zoom wrote:I think it shouldn't be viable to fight warships with infantry and cavalry; you should need to build towers or field artillery.
Sure, but Caravels shouldn't be age 2 Falconets which are also untouchable on water. Infantry and Cavalry cannot fight Caravels by design, due to the latter being on water.
In other words, a land army should not be impeded of being around the coast due to warships.
I contend that it should; you should need artillery or defensive structures to fight war ships from land. Outside of Offshore Support, Caravels are more or less fine to me.
I beg to differ, you should be able to destroy them with large number of ranged units without taking devastating loses.
about water, the real problems is that some civs have better warboat than others, make them bilanced can make the water fight less lame. Then no cost of the fishingbot have to be touch ot tower/tc vs boat, becouse this is belanced. I think make warboat of all the civs on the same level and number n age 2 will be ok
Pizza, spaghetti, maccheroni, mandolino e tua mamma
There are so many trading posts and resources on ESOC maps and walls have such low hitpoints that full water is not really viable in the first place.
However, people do not often use strategies where you invest into water just a little bit. I mean builds where you send schooners and build 1 dock for 10-15 boats, send schooners -> 700 w -> 700 g and then fast age up, this is very strong with Ottomans, Portuguese, Russians, maybe even Chinese. Ah yes, nobody plays those civilizations...
Get rid of schooners, make fishing boats cheaper, give warships a huge negative multiplier against artillery, and reduce range of the special monitor/ironclad attack.
Well schooners basically makes fishing from being non-viable to it being viable. so if you make fishing viable without schooners, does schooners become non-viable or what
iNcog wrote:Well schooners basically makes fishing from being non-viable to it being viable. so if you make fishing viable without schooners, does schooners become non-viable or what
No they just become more viable. Lets say 80w without, 30 with schooners. That way civs without schooners could theoretically play water, and civs with schooners would become even better on water, maybe even OP.....
80w is too high by the way, I think that 60 or 70 would be more realistic. So it's really like, from 70 to 30, which looks good on paper but really it's not that big. What's more significant at that point is the training time for fishing boats, and dock cost.
IMO the problem is that even culves get countered by mortars (especially with the special shot) even after all arsenal upgrades :/
I am fine with warships countering infantry and cavalry but I believe they should have a strong negative multiplier against cannons and that cannons should have an even stronger multiplier against ships.
purplesquid wrote:IMO the problem is that even culves get countered by mortars (especially with the special shot) even after all arsenal upgrades :/
I am fine with warships countering infantry and cavalry but I believe they should have a strong negative multiplier against cannons and that cannons should have an even stronger multiplier against ships.
Completely agree, same goes for tc's and towers, they should do even more dam vs ships. Atm carded ships dont lose to anything except direct contest from water.
I think civs without schooners should have possibility for semi efficient water agenda. Atm, with steep fs prices it' almost impossible, especially in competitive environment. We shouldn't forget that by reducing fs price possibility for medium water agenda opens, like build a dock and few fs just to boost eco. Atm, either you go commit all to water, or nothing.
yemshi wrote:you know that towers can have a 3x vs boats, right?
Give them offshore support and imp warships with Brits, or for example galleons and armada with Spanish and you will see what i mean. That's why i said carded.
Offshore Support=Still in range. Imp warshipd=lol You whining all the time = true Water is totally beatable, lame after some time has passed, and denies yourself completely from mapcontrol/wood/army/anything bit the water. I do understand and see that it just gets to much at a certain point but thats how it is. Water is totally beatable and mostly unviable on EP. Ask anybgood water player.
yemshi wrote:Offshore Support=Still in range. Imp warshipd=lol You whining all the time = true Water is totally beatable, lame after some time has passed, and denies yourself completely from mapcontrol/wood/army/anything bit the water. I do understand and see that it just gets to much at a certain point but thats how it is. Water is totally beatable and mostly unviable on EP. Ask anybgood water player.
Good water player won't allow you to build wall of towers! Also towers are static defense, while ships can harass and provide support whenever opponent army tries to force your hand near shore. As for matches, I watched many of them where water player prevailed in the end. Quiet recently in winter tourney for 3rd4th place Kynesie beat Diarouga(very good players btw) with Ports while going full water. So, statement that water is unviable on ep is far from truth. And it's not the only representative example.
iCourt wrote:You can't just get rid of schooners...
Similarly you can't just give Sioux steel traps.
When was that happening, and why bring that up?
You shouldn't just remove a game feature that has entire builds dedicated to it. Perhaps you can nerf schooners, giving it a cost reduction to fishing boats but a train time increase, or changing how much it decreases wood, etc.
The point being is just simply removing it isn't an option I'd be willing to implement. It's taking away from the game.
iCourt wrote:You can't just get rid of schooners...
Similarly you can't just give Sioux steel traps.
When was that happening, and why bring that up?
You shouldn't just remove a game feature that has entire builds dedicated to it. Perhaps you can nerf schooners, giving it a cost reduction to fishing boats but a train time increase, or changing how much it decreases wood, etc.
The point being is just simply removing it isn't an option I'd be willing to implement. It's taking away from the game.
Just as a comparison, cause some here are great supporters of just giving Sioux steel traps. I agree with the rest of the post though.
