Water Balance on ESOC Patch

[[Armag] diarouga]

Im fine with the meta. What we have to do imo is too give schooners to fre/ger and to give ger a ws upgrade.

that would be bad those civs are designed without having schooner and it should remain that way. The problem is not wether every civ has schooners or not

To balance it you either have to change the meta or the design, imo changing the design is the better.

[Garja]

Because its a water map, and water is the main theme?
I dont think a full water strat beats a full land one on Saguenay or maps as such.

I ll take u up on that.
i found a nice replay tho were u loose pretty hard vs water play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSn_jgGaByw[span] [/span]

Youre like the 10000th person who use that example. I lost 6-1 that match, do you think water or non water made any difference? Could have been french mirror on gp 6 times and I would have lost anyway.
Also I can rematch that MU any time.

[Mr_Bramboy]

that would be bad those civs are designed without having schooner and it should remain that way. The problem is not wether every civ has schooners or not

To balance it you either have to change the meta or the design, imo changing the design is the better.

Why would adding schooners to Germany or France have any effect regarding balance? If we gave every civ abus guns, would abus guns be ok too?

[[Armag] diarouga]

To balance it you either have to change the meta or the design, imo changing the design is the better.

Why would adding schooners to Germany or France have any effect regarding balance? If we gave every civ abus guns, would abus guns be ok too?

Then every civ would be able to play water, so whats the problem?

[Garja]

Schooners is barely a problem. Even schooners civs barely use it because it's not the optimal build. French, Germans etc. don't need schooners to boom hard.
The problem about water if any, is that ships generally control a good portion of the map limiting the action. For that reason you have to deal with water in some way (either making boats on your own or dropping towers, using cannons etc.)
Depending on the civ or the map then you have specific builds that can vary a lot. Of course if one civ have an extra card for boats that's big, but isn't it the same with land units?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Schooners is barely a problem. Even schooners civs barely use it because it''s not the optimal build. French, Germans etc. don''t need schooners to boom hard.
The problem about water if any, is that ships generally control a good portion of the map limiting the action. For that reason you have to deal with water in some way (either making boats on your own or dropping towers, using cannons etc.)
Depending on the civ or the map then you have specific builds that can vary a lot. Of course if one civ have an extra card for boats that''s big, but isn''t it the same with land units?

+1

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

Also, if your opponent is going for a water boom you can just get in their face and tell them they aren't gathering any more wood. You need wood to do anything water and you have to have land to take it.

Monitors though. Monitors are like when you're playing rock-paper-scissors and your opponent goes "NUCLEAR BOMB!" except that they actually get to win for it.

[Wuangaga]

Also, if your opponent is going for a water boom you can just get in their face and tell them they aren''t gathering any more wood. You need wood to do anything water and you have to have land to take it.

Monitors though. Monitors are like when you''re playing rock-paper-scissors and your opponent goes "NUCLEAR BOMB!" except that they actually get to win for it.

Many players waterbooming use walls to stop you from preventing their gathering, it''s the combination of both that makes this playstyle very strong. You can watch every kynesie game on a water map for reference.

[deleted_user0]

Schooners is barely a problem. Even schooners civs barely use it because it''s not the optimal build. French, Germans etc. don''t need schooners to boom hard.
The problem about water if any, is that ships generally control a good portion of the map limiting the action. For that reason you have to deal with water in some way (either making boats on your own or dropping towers, using cannons etc.)
Depending on the civ or the map then you have specific builds that can vary a lot. Of course if one civ have an extra card for boats that''s big, but isn''t it the same with land units?

no its not the same, because there is not a single land unit which can dominate so hard as the frigate and monitor do. and on land, when your opponent restricts you and forces you to turtle, there are usually enough ways to get back into land later on, by aging up and pushing with a tech advantage, by going for a break out timing etc etc.

This is not possible on water basically, when you lose water, there is just nothing YOU can do to get it back, bascically your opponent has to fuck up and let you. which means that you can be ahead in eco, you can be ahead in military, you can be making the counter units to your enemy and you still lose the game because you cant cost effeciently fight your opponent. in fact, you cannot really fight your opponent at all. There is also no adapting here, you have to prepare from the first minute basically for the possibility that your opponent will play full water and will fight you with upgraded warships, if you have the wrong deck? game over, if you go with the wrong opening? game over. there is nothing on land that i can think of that punishes you so hard, not even jan abus, 12 sepoy or 4 kanya/axe does this.

I simply dont understand how you can not see that this is flawed, in a game you should be able to always have a way to beat what your opponent is doing, based on your own strength of play, and not based on whether your opponent fucked up and forgot to make walls. Vs most things in this game thats the case, vs some it isnt, thats why people complain about iro, thats why people complain about jan abus, and thats why people complain about fucking warships.

its so simple...

[Dolan]

Too lazy to search for it right now, but I'm pretty sure that there were some games in the tourney (or on streams) in which some players were beating water by simply going water first!

In fact, I remember a game in which Soldier contained your waterplay on Yucatan. It was France vs Ports, if I'm not mistaken. It was more difficult for him to contain water, it seemed, than for you to go water. He basically aged up, built an outpost on your waterside, shipped caravels (or made? don't remember) and just kept the pressure on land. This is how you beat water, imo, by going water and nipping it in the bud. Early water is pretty much shit, it's more investment than pay-off. So, if you check the deck and see the dock going down, why would you even not go water...

[Papist]

Too lazy to search for it right now, but I''m pretty sure that there were some games in the tourney (or on streams) in which some players were beating water by simply going water first!

In fact, I remember a game in which Soldier contained your waterplay on Yucatan. It was France vs Ports, if I''m not mistaken. It was more difficult for him to contain water, it seemed, than for you to go water. He basically aged up, built an outpost on your waterside, shipped caravels (or made? don''t remember) and just kept the pressure on land. This is how you beat water, imo, by going water and nipping it in the bud. Early water is pretty much shit, it''s more investment than pay-off. So, if you check the deck and see the dock going down, why would you even not go water...

There are civs that just don't stand a chance on water, like India or Sioux.

[britishmusketeer]

Too lazy to search for it right now, but Im pretty sure that there were some games in the tourney (or on streams) in which some players were beating water by simply going water first!

In fact, I remember a game in which Soldier contained your waterplay on Yucatan. It was France vs Ports, if Im not mistaken. It was more difficult for him to contain water, it seemed, than for you to go water. He basically aged up, built an outpost on your waterside, shipped caravels (or made? dont remember) and just kept the pressure on land. This is how you beat water, imo, by going water and nipping it in the bud. Early water is pretty much shit, its more investment than pay-off. So, if you check the deck and see the dock going down, why would you even not go water...

There are civs that just don't stand a chance on water, like India or Sioux.

these civs both do ok vs water. Sioux with siege dance affecting war ships and india with siege elephants in age 3

[Garja]

Schooners is barely a problem. Even schooners civs barely use it because its not the optimal build. French, Germans etc. dont need schooners to boom hard.
The problem about water if any, is that ships generally control a good portion of the map limiting the action. For that reason you have to deal with water in some way (either making boats on your own or dropping towers, using cannons etc.)
Depending on the civ or the map then you have specific builds that can vary a lot. Of course if one civ have an extra card for boats thats big, but isnt it the same with land units?

no its not the same, because there is not a single land unit which can dominate so hard as the frigate and monitor do. and on land, when your opponent restricts you and forces you to turtle, there are usually enough ways to get back into land later on, by aging up and pushing with a tech advantage, by going for a break out timing etc etc.

This is not possible on water basically, when you lose water, there is just nothing YOU can do to get it back, bascically your opponent has to fuck up and let you. which means that you can be ahead in eco, you can be ahead in military, you can be making the counter units to your enemy and you still lose the game because you cant cost effeciently fight your opponent. in fact, you cannot really fight your opponent at all. There is also no adapting here, you have to prepare from the first minute basically for the possibility that your opponent will play full water and will fight you with upgraded warships, if you have the wrong deck? game over, if you go with the wrong opening? game over. there is nothing on land that i can think of that punishes you so hard, not even jan abus, 12 sepoy or 4 kanya/axe does this.

I simply dont understand how you can not see that this is flawed, in a game you should be able to always have a way to beat what your opponent is doing, based on your own strength of play, and not based on whether your opponent fucked up and forgot to make walls. Vs most things in this game thats the case, vs some it isnt, thats why people complain about iro, thats why people complain about jan abus, and thats why people complain about fucking warships.

its so simple...

No warship beat everything else. Mortars beat all ships, and culvs also do very well. Monitor is good vs buildings but loses vs cannon and other warships.
Even in land if you lose the map control on a big battle you normally lose the game from there.

[anonymousv2]

They should make boats more than 100 wood, maybe more around 150 wood, just like Aoe2. Either do that or nerf the schooners card. Maybe 30% instead of 60%.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

>'Monitor is good vs buildings but loses vs cannon and other warships.

Monitor can't be hit by cannons if used correctly and you won't have any warships if he is monitoring your docks (ta-da ting)

[Garja]

Monitors can be hit of course. Unless your intention is to spend 1000 resources just to shoot every 60 seconds.

[deleted_user0]

no its not the same, because there is not a single land unit which can dominate so hard as the frigate and monitor do. and on land, when your opponent restricts you and forces you to turtle, there are usually enough ways to get back into land later on, by aging up and pushing with a tech advantage, by going for a break out timing etc etc.

This is not possible on water basically, when you lose water, there is just nothing YOU can do to get it back, bascically your opponent has to fuck up and let you. which means that you can be ahead in eco, you can be ahead in military, you can be making the counter units to your enemy and you still lose the game because you cant cost effeciently fight your opponent. in fact, you cannot really fight your opponent at all. There is also no adapting here, you have to prepare from the first minute basically for the possibility that your opponent will play full water and will fight you with upgraded warships, if you have the wrong deck? game over, if you go with the wrong opening? game over. there is nothing on land that i can think of that punishes you so hard, not even jan abus, 12 sepoy or 4 kanya/axe does this.

I simply dont understand how you can not see that this is flawed, in a game you should be able to always have a way to beat what your opponent is doing, based on your own strength of play, and not based on whether your opponent fucked up and forgot to make walls. Vs most things in this game thats the case, vs some it isnt, thats why people complain about iro, thats why people complain about jan abus, and thats why people complain about fucking warships.

its so simple...

No warship beat everything else. Mortars beat all ships, and culvs also do very well. Monitor is good vs buildings but loses vs cannon and other warships.
Even in land if you lose the map control on a big battle you normally lose the game from there.

mortars dont beat every warship, monitors special attack kills mortars before they even get a shot off. and frigates can hit and run mortars as well. they just lack the mobility to deal with ships. they arent even designed to beat them, they get a MALUS vs warships... and they can frigging miss =_=

culvs is your best bet and does well vs civs that does not get extra range on their warships. still it lacks the rate of fire and the mobility to really deal with ships. they can dart in, use special attack, and go back to heal. its really too easy =_=

[deleted_user0]

>'Monitor is good vs buildings but loses vs cannon and other warships.

Monitor can''t be hit by cannons if used correctly and you won''t have any warships if he is monitoring your docks (ta-da ting)

monitor special attack actually does terrible vs docks. it does only 200 dmg, for some reason it doesnt get the bonus vs it, but i think its good. dunno if WAD or just an oversight.

[Garja]

Monitor special doesn't even kill one mortar completely and the normal attack takes like 5 shots. Frigates can't hit and run mortars because mortars have 10 (5 with offshore support) more range and no setup animation (provided they're already unpacked).
Also in general it is irrealistic to micro your ships all the time when there is other stuff going on.
With all upgrades ships become relatively stronger but mortars also have a couple upgrades.

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

>'Monitor is good vs buildings but loses vs cannon and other warships.

Monitor cant be hit by cannons if used correctly and you wont have any warships if he is monitoring your docks (ta-da ting)

monitor special attack actually does terrible vs docks. it does only 200 dmg, for some reason it doesnt get the bonus vs it, but i think its good. dunno if WAD or just an oversight.

The normal attack does just fine though.

[deleted_user0]

Monitor special doesn''t even kill one mortar completely and the normal attack takes like 5 shots. Frigates can''t hit and run mortars because mortars have 10 (5 with offshore support) more range and no setup animation (provided they''re already unpacked).
Also in general it is irrealistic to micro your ships all the time when there is other stuff going on.
With all upgrades ships become relatively stronger but mortars also have a couple upgrades.

mortars can be hit and run because they dont have the los to hit the ships out in the open sea, so they can only effectively fight in narrow water spaces such as great lakes or yucatan.

obviously i am assuming that the dock upgrades are made for the monitors when fighting mortars, since we are already in the late game. 1 special attack can easily take out 3 monitors in 1 shot. 2 monitors backed by 1-3 frigates should never die to artillery. its as simple as that. you can argue theory all you like, but this is the hard reality of the game and you know it. you are just arguing for the sake of it.

a fully upgraded mortar has 375 hp and and does 500 dmg per shot. a fully upgraded british monitor has 2500 hp and does 470 dmg per special attack and 188 with its normal attack. 2 mortars basically cost the same as 1 monitor. lets go with the hypothetical that both will trade shots, then the 2 mortars wont even damage the monitor to half hp, while the monitor will take out both mortars with 1 shot of its special attack. But even if it doesnt use its special shot, it will take only 2 shots to take out 2 monitors. This means it will survive a trade vs 2 monitors either with more than 50% or just under 25% of its hp. This is pure theory ofcourse, because in reality it will survive it with 100% hp because it will get the first shot off for sure.

your best bet is therefor the culverin. a fully upgraded guard culv does 750 dmg per shot and has 350 hp. an encounter between 2 culverins and 1 monitor that doesnt use its special attack will be decided by who gets the first shot. the monitor outranges by 2, but this is negligble. still when its special attack is used, the monitor will survive with 40% hp, assuming the culvs get the first shot.

now this seems close, but really it isnt when you consider that they are supposed to be COUNTERS.

[richard]

Sorry, i dont know much about water, but isnt it impossible for monitors to kill any mobile unit (a culverin for example) with their special attack, if the other player constantly moves his units around and hasnt got 2 or more units (culverins) in the same group? I mean because that bullet takes so long from the monitor to the target?

[deleted_user0]

monitor special attack actually does terrible vs docks. it does only 200 dmg, for some reason it doesnt get the bonus vs it, but i think its good. dunno if WAD or just an oversight.

The normal attack does just fine though.

nope same thing, only the base dmg. which isnt so high, other ships do better because higher rate of fire. and the special attack does more dmg. docks somehow dont count as buildings for their multiplier. dont know if this is for all units with that multiplier or just monitors

[gibson]

Monitors have a negative multiplier against docks

[Garja]

Monitor special doesnt even kill one mortar completely and the normal attack takes like 5 shots. Frigates cant hit and run mortars because mortars have 10 (5 with offshore support) more range and no setup animation (provided theyre already unpacked).
Also in general it is irrealistic to micro your ships all the time when there is other stuff going on.
With all upgrades ships become relatively stronger but mortars also have a couple upgrades.

mortars can be hit and run because they dont have the los to hit the ships out in the open sea, so they can only effectively fight in narrow water spaces such as great lakes or yucatan.

obviously i am assuming that the dock upgrades are made for the monitors when fighting mortars, since we are already in the late game. 1 special attack can easily take out 3 monitors in 1 shot. 2 monitors backed by 1-3 frigates should never die to artillery. its as simple as that. you can argue theory all you like, but this is the hard reality of the game and you know it. you are just arguing for the sake of it.

a fully upgraded mortar has 375 hp and and does 500 dmg per shot. a fully upgraded british monitor has 2500 hp and does 470 dmg per special attack and 188 with its normal attack. 2 mortars basically cost the same as 1 monitor. lets go with the hypothetical that both will trade shots, then the 2 mortars wont even damage the monitor to half hp, while the monitor will take out both mortars with 1 shot of its special attack. But even if it doesnt use its special shot, it will take only 2 shots to take out 2 monitors. This means it will survive a trade vs 2 monitors either with more than 50% or just under 25% of its hp. This is pure theory ofcourse, because in reality it will survive it with 100% hp because it will get the first shot off for sure.

your best bet is therefor the culverin. a fully upgraded guard culv does 750 dmg per shot and has 350 hp. an encounter between 2 culverins and 1 monitor that doesnt use its special attack will be decided by who gets the first shot. the monitor outranges by 2, but this is negligble. still when its special attack is used, the monitor will survive with 40% hp, assuming the culvs get the first shot.

now this seems close, but really it isnt when you consider that they are supposed to be COUNTERS.

Im not arguing theory btw, in real games it is just very hard to make use of warships to the extent you claim here.
And in any case my win rate vs water strats is pretty much the same as the one against other strats. Probably a bit more.
Water meta is just more complex and ye a bit more abusable.