Comanche Thread

Australia Peachrocks
Lancer
Posts: 506
Joined: Jul 11, 2019
ESO: Peachrocks

Re: Comanche Thread

Post by Peachrocks »

Kaiserklein wrote:
Peachrocks wrote:
Kaiserklein wrote:
The comanche nat is crap, but if we start buffing that, we might as well buff half the nats and also rework the mercs.


Thatā€™s the plan. Seriously the posts are usually map decorations. Iā€™m making threads on one native group at a time starting with the ones that I dislike seeing because the units are completely unusable.

I don't think we want to buff all this stuff though. There's so many shitty units in this game, buffing all of them would take lots of efforts and is also risky to some extent. And then why not make all cards viable too? It's just endless.

Also like I said comanche settlements are already viable, so let's be happy about it.


Well yeah. I mean you havenā€™t read all my threads but Iā€™ve questioned many times whether the community actually wants this. A lot of people seem pretty damn content with the robotic nature of the game.

Honestly though currently Comanche only get picked up if the game goes beyond the usual averages. You never see people pick or not pick a given civ because Comanche is on the map or any native for that matter. They are basically invisible in 99% of games,

Iā€™m looking to expand and diversify the game and keep it fresh, without destabilising balance. Thatā€™s what games do these days after all.

Also quite frankly with the TP meta, weā€™ve already got a few ā€˜must haveā€™ things and something on a map worth contending to the point where there is great imbalance on no TP maps vs. TP maps. Natives just might be an alternative route to no tp maps for TP dependant civs and some passive benefits to natives as a whole could be considered.

Even if I 100% had my way Iā€™m not actually sure people will use the natives but the first step is making them remotely worth considering.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Comanche Thread

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

If you pick a civ on a map because of Comanche, then you break the balance
Australia Peachrocks
Lancer
Posts: 506
Joined: Jul 11, 2019
ESO: Peachrocks

Re: Comanche Thread

Post by Peachrocks »

[Armag] diarouga wrote:If you pick a civ on a map because of Comanche, then you break the balance


Or maybe the meta evolves. In any case even if I got my way I doubt this will happen. They are limited in number, in inconvenient places and other such things. Not to mention that considering thereā€™s a whole other tier list on whether the map has a trade route or not... well.

Ugh. I think itā€™s time to do a poll. Iā€™m tired of arguing with you in every thread about this when your bias is clear.
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10278
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Comanche Thread

Post by Kaiserklein »

Well I think your vision of nats is rather wrong. It's just a niche thing, with situational upgrades and a limited amount of units you can produce. If you want them to be as relevant as regular TPs, it means we need to totally revamp the way nats work, not just buff their stats. And that's really not an option if we want to keep EP remotely close to the RE, and if we don't want to start balancing everything again from scratch...

They're situational and it's fine the way it is. I'm okay with buffing some nats stats when they're really underwhelming (like mapuche and zapotecs or whatever), even though I doubt it's needed nor relevant. But we really shouldn't change much more than that.

Btw I think you underestimate the current impact of nats. There's lots of situations where they actually should be used, but even top players just sort of ignore them. It doesn't mean they're necessarily underpowered, just underused. Lots of nats have great techs for the mid or late game: comanches, lakotas/cheyennes, incas, sufis, cherokee, seminole, mapuche, etc. And some are even trained sometimes (like nootkas and incas).

And for the record, yeah I'd consider playing sioux more on high plains because of the cav upgrades. Or ports/brits because of the bisons tech. It's not like it's totally irrelevant in terms of balance.
Image
Image
Image
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 ..
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: Comanche Thread

Post by duckzilla »

Kaiserklein wrote: Lots of nats have great techs for the mid or late game: comanches, lakotas/cheyennes, incas, sufis, cherokee, seminole, mapuche, etc. And some are even trained sometimes (like nootkas and incas).

The techs are usually nice. E.g. Deccan natives are all quite good in this regard. It is quite helpful for Dutch to get +10% villager build limit (which is not +5, but +10 for them, iirc). I would not recommend to change the techs of native TPs.

Regarding the native units, most also seem acceptable (e.g. TAD native units generally seem good to me). In my opinion, the Comanche Horse Archer is a negative exception here though.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10459
Joined: Mar 25, 2015
ESO: Pezet

Re: Comanche Thread

Post by pecelot »

[Armag] diarouga wrote:Haha yea, using that shit formula should be a bannable offense xD.

thanks I've already banned him

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV