ESOC Patch suggestions, comments and discussion

[Garja]

Yes which is both good and bad. Right now schooer civs have pretty much no water advantage and that's not good.

[Warno]

Not sure if it's been discussed yet but has anyone tested giving Sioux steel traps and reverting back the eco buff of teepees?

Seems like that would be a good middle ground?

[tedere12]

Not sure if it's been discussed yet but has anyone tested giving Sioux steel traps and reverting back the eco buff of teepees?

Seems like that would be a good middle ground?

To be honest this would be a decent change. Not sure what the ep team view on currect sioux is.

[deleted_user]

Didn't fp already experiment with giving TWC civs ST?

[Hidddy_]

Or make the first indigenous-american farm tech researchable at the market for all TWC civs?

[Garja]

Steel traps is an easy way out that standardize TWC civs even more.

[Kazamkikaz]

I think Bank of Amsterdam/Rotterdam should be age ii shipments now,

just stop plz u even play dutch, how to put more available age 2 cards on deck, make 43 cards deck ?

[Kazamkikaz]

ESOC patch is fan patch LOL

[VooDoo_BoSs]

Hi all

Suggesting that port vills have a slight reduction in train time. I think that despite their TC bonus, they can be outboomed fairly easily in age 2/3 by many civs that are also superior militarily. The 85f reduction has helped, but I think a little bit more is needed.

[Kazamkikaz]

Hi all

Suggesting that port vills have a slight reduction in train time. I think that despite their TC bonus, they can be outboomed fairly easily in age 2/3 by many civs that are also superior militarily. The 85f reduction has helped, but I think a little bit more is needed.

really, why you think 85f is not much, what civ can make villagers faster than PT ? PT tc wagon is good advantage to get good eco, outboomed u dont play PT i am sure about this, reduce vill prodution to 15 sec ?
Pt should keep with vill cost 100f not 85

[gamevideo113]

Hi all

Suggesting that port vills have a slight reduction in train time. I think that despite their TC bonus, they can be outboomed fairly easily in age 2/3 by many civs that are also superior militarily. The 85f reduction has helped, but I think a little bit more is needed.

Ports are considered actually decent in this version of the EP. I also think that having 2 town centers is quite draining on the portuguese economy in early colonial so this change would make the portuguese eco even worse early on :/

[zoom]

Hi all

Suggesting that port vills have a slight reduction in train time. I think that despite their TC bonus, they can be outboomed fairly easily in age 2/3 by many civs that are also superior militarily. The 85f reduction has helped, but I think a little bit more is needed.

I agree. They might as well get the full Russian bonus.

[deleted_user]

Port don't get outboomed, not if they can survive early fortress with 3 TCs.

[Kaiserklein]

Ports are considered actually decent in this version of the EP. I also think that having 2 town centers is quite draining on the portuguese economy in early colonial so this change would make the portuguese eco even worse early on :/

A 85 villager with steel traps pays off in 1 min 17 sec. Which is really nothing. So I don't think the portuguese eco would be so much slowed down if vils train faster. Or maybe it would be slightly slower for 1-2 min, but after that, it would pay off really, really fast. It's also wrong because if you want, you can just idle your tc from time to time (even if it would be a terrible idea), to make up for villagers training faster.

But yeah, ports definitely don't need a buff, and reducing the villager training time is a bad idea and it won't happen.

[gamevideo113]

Ports are considered actually decent in this version of the EP. I also think that having 2 town centers is quite draining on the portuguese economy in early colonial so this change would make the portuguese eco even worse early on :/

A 85 villager with steel traps pays off in 1 min 17 sec. Which is really nothing. So I don't think the portuguese eco would be so much slowed down if vils train faster. Or maybe it would be slightly slower for 1-2 min, but after that, it would pay off really, really fast. It's also wrong because if you want, you can just idle your tc from time to time (even if it would be a terrible idea), to make up for villagers training faster.

But yeah, ports definitely don't need a buff, and reducing the villager training time is a bad idea and it won't happen.

Vills training faster doesn't pay off very quickly usually. If ports trained vills every 20 seconds you would need to have 8 vills on food with steeltraps only to keep making villagers without tc idle time, and you age with 13... Obviously it doesn't take a lot for your eco to start "breathing", but still, as you say i think ports are already fine with the 85f vills

[Garja]

Port eco builds up very quickly. Frankly vills should cost 100f and the buff should be somewhere else like unit stats or unit shipments. Cba stressing that once again.

[gamevideo113]

Was moving the infantry combat cards to earlier ages considered?

[Kaiserklein]

Yea I argued a lot of times for fortress infantry combat. Also could slightly buff cassadores, like +1 attack or +5 hp for example. Cassadores are weaker against units dealing melee or siege damage (mostly hand cav and cannons), due to their low hp and useless rr in that case. They do have a 0.5 speed advantage over regular skirms, but it's not enough to make up for it. So it would just be fair if they would do a better job in ranged fights. Atm, skirm vs cassa 1v1 is a draw; I think the cassadore should need 1 less shot to kill the skirm.

Maybe buff the 2 organ guns shipment in some way, if the other changes aren't enough.

[Hazza54321]

3 organs +200c cost? idk vills maybe 100f again or 90

[deleted_user]

3 organs would become a really good card. 2 organs lose to 2 falcs hard, sure, but 3 organs would become op vs no-2falc-civs. Not to mention port losing the artillery shipment war is OK because their eco should compensate.

[Garja]

There are plenty of options:
- cassas cost reduction an rework to be less food heavy
- 3 organ shipment
- organs cost 100w 300g and 3 pop
- 9 cassador card
- besteiros 2000w again (or even less)

[WickedCossack]

Ports are in a pretty good place right now, I don't really see any reason to change them.

[princeofcarthage]

ports have semi defensive bonus in form of free town center though which is almost instant map control over one mine and one hunt which most other civs don't isn't it kinda fair they lack somewhat good artillery shipment in age 3

[Garja]

Ports are in a pretty good place right now, I don't really see any reason to change them.

This is kinda the reason why I cba arguing this again. But they are not really in good place. It's just that people focus is on other civs so they don't care if Ports are OP/UP at the moment.
In reality they're OP in team, they feel overwhelming in lot of euro MUs on the typical EP map and also their design with cheap vills is lame.

[gamevideo113]

Imo the ability to upgrade musks in age2 and cassa in age3 would balance the civ alone from RE, even without the food discount on vills. (Note that cassa scale from veteran stats unlike skirms). After all on RE they suffered because of the low hunts which are now way better on EP and because their army was nothing special until age4 goons.
Organs are better than falcs at killing infantry, so imo the 2 organs shipment isn't that bad.
Maybe yeah 5 more hp (or some sort of slight buff e.g. cost to 70f 40g or +1 atk) to cassa can be reasonable.