Darwin_ wrote:Jerom wrote:Not like Brits and Dutch are at all viable civs on High plains. That's the thing, 4 TP maps and the two 5 TP maps especially just dont allow for serious balance discussions because the balance on those maps at the moment is complete bullshit.
It's only bullshit because of how efficient and good ATP is. Also, on most maps, tp strats are good against those civs, its not just high plains and other high-tp maps.
Exactly. Just try to effectively do a stagecoach boom with ANY civ without ATP without being punished by a civ of similar strength in Colonial/early fortress. It doesn't work unless your opponent refuses to adapt and just lets you get away with it. And of course if you just let your opponent get away with something like this they're going to have an advantage.
The strength of ATP is that it removes the vulnerability of stagecoach booming almost entirely. To put it into perspective, an ATP is similar to an Agra Fort in terms of stats. You will almost always lose at least as much resources in units sieging it (like 1-2 pikemen, or more, for example) as it costs to construct it. And killing 2 of them takes more time than killing someone's town center and a few houses surrounding it because of the distance between the TPs and the sheer amount of hp they have. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, you are investing a card into this after all, and slowing down your overall build by likely 20-30 seconds
at least, but so far it seems like you gain a lot more from doing this than not doing it. At least as the civs that can afford to do it.
This is a lot like the whole water balance discussion. Some people think it's easy to counter water, or at least possible, some people think it's simply unbeatable. Most of the people who think it's unbeatable either don't understand how to play against it, or simply make no attempt to play differently.
Maps with large TP lines by nature require you to change the way you play. Why is this such a problem for people? Is learning to play a new strategy so difficult or unfun that you'd rather play on Arkansas clones for 100 games in a row?
Jerom wrote:In that sense I find this discussion extremely shortsighted, as if people just, once again, decided that something was objectively too strong.
Same. Only for very different reasons.