Archaic units buffs?

[Atomiswave]

If you want safe buff give them 10% RR and call it a day.

[iNcog]

Well it's a game, so it's no surprise that you'll get anachronism.

[zoom]

Well it's a game, so it's no surprise that you'll get anachronism.

This, lol. It's already the case that Pikemen and Crossbowmen become obsolete. Just settle for that.

[Kaiserklein]

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.

10% more rr means one more shot for a musk to kill them (7 instead of 6). It actually means +18 ranged hp, which results in 1 more shot from most units (lb, musk, skirm...) to kill them. So it's not a small buff.
If you give xbow 20% melee resist it's a nerf lol. Because anyway bows are shit against cav, and you want to avoid them fighting cav, so it doesn't really matter if they have mele resist or not. On the other hand, they will get raped even harder by any ranged unit, since no rr compared compared to 20% rr means 25 less ranged hp, so 1-2 less shots.

[zoom]

Pretty much.

[Atomiswave]

I would rather have firing animation speed(if possible) buff than 10% rr boost. With increased firing speed they can kite more. Also, some respondents in this topic constantly compare musks with xbows, like they want same performance from both of them. We have to keep in mind that musk cost 20r more.

[iNcog]

Food gathers a lot more quickly than wood does.

So not really, they're actually quite even in terms of cost, off the top my head.

0.84 f/s
0.6 c/s
0.5 w/s

Musketeer: 75f + 25c = 89 + 41 = 130 villager seconds
Crossbowmen: 40f + 40w = 47 + 80 = 127 villager seconds


That is why Crossbowmen fucking suck.

[Atomiswave]

Food gathers a lot more quickly than wood does.

So not really, they're actually quite even in terms of cost, off the top my head.

0.84 f/s
0.6 c/s
0.5 w/s

Musketeer: 75f + 25c = 89 + 41 = 130 villager seconds
Crossbowmen: 40f + 40w = 47 + 80 = 127 villager seconds


That is why Crossbowmen fucking suck.

Your calculation is correct, and yes they are not cost effective, but it's still 20r less in general. I think devs had that in mind when they decided to give xbows crappy stats. They didn't factor in slow wood gather rate and simply went with midnset "if it costs less, it should have weaker stats".

Maybe right solution is 50f 30w price swap? That way xbows become less wood intensive unit, but then by automatism you will probably have to make similar price changes to all units that cost w.

[iNcog]

Just slightly buffing their attack or their bonus against HI would be sufficient, but then again, none of the civilizations which use Crossbowmen in the first place are actually in need of a buff in the first place, aside from Spain (which is going to get other buffs).

So, I would just leave it.

On the other hand, it would be an idea to bestow more options to any given civilization. In that vein, then buff Crossbowmen would be justified. I do not believe that this is the goal of this patch's iteration either way.

[zoom]

Just slightly buffing their attack or their bonus against HI would be sufficient, but then again, none of the civilizations which use Crossbowmen in the first place are actually in need of a buff in the first place, aside from Spain (which is going to get other buffs).

So, I would just leave it.

On the other hand, it would be an idea to bestow more options to any given civilization. In that vein, then buff Crossbowmen would be justified. I do not believe that this is the goal of this patch's iteration either way.

Given the EP's current philosophy, we most definitely should leave it. As far as improving the game goes, it'd be one of many obvious things which need changing.

[iNcog]

I'm still not convinced it would need obvious changing though, unless by obvious you mean "do all the changes which improves the amount of options all civs have". In which case, I suppose yeah, it would make sense.

As would buffing / reworking the Arsenal, as would buffing Steppes and Keshiks, as would fixing water, etc.

[zoom]

It is quite obvious to me that Crossbowmen and Pikemen are not as viable as their alternatives. That's all I mean by that, really.

[iCourt]

I'd swear I saw sources before claiming that crossbows were used when the spanish discovered the new world.

This is correct. They had an accuracy advantage which also resulted in a range advantage over firearms at the time.

Events of the game take place from roughly 1492 (Queen Isabella) to sometime near the turn of the century (~1912, Meiji Restoration). Archers were only really replaced due to kings wanting the latest in military technology, not necessarily the most effective. Benjamin Franklin actually proposed that the Continental Army be equipped with longbows as opposed to muskets. They were still known to fire faster, further, and more accurately than muskets at the time. His idea was shot down due to the long and difficult skill and training it takes to learn the art.

And that ladies and gentlemen was my Metis history lesson for the week.

[iNcog]

Can confirm that using a bow is way harder than shooting a gun.

Though this is known. ^_^

iCourt, laying down da knowledge.

It is quite obvious to me that Crossbowmen and Pikemen are not as viable as their alternatives. That's all I mean by that, really.

True. Why would you ever make Crossbow and Pikemen, when you can go full Musketeer.

[zoom]

I should add that, in turn, this is generally bad for the game.

[iNcog]

#redactthemusk

[Atomiswave]

Can confirm that using a bow is way harder than shooting a gun.

Though this is known. ^_^

iCourt, laying down da knowledge.

It is quite obvious to me that Crossbowmen and Pikemen are not as viable as their alternatives. That's all I mean by that, really.

True. Why would you ever make Crossbow and Pikemen, when you can go full Musketeer.

Musk/xbow composition usually wins vs pure musk mass if microed well. Xbows can do great damage from range behind musks with impunity.

[zoom]

#redactthemusk

That's my point; in this case it makes a lot more sense to buff that which is not viable than to nerf that which is.

[Papist]

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.

Crossbows were employed by colonists well into the 17th century, because they were cheaper and less cumbersome than early firearms. They are also waaaaaaaayyyyy more accurate. Early guns were the superior weapons for a field army, but up until the the invention of flintlock weapons, crossbows were the best weapon for the guerilla/wilderness fights European colonists got involved in. Remember that the Euro civs are supposed to be colonies, not the Powers themselves.And when one remembers that the Euro civs are supposed to be colonies and not the Powers themselves, it makes sense that crossbows would be such a big part of the game.

It's very difficult to figure out exactly when this game ends, because you have a number of conflicting techs. On one hand, musketeers are still around, which means that the game could not realistically go later than the 1850s. But there are a ton of things in the game that are from a later period: Gatling guns (1862), Ironclads (not employed in the form they take in the game until the mid-1860s), and trains (don't appear in game-form until the 1870s). And then, as you mentioned, there are anachronisms (dopps, longbows, samurai, yumi, chu ko nu, qiang pike, horse archers, rajputs) all over the place. To me, this reveals how difficult it is the create a game that is both balanced and historically accurate.

[pecelot]

They were still known to fire faster, further, and more accurately than muskets at the time.

Paradoxically, archer shots miss the target sometimes in the game, whereas all gunpowder rifles are 100% accurate. ROF is also mainly the same — in reality, though, early musketeers were able to shoot approximately once per 6 minutes if I recall corectly — at the same time bows and crossbows needed significantly less time to be reloaded.

It's very difficult to figure out exactly when this game ends, because you have a number of conflicting techs. On one hand, musketeers are still around, which means that the game could not realistically go later than the 1850s. But there are a ton of things in the game that are from a later period: Gatling guns (1862), Ironclads (not employed in the form they take in the game until the mid-1860s), and trains (don't appear in game-form until the 1870s). And then, as you mentioned, there are anachronisms (dopps, longbows, samurai, yumi, chu ko nu, qiang pike, horse archers, rajputs) all over the place. To me, this reveals how difficult it is the create a game that is both balanced and historically accurate.

Interesting fact, the official „guide" from the box edition says that the game is placed in the period of time between 1500 and 1850.

[momuuu]

1492 (discovery of the new world!?) to somewhere between 1800 and 1900 (industrial revolution into the imperial age, which actually seem to somewhat overlap) seems reasonable to me. It goes almost right up until the first world war I believe.

[tilanus]

I'd swear I saw sources before claiming that crossbows were used when the spanish discovered the new world.

This is correct. They had an accuracy advantage which also resulted in a range advantage over firearms at the time.

Events of the game take place from roughly 1492 (Queen Isabella) to sometime near the turn of the century (~1912, Meiji Restoration). Archers were only really replaced due to kings wanting the latest in military technology, not necessarily the most effective. Benjamin Franklin actually proposed that the Continental Army be equipped with longbows as opposed to muskets. They were still known to fire faster, further, and more accurately than muskets at the time. His idea was shot down due to the long and difficult skill and training it takes to learn the art.

I'm not questioning that crossbows were used at the conquest of the Americas, but these also only happened at the beginning of AoE3's timeline and hence shouldn't dominate the whole game.

Of course, a skilled longbowman or crossbowman is more dangerous than a guy with a firearm, but it doesn't change the fact that they were still quickly replaced in history by firearms on the battlefields (not talking about sentries, hunts or competitions). Mainly because the commanders wanted to save time and money and gain by that an advantage over opponents. The effectiveness of archery became redundant because it simply was no longer (cost-)efficient compared to firearms in military and capitalistic terms. And a denied proposal remains just a proposal in the end, even if it came from Benjamin Franklin.

Paradoxically, archer shots miss the target sometimes in the game, whereas all gunpowder rifles are 100% accurate. ROF is also mainly the same — in reality, though, early musketeers were able to shoot approximately once per 6 minutes if I recall corectly — at the same time bows and crossbows needed significantly less time to be reloaded.

Archers in AoE3 are worse not for matters of realism, but because ES wanted gunpowder troops to do slightly better and make people use them more frequently. So it's not a paradox, but a subtle design measure.

Crossbows were employed by colonists well into the 17th century, because they were cheaper and less cumbersome than early firearms. They are also waaaaaaaayyyyy more accurate. Early guns were the superior weapons for a field army, but up until the the invention of flintlock weapons, crossbows were the best weapon for the guerilla/wilderness fights European colonists got involved in. Remember that the Euro civs are supposed to be colonies, not the Powers themselves. And when one remembers that the Euro civs are supposed to be colonies and not the Powers themselves, it makes sense that crossbows would be such a big part of the game.

Yea, but a colonist is not a soldier and the xbows and lbows in AoE3 are clearly not depicting colonists. A colonial soldier neither was a colonist in the civil sense. In fact, colonial troops are regular military forces fighting in European fashion with a largely varying skillset for the operation area mainly depending on regimental experience and time of service. Europeans did not only fight natives in the Americas but also each other. So please stop talking about this as if AoE3 was only about the 15th and 16 century and would focus on civilians. There are 3 more centuries up to the late 19th century, in which (x)bows had 0 military relevance.

Early guns were not superior by the way, they were limited to sieges, naval battles and played mainly a psychological role for a long time until the innovations in the Thirty Years War which lead to the establishment of field artillery.

The euro civs are by far not only shown as colonial powers. They're actually full of content that really was only a thing in Europe. Neither Longbowmen, Crossbowmen nor Doppelsöldner (Rodeleros, yes) did ever fight on a similar military scale in the Americas or Asia as in Europe.

You know, the civs in AoE3 were meant to be a lot, but even the original devs admitted they wanted too much and achieved too little. So someone seriously claiming that AoE3 would be perfectly fine in its historical quality is just talking nonsense.

Interesting fact, the official „guide" from the box edition says that the game is placed in the period of time between 1500 and 1850.

Oh, they say and write a lot of stuff. I also once read that Bruce Shelley (AoE3 lead designer) said the game wouldn't be really about history. On the Age of Empires wikipedia article it says:

Due to the games being based on historical events, the team often had to do large amounts of research. However, the research was not in depth, which, according to Age of Empires designer Bruce Shelley, is "a good idea for most entertainment products." Shelley also said that Ensemble Studios took most of the reference material from children's sections at libraries. He pointed out the goal was for the players of the game to have fun, "not [its] designers or researchers."[66] At the Games Convention Developers Conference in 2007, Shelley continued with this thought and explained that the success of the series laid in "making a game which appealed to both the casual and hardcore gamer."[67] Shelley also remarked the Age of Empires games were not about history in itself, but rather "about the human experience;"[67] they focused not simply on what humans had done but on what they could do in the future such as "going into space."

And this is just bullshit.

It proves how much of a cliché patchwork product AoE3 is, made for an audience that doesn't know military history very well either, but just likes to jerk off on any unit that makes them win no matter how much it is out of context.

What I think they or at least Shelley is trying to do with these statements is to play down the poor research quality and/or the weak impact it had on the game itself. People like him and also a lot of players are being opportunistic and hypocrite about that. Once AoE doesn't tell historical lies everyone starts praising the game as edutainment and 'better than teachers', once there are blatant history failures and fantasy elements however, everyone is relativizing and dodges like 'hey, it's just a game and nobody cares about real history anyway'. Every time I hear that bullshit I wanna smash something.

Seriously, if you love history and know your stuff, then it's not too hard to set a benchmark with qualitative dos & donts and make that a constraint but also shaper of game design.

[momuuu]

I mean, history is of secondary importance. Games are about gameplay not about history.

Although there are some silly things in the game.

[iCourt]

We have flaming arrows. Nuff said...

[iNcog]

We have flaming arrows. Nuff said...

Those exist though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo-hiya

1492 (discovery of the new world!?)

Nah, it was "discovered" way before that, though you could say "beginning of the interest in the New World by Europeans". You could not say, however "beginning of the Age of Exploration by Europeans", since they had embarked on expeditions around Africa, India and Asia for a while before. TAD does cover that time period as well.