not mention age 2 vs age 3 timings etc, also long colonials?
cheaper tcs will just involve the 2 falcs so thats irrelevant, you wont make heavy infantry in age 3 because theyre useless anyway so that siege argument is invalid.
Reducing the micro ability of skirms is the last thing everyone wants, just want to make age 2 play more viable with both maps and how gs mentions that the meta is "naturally shifting" to a semi tp meta, when all the age 2 civs are being nerfed directly or indirectly by ep (otto russia iro sioux azzy india japan) and all those civs being indirectly being buffed by ep and also directly buffed, providing a larger gap between the civs,brits, ports, dutch, france, prepatch german, china, etc

I'd like to hear what you think about what I had to say about maps and age up times, as they very clearly address the "literally don't have to think" problem you seem to believe exists. Maybe if you didn't always have 3 safe hunts and 2 safe mines in your base you wouldn't always take the decision to go Fortress so lightly.

Agree about certain civs not being given equal or adequate attention when it comes to balance changes.



So what does everyone think about the Industrial Age? I can't see it getting much attention in the future if everyone wants to focus so much on Colonial.


Buffing skirs would be my least preferred option. But the problem with skir goon vs musk isnt the opness of skirs, but goons rather.

Grens can be a heavy inf counter, without becoming huge dmg dealers. Making the that role would greatly increase dynamic of many mus. Imagine them vs china, or in russ/brit mirrors. Would improve depth and strategic choice. Besides that, they should be trainable from barracks, not foundry.

I don't think indus needs much if any attention. Its pretty solid as it is. Maybe spain and sioux could use some better IV but thats it. Theyre already age3 powerhouses, so a strong IV is probably not needed because they have little reason to age (except for spanish revo).
IV should be an exception, where as age2 and age3 should be the core of the game.
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTDonator 01
Posts: 2769
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger Id: 346407

29 Oct 2017, 05:04

umeu wrote:Buffing skirs would be my least preferred option. But the problem with skir goon vs musk isnt the opness of skirs, but goons rather.

Grens can be a heavy inf counter, without becoming huge dmg dealers. Making the that role would greatly increase dynamic of many mus. Imagine them vs china, or in russ/brit mirrors. Would improve depth and strategic choice. Besides that, they should be trainable from barracks, not foundry.

Why are goons the problem? Please elaborate more when you make such statements or this discussion is going to take a very long time.

I can see why you would say that, since weaker goons opens the door for making hand cavalry to counter the skirms a bit more (instead of just trying to make more skirms than your opponent), which in turn maybe invites heavy infantry if dragoons prove to not be strong enough to defend the skirms. Dragoons were already nerfed a bit (30% RR > 20% RR) on EP, maybe this nerf wasn't enough?


I'm not really sure what to think about grens. I agree to an extent (maybe), but I'm not sure if that's the best way to handle it. I don't really want to have a long discussion about grens right now though.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7411

29 Oct 2017, 06:21

Cmon mitoe you are a top player. Goons with a few skurs or even just mm easily outmanouver musk huss, also due the pathing and siege issues ive mentioned earlier. Its not like im making stuff up here.
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTDonator 01
Posts: 2769
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger Id: 346407

29 Oct 2017, 06:51

umeu wrote:Cmon mitoe you are a top player.

Does that mean I'm supposed to just inherently agree with you on everything? Or understand your every implication?

What do you want me to do? This is why I never participate in these discussions. They just go nowhere. Just opinion vs opinion; you're not even attempting to persuade me that something should be done about goons.

umeu wrote:Goons with a few skurs or even just mm easily outmanouver musk huss, also due the pathing and siege issues ive mentioned earlier. Its not like im making stuff up here.

What would you change and why?
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7411

29 Oct 2017, 07:17

Mitoe wrote:
umeu wrote:Cmon mitoe you are a top player.

Does that mean I'm supposed to just inherently agree with you on everything? Or understand your every implication?

What do you want me to do? This is why I never participate in these discussions. They just go nowhere. Just opinion vs opinion; you're not even attempting to persuade me that something should be done about goons.

umeu wrote:Goons with a few skurs or even just mm easily outmanouver musk huss, also due the pathing and siege issues ive mentioned earlier. Its not like im making stuff up here.

What would you change and why?

You arent really elaborating yourself either. Which is fine, if i cant follow i will ask. But you ask me a question which you then basically answer yourself. It's not really my opinion, as this is something quite noticeable, hence the patch team already tried to adress it with the rr change.

Anyway, i dont even play this game anymore. So do with it whatever you want
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 712

29 Oct 2017, 07:36

Btw huss has 157 cost effectivity. Sowar has 123 (184 vs light inf)
So it means huss not only tank better, but fight better aswell.

And im sure sepoy strong only cause EU civs has no counter heavy inf in age 2. Xbow is very bad...

And janissaries become more cost effective until ep4... :DDD
User avatar
New Zealand JakeyBoyTH
Howdah
Posts: 1761
ESO: Ex-Contributor
Location: New Zealand
Game: AoE Online

29 Oct 2017, 07:37

Dsy wrote:Btw huss has 157 cost effectivity. Sowar has 123 (184 vs light inf)
So it means huss not only tank better, but fight better aswell.

And im sure sepoy strong only cause EU civs has no counter heavy inf in age 2. Xbow is very bad...

And janissaries become more cost effective until ep4... :DDD

Only solution is to buff LB and EP Dutch.
Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk

Ugh Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTDonator 01
Posts: 2769
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger Id: 346407

29 Oct 2017, 07:53

Okay, everyone is actually crazy lol. I just went through every single game from the Round of 16 until the end of the tournament in the Spring Tourney, and these are the stats:

Colonial vs Colonial: 31 Games
Semi or FF vs Semi or FF: 21 Games
Colonial vs Semi or FF: 23 Games
- Colonial Wins: 10
- Semi Wins: 13

A Colonial game is defined as staying Colonial for 11 minutes or longer. And a semi-FF is defined as clicking the Fortress age up button before 11 minutes, or very clearly intending to age but forced not to by extremely aggressive Colonial play (I think there was only 1 game that met the last criteria).

Of the semi-FF games, only 3 or 4 involved stagecoach from the FFing player.

Of the Colonial vs Semi or FF games, many of the semi-FF wins were also of much better players vs opponents who tried to cheese them, and a few went as long as 25 or 30 minutes; long enough for the Colonial player to get to Fortress himself and dispel the belief that an FF or Semi-FF is a "free win" vs Colonial play.


The game seems plenty diverse. It doesn't even seem necessarily true that semi-FFing is meta.

@Hazza54321
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3104

29 Oct 2017, 07:56

Musk Huss is a colonial available combo for most civs. If you make that better you remove any reason to age. Any chance of squeaking by a nice defense vs a colonial play is lost and everyone sits in colonial making just musk Huss. It's kinda a no brained that skirm goon changes the comp when you hit fort. It goes from musk Huss to skirm goon Huss (cannon).

In list form:

1. Oh in fort I'll make musk Huss anyway. And I'll train them in transition too.
2. Oh my opponent is making musk Huss and aging doesn't help me beat it because skirms and goons are evil.
3. Let's both stay colonial and make musk Huss.
4. Oh we are both musk Huss. Let's just make musks and a few raiding cav since musks do well vs cav.
User avatar
New Zealand JakeyBoyTH
Howdah
Posts: 1761
ESO: Ex-Contributor
Location: New Zealand
Game: AoE Online

29 Oct 2017, 07:59

Mitoe wrote:Okay, everyone is actually crazy lol. I just went through every single game from the Round of 16 until the end of the tournament in the Spring Tourney, and these are the stats:

Colonial vs Colonial: 31 Games
Semi or FF vs Semi or FF: 21 Games
Colonial vs Semi or FF: 23 Games
- Colonial Wins: 10
- Semi Wins: 13

A Colonial game is defined as staying Colonial for 11 minutes or longer. And a semi-FF is defined as clicking the Fortress age up button before 11 minutes, or very clearly intending to age but forced not to by extremely aggressive Colonial play (I think there was only 1 game that met the last criteria).

Of the semi-FF games, only 3 or 4 involved stagecoach from the FFing player.

Of the Colonial vs Semi or FF games, many of the semi-FF wins were also of much better players vs opponents who tried to cheese them, and a few went as long as 25 or 30 minutes; long enough for the Colonial player to get to Fortress himself and dispel the belief that an FF or Semi-FF is a "free win" vs Colonial play.


Actual stats dont matter in EP design its who has the biggest schlong in threads. Obviously everyone is right and facts don't matter.
Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk

Ugh Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 712

29 Oct 2017, 08:02

I agree that age 3 units Have to be stronger than age 2 units. People claimed that sepoys werent even strong. Thats a different question.:D

Now sepoy looks like until ep:
Normal musk cost effectivity: 100
Ep sepoy cost effectivity: 91 (until consulate +10% hp: 100)
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 712

29 Oct 2017, 08:12

Janissary cost effectivity: 91
Until IV. Ep: 95

Is it supposed to be a nerf btw?XD
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTDonator 01
Posts: 2769
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger Id: 346407

29 Oct 2017, 08:17

Dsy wrote:Janissary cost effectivity: 91
Until IV. Ep: 95

Is it supposed to be a nerf btw?XD

It's a nerf to the all-in and a buff to other styles of play I guess. You won't be able to get out more jans early despite the fact that they're cheaper, so if you all-in rush you'll have the same number of jans but weaker, but later on you will have 1-2 more jans (or a hussar or something) to compensate.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 712

29 Oct 2017, 08:24

Thats kinda true. But i think this change effect this way wont be seen ingame. This change put jan rush on the same level like it was before. You lose 1 jan earlier but get an other one with the later waves.:D
Will see.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
ESOC Media Team
EWTDonator 01
Posts: 2769
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger Id: 346407

29 Oct 2017, 08:26

That first push was often unmanageable for some civs. You might be able to fight it back while losing less units, so that 1 jan Otto gets later won't really make up for the fact that their first push was weaker. That's why the all-in will be weaker this way.
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3104

29 Oct 2017, 08:42

Dsy wrote:Janissary cost effectivity: 91
Until IV. Ep: 95

Is it supposed to be a nerf btw?XD


I don't understand this.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 712

29 Oct 2017, 08:53

Jan more cost effective with 210 hp 90f 25c than 235 hp 100f 25c. And those are the cost effectivity numbers which were showed by the calculator.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Howdah
Posts: 1903
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

29 Oct 2017, 08:54

He just uses a weird formula to describe a unit's effiency. Don't mind it.
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3104

29 Oct 2017, 09:15

I just go by how they perform in games.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 5285
ESO: Garja

29 Oct 2017, 09:43

umeu wrote:
Garja wrote:Sowar are not trash. 30% rr, 7.25 speed and x1.5 vs RI make them good at what they are supposed to. Bear in mind thye cost 80f 80g so they are supposed to be like 3/4 of a huss but in fact some stats are straight better than huss.
And anyway sepoy are still the best musk in 90% of real games so stop crying.


Ye on paper steppe don't have bad stats either.

Sowar are just subpar, because in musk huss, the role of cav is not just to kill li. Its to tank while snaring. And u know this very well.

Its funny people are crying and nerfing a unit for a civ that didnt cause issues. Its like nerfing foresprowlers now, cause theyre op, even though iro is at best a mediocre civ on patch lol

If diversity is now a patch priority, thats great. But why arent we seeing bow pike, grenadiers, samurai, rajputs and halbediers getting buffed, instead of making the game even more stale by everything just being about skirm goon melee cav in every mu.

If you think sowar are ok, the a rajput cost reduction isthe next obvious thing.

Steppes are not bad in fact. Just like steppes tho, you can't mass enough of them or reach the point where upgraded they make a difference (because by that time the opponent aged). In late colonial they're actually rather good.

Sowar are totally fine. In musk wars cav are useless anway. Couple sowars can both snare and also raid if necessary. They are obviously worse than euro cav at doing that but it's just because they have other perks. To name one, sowars counter yumi way better than huss do.

Sepoy did cause problems and saying otherwise is being biased. Just look at somppy way of playing, that should be enough. but I'm sure using the unit yourself you can recognize how good it is.
FP could be nerfed if really necessary. The point is FPs with current stats don't really raise the same macroscopic balance problems that sepoy/ashi/abus/yumi used to raise prior to their nerfs. FPs have been nerfed long time ago in TWC for the record. It has little to do with iro being not so good on the EP (arguable) and more with the fact that they are less abusable despite their insane stats. If we were to go for stats only even gurkha would deserve a recheck since the unit is pretty damn good for the cost.

Rajput cost reduction makes sense practically. I can see it being overpriced even tho it has way better stats than euro pikes and in mass it can in fact be a decent option.
A little buff would help India dealing with fortress compositions that involve goons while preserving uniqueness and fixing a sub-performing unit.

As for the diversity argument, I sort of agree altho sepoy nerf to me doesn't move from this reason.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 712

29 Oct 2017, 09:49

_H2O wrote:I just go by how they perform in games.


Ive never seen you otto. :D
No Flag Peshmerga12
Musketeer
Posts: 72

30 Oct 2017, 20:11

_H2O wrote:You already won the biggest jerk in the community award. We get it.

For me you sealed it when you got Zuta to cancel his cash smackdown idea.

Why anyone plays games with you is beyond me.



Where can I find the topic where they talk about canceling Smackdown?

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests