Archaic units buffs?
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Archaic units buffs?
The problem with buffing crossbows is, civs having those don't really need a buff atm. And it could change the meta if xbows become a good unit, so the buff would have to be small.
*1.5 multiplier against HI could work, but realistically bows don't only suck against musks. For example they lose to strelets and lbs, probs lose to skirms since they get kited. I think they just lose to more or less any RI in fact, while also having a lower multiplier against HI, which isn't logical.
*1.5 multiplier against HI could work, but realistically bows don't only suck against musks. For example they lose to strelets and lbs, probs lose to skirms since they get kited. I think they just lose to more or less any RI in fact, while also having a lower multiplier against HI, which isn't logical.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: Archaic units buffs?
Kaiserklein wrote:The problem with buffing crossbows is, civs having those don't really need a buff atm. And it could change the meta if xbows become a good unit, so the buff would have to be small.
*1.5 multiplier against HI could work, but realistically bows don't only suck against musks. For example they lose to strelets and lbs, probs lose to skirms since they get kited. I think they just lose to more or less any RI in fact, while also having a lower multiplier against HI, which isn't logical.
Since most civs who have xbows ff anyways, perhaps slightly buffing xbows while slightly nerfing skirms or goons could make xbows and therefore colonial play more viable while still nerfing the ff
Site: Be there or be square
Jakey: I'm square because I'm not around
Re: Archaic units buffs?
10% is basically nothing when your total HP is 100 (for xbows). They die in the same number of shots from a musk irregardless of whether they had their 10%rr or not, which is pretty shit. I think a decent change to them would be to just give them 20% melee resist or something, fits better with their "look" (wearing steel armor that doesn't stop a direct musket shot anyways) and would make them a little less shit versus cav.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
Re: Archaic units buffs?
zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
way too big a change
just leave pikes and bows lol
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Re: Archaic units buffs?
zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
you would just make their initial mass even bigger which doesnt sound like a good idea because thats not really their problem. Bow pike just decreases in raw power to quickly therefore youd have to buff their units. Probably the easiest way to buff bow pike would be by increasing the effectiveness of bows vs HI.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
Indeed, it's like @Kaiserklein
said. Civs with pikes and xbows are the most flexible and quite strong, giving them another boost makes a huge change in meta and the game in general. Changes, as the esoc patch team wants, is to maintain the stability of the game.Kaiserklein wrote:notification
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
"mr.brookg go buy jeans and goto the club with somppuli" - Princeofkabul, July 2018
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
"mr.brookg go buy jeans and goto the club with somppuli" - Princeofkabul, July 2018
Re: Archaic units buffs?
lordraphael wrote:zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
you would just make their initial mass even bigger which doesnt sound like a good idea because thats not really their problem. Bow pike just decreases in raw power to quickly therefore youd have to buff their units. Probably the easiest way to buff bow pike would be by increasing the effectiveness of bows vs HI.
OK HERE GOES I'LL BITE
First off, proposed change here is completely out of the scope of the current patch's goals. Since it's a pretty big change.
Idea would be to give an Arsenal upgrade which would boost the effectiveness of Crossbows against HI.
Such a buff would go hand in hand with the Arsenal itself being cheaper / more accessible. Yes, we've talked about this before. I remain persuaded that giving all civs more options (in the form of more accessible Arsenal upgrades) is the way to go.
Instead of generically buffing Crossbows, you could give them an upgrade (not the veteran one) which makes them better down the line. It could be a small 100/100 upgrade which just boosts the multiplier Xbows have vs HI, for example.
BUT that would merely be an unnecessary buff to Germany, France, Ports and Spain. :/ so really no need
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Re: Archaic units buffs?
iNcog wrote:lordraphael wrote:zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
you would just make their initial mass even bigger which doesnt sound like a good idea because thats not really their problem. Bow pike just decreases in raw power to quickly therefore youd have to buff their units. Probably the easiest way to buff bow pike would be by increasing the effectiveness of bows vs HI.
OK HERE GOES I'LL BITE
First off, proposed change here is completely out of the scope of the current patch's goals. Since it's a pretty big change.
Idea would be to give an Arsenal upgrade which would boost the effectiveness of Crossbows against HI.
Such a buff would go hand in hand with the Arsenal itself being cheaper / more accessible. Yes, we've talked about this before. I remain persuaded that giving all civs more options (in the form of more accessible Arsenal upgrades) is the way to go.
Instead of generically buffing Crossbows, you could give them an upgrade (not the veteran one) which makes them better down the line. It could be a small 100/100 upgrade which just boosts the multiplier Xbows have vs HI, for example.
BUT that would merely be an unnecessary buff to Germany, France, Ports and Spain. :/ so really no need
funny thats exactly what I thought of at first. Kinda doing the blizzard style and adding upgrades for units to specifially make them stronger after a certain amount of time and keep the unit competetively and used. But I thought that change is to fancy for the average dull aoe player.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
lordraphael wrote:funny thats exactly what I thought of at first. Kinda doing the blizzard style and adding upgrades for units to specifially make them stronger after a certain amount of time and keep the unit competetively and used. But I thought that change is to fancy for the average dull aoe player.
Heh, yep, it's exactly Blizzard style. I think it's intelligent game design, something to pick up really.
I think such fancy changes should be considered though, when you think about it.
The patch philosophy is soon going to shift from minimalistic changes which aim to only adjust certain things and tackle bigger topics such as water-play.
I think it could make a lot of sense to look into expanding the scope of possible changes. There are intelligent changes which should be possible to make the game more exciting.
One remark which I have seen from some people (though not all) is that the ESOC Patch isn't ambitious enough with their changes.
Going down the route of making the Arsenal more important strategically could be one such amibitious change which would not break the game. It would however give AOE3 more strategic depth.
The sky is the limit.
There are lots of possibly fun changes which would help fix some of the more broken aspects of AOE3:
[spoiler=brainstorm]- A fishing boat limit which would be fixed by the amount of docks you have. Now, destroying docks with land units is a way to limit a water-boom without going water yourself.
- More Arsenal upgrades which can be unique for each European civilization, thus making them more unique (upgrades which are tailored around specific civilization design).
- Civilization reworks for Otto and Sioux, obviously.[/spoiler]
Re: Archaic units buffs?
lordraphael wrote:zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
you would just make their initial mass even bigger which doesnt sound like a good idea because thats not really their problem. Bow pike just decreases in raw power to quickly therefore youd have to buff their units. Probably the easiest way to buff bow pike would be by increasing the effectiveness of bows vs HI.
I'd argue the initial mass would be the same; full batches from one or two Barracks. If anything this would help make the units viable after early Colonial. To me the general idea of the units is to provide a cheap, massable alternative in the Colonial Age. Currently, they just cost a bit much wood for this purpose. I think you could extend my suggestion only to the Pikeman, however, and yours to Crossbowmen. With that said, the Crossbowman by design seems more of a soft counter in general.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
BrookG wrote:Indeed, it's like @Kaiserkleinsaid. Civs with pikes and xbows are the most flexible and quite strong, giving them another boost makes a huge change in meta and the game in general. Changes, as the esoc patch team wants, is to maintain the stability of the game.Kaiserklein wrote:notification
Some of them are, some of them aren't.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
iNcog wrote:lordraphael wrote:zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
you would just make their initial mass even bigger which doesnt sound like a good idea because thats not really their problem. Bow pike just decreases in raw power to quickly therefore youd have to buff their units. Probably the easiest way to buff bow pike would be by increasing the effectiveness of bows vs HI.
OK HERE GOES I'LL BITE
First off, proposed change here is completely out of the scope of the current patch's goals. Since it's a pretty big change.
Idea would be to give an Arsenal upgrade which would boost the effectiveness of Crossbows against HI.
Such a buff would go hand in hand with the Arsenal itself being cheaper / more accessible. Yes, we've talked about this before. I remain persuaded that giving all civs more options (in the form of more accessible Arsenal upgrades) is the way to go.
Instead of generically buffing Crossbows, you could give them an upgrade (not the veteran one) which makes them better down the line. It could be a small 100/100 upgrade which just boosts the multiplier Xbows have vs HI, for example.
BUT that would merely be an unnecessary buff to Germany, France, Ports and Spain. :/ so really no need
I would just buff the "Light Infantry Breastplate" improvement to 20 %. Pikemen would still need a buff though. Also, there are tons of changes we should be making indeed. Hopefully we will do so in the future.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
Do you really want to buff pikemen? Pretty sure they aren't bad units and they serve their role quite well. No?
Re: Archaic units buffs?
I do (along with most hand infantry). In practice, they barely work as a counter to cavalry. I could also see increasing their hand resist being good. They are simply too expensive for how efficient they are. It makes more sense to me to buff hand infantry than nerfing musketeer-type units or cavalry.
- Atomiswave
- Lancer
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Dec 27, 2015
Re: Archaic units buffs?
iNcog wrote:lordraphael wrote:zoom wrote:I'd rather just decrease the cost of Crossbowmen and Pikemen than change anything else about them. The units just need to be slightly more cost-efficient, in my mind. 50f, 25w seems like a reasonable change for both units. I'd also decrease the cost of some other hand infantry at the same time though...
you would just make their initial mass even bigger which doesnt sound like a good idea because thats not really their problem. Bow pike just decreases in raw power to quickly therefore youd have to buff their units. Probably the easiest way to buff bow pike would be by increasing the effectiveness of bows vs HI.
OK HERE GOES I'LL BITE
First off, proposed change here is completely out of the scope of the current patch's goals. Since it's a pretty big change.
Idea would be to give an Arsenal upgrade which would boost the effectiveness of Crossbows against HI.
Such a buff would go hand in hand with the Arsenal itself being cheaper / more accessible. Yes, we've talked about this before. I remain persuaded that giving all civs more options (in the form of more accessible Arsenal upgrades) is the way to go.
Instead of generically buffing Crossbows, you could give them an upgrade (not the veteran one) which makes them better down the line. It could be a small 100/100 upgrade which just boosts the multiplier Xbows have vs HI, for example.
BUT that would merely be an unnecessary buff to Germany, France, Ports and Spain. :/ so really no need
Problem is xbows are only really useful in age 2. Even if you give them unique upgrade in Arsenal, nobody would build them past age 2, hence research the tech.
It's much easier to increase their firing animation speed(is possible) and make them better at what they are meant to do, kite HI. Price reduction is also good idea, especially wood cost. If you reduce it to 30w they would actually be somewhat affordable.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
I really hate AoE3 for archaic units (not technically speaking). There'd have been so many other, so much greater units from the 17th, 18th and 19th century to be covered. But with all these early and late medieval longbowmen, rodeleros, halberdiers and doppels the game is too much dominated by Age 2-ish units while it clearly shouldn't be.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
tilanus wrote:I really hate AoE3 for archaic units (not technically speaking). There'd have been so many other, so much greater units from the 17th, 18th and 19th century to be covered. But with all these early and late medieval longbowmen, rodeleros, halberdiers and doppels the game is too much dominated by Age 2-ish units while it clearly shouldn't be.
Well to be honest, xbows, pikes, halbs and dopps aren't really being used much at all.
What other unit types are you referring to, however?
Re: Archaic units buffs?
It's just weird from an evolutionary POV to have archaic units like longbows, halberdiers and doppels present in later ages due to them getting imperial upgrades while the covered historical period is actually about the big shift to the age of gunpowder. It's even worse with the TWC and TAD civs. The game's just full of archaisms even though the centuries the game pretends to cover was dominated by more advanced troop types already.
- Atomiswave
- Lancer
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Dec 27, 2015
Re: Archaic units buffs?
tilanus wrote:I really hate AoE3 for archaic units (not technically speaking). There'd have been so many other, so much greater units from the 17th, 18th and 19th century to be covered. But with all these early and late medieval longbowmen, rodeleros, halberdiers and doppels the game is too much dominated by Age 2-ish units while it clearly shouldn't be.
It's relatively historically accurate. Before widely adoption and availability of gunpowder weapons, crossbows, longbows, pikes, halbs and other medieval melee weapons saw limited usage in the New World.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
Nah, sorry, but that's bullshit. Crossbows and Longbows were quickly replaced by firearms already in the 15th century. The use of two-handed swords and halberds as battle weapons ultimately ends with the Thirty Years War 1648 which saw the last massive deployment of Landsknecht organized armies. Halberds only remained in use as status weapons of officers and sentries for simple guard duties. The use of these weapons in the new world by European powers diminished pretty much around the same dates and delay was only a matter of lack of supplies, not because archaic weapons were favored.
AoE3 doesn't end in the midst of the 17th century, but the timeline is much longer as it includes Ironclads, Needle guns and Gatling guns. Between Longbowmen and those are more than 300 years of military history that got badly covered.
AoE3 doesn't end in the midst of the 17th century, but the timeline is much longer as it includes Ironclads, Needle guns and Gatling guns. Between Longbowmen and those are more than 300 years of military history that got badly covered.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
I'd swear I saw sources before claiming that crossbows were used when the spanish discovered the new world.
Re: Archaic units buffs?
Xbow needs buff.
50f 25w sounds good but xbow rush could be too strong with that change.
1,5 vs hi. Means 24 damage vs hi instead of 20. - Its a good buff
Arsenal upgrade - Its a bad idea. You need a card investment to get arsenal in age 2. There is no time in this game when you could build and make improvements. You dont even make 3x mult for skirm most of the game and thats without IA card...
Or solid buff give them +2 range. Its a weaker buff than 1,5 multi
50f 25w sounds good but xbow rush could be too strong with that change.
1,5 vs hi. Means 24 damage vs hi instead of 20. - Its a good buff
Arsenal upgrade - Its a bad idea. You need a card investment to get arsenal in age 2. There is no time in this game when you could build and make improvements. You dont even make 3x mult for skirm most of the game and thats without IA card...
Or solid buff give them +2 range. Its a weaker buff than 1,5 multi
Re: Archaic units buffs?
We aren't discussing making Crossbowmen and Pikemen viable in the late-game, by the way, just to clarify that.
- britishmusketeer
- Howdah
- Posts: 1845
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
Re: Archaic units buffs?
tilanus wrote:Nah, sorry, but that's bullshit. Crossbows and Longbows were quickly replaced by firearms already in the 15th century. The use of two-handed swords and halberds as battle weapons ultimately ends with the Thirty Years War 1648 which saw the last massive deployment of Landsknecht organized armies. Halberds only remained in use as status weapons of officers and sentries for simple guard duties. The use of these weapons in the new world by European powers diminished pretty much around the same dates and delay was only a matter of lack of supplies, not because archaic weapons were favored.
AoE3 doesn't end in the midst of the 17th century, but the timeline is much longer as it includes Ironclads, Needle guns and Gatling guns. Between Longbowmen and those are more than 300 years of military history that got badly covered.
to be fair the game is designed to cover a large time period. Obviously queen isabella and Napoleon(ais) were not at the same time. and in the campaign it ranges from when the new world was just discovered (1500s) to the battle of little bighorn (1876).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests