Age Up Politician Balance in Aoe3 DE?

[Jeedos]

One of the most anticipated changes for AoE3 DE are some official balance changes from the current RE patch. EP is an improvement, but the sense I get some these forums is that *some* players have issues with it.

This beings me to my topic; Aging up and politicians. One my favourite Smackdowns was this one:





Mitoe and Interjection adjusted the Colonial Politician Age Ups to;

The Philosopher Prince was changed from 800f and 500 food age up bonus to costing 700f and giving 400 food on age up.
The Naturalist was changed from 4 cows to 3 settlers and 4 cows.
The Bishop grants an immediate extra shipment.

Governor (200g + outpost) and Quartermaster (400 w) remains the same.

Do you believe that there should be any changes to age up politicians for European (and maybe TWC) civs when AOE3:DE comes out later this year?

[[Armag] diarouga]

I don't think it's necessary, but as long as it's not game breaking it's fine.

The philosopher prince change is good imo. It's still weaker than 400w, but a bit stronger than 500f. It might be an issue with brit though. If you can age one vill earlier (thanks to the food discount), then 500f is better than tower+200c for sure.

The naturalist change is overpowered imo. After all, 5v is usually a stronger shipment than 700w in semi ff wars. Likewise, 3v+4 cows is going to be much better than 400w (it's 3v+160f if you say that a cow is about 40f). I can't say much about the bishop change, but without testing it's risky.

[Jeedos]

I don't think it's necessary, but as long as it's not game breaking it's fine.

The philosopher prince change is good imo. It's still weaker than 400w, but a bit stronger than 500f. It might be an issue with brit though. If you can age one vill earlier (thanks to the food discount), then 500f is better than tower+200c for sure.

The naturalist change is overpowered imo. After all, 5v is usually a stronger shipment than 700w in semi ff wars. Likewise, 3v+4 cows is going to be much better than 400w (it's 3v+160f if you say that a cow is about 40f). I can't say much about the bishop change, but without testing it's risky.

I agree on the Naturalist. It's overpowered in terms of value. Personally, I'd much rather see 4 settlers and no cows/sheep or whatever.

Bishop is intended to be a longer term investment card or one explicitly for rushing. I can already see some abuse cases where by Russia can get 9 cossacks out by 4.5 mins or something with Iroquois.

[forgrin]

I wouldn't mind a slight fast age nerf, or a slight buff to the age III unit ageup options. IMO fast age is just a little too flexible.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I don't think it's necessary, but as long as it's not game breaking it's fine.

The philosopher prince change is good imo. It's still weaker than 400w, but a bit stronger than 500f. It might be an issue with brit though. If you can age one vill earlier (thanks to the food discount), then 500f is better than tower+200c for sure.

The naturalist change is overpowered imo. After all, 5v is usually a stronger shipment than 700w in semi ff wars. Likewise, 3v+4 cows is going to be much better than 400w (it's 3v+160f if you say that a cow is about 40f). I can't say much about the bishop change, but without testing it's risky.

I agree on the Naturalist. It's overpowered in terms of value. Personally, I'd much rather see 4 settlers and no cows/sheep or whatever.

Bishop is intended to be a longer term investment card or one explicitly for rushing. I can already see some abuse cases where by Russia can get 9 cossacks out by 4.5 mins or something with Iroquois.

4 settler is arguably even better haha, that's op for sure.

[dansil92]

I don't think it's necessary, but as long as it's not game breaking it's fine.

The philosopher prince change is good imo. It's still weaker than 400w, but a bit stronger than 500f. It might be an issue with brit though. If you can age one vill earlier (thanks to the food discount), then 500f is better than tower+200c for sure.

The naturalist change is overpowered imo. After all, 5v is usually a stronger shipment than 700w in semi ff wars. Likewise, 3v+4 cows is going to be much better than 400w (it's 3v+160f if you say that a cow is about 40f). I can't say much about the bishop change, but without testing it's risky.

I agree on the Naturalist. It's overpowered in terms of value. Personally, I'd much rather see 4 settlers and no cows/sheep or whatever.

Bishop is intended to be a longer term investment card or one explicitly for rushing. I can already see some abuse cases where by Russia can get 9 cossacks out by 4.5 mins or something with Iroquois.

4 settler is arguably even better haha, that's op for sure.

This is like every china wonder tho lol

[Jeedos]

I don't think it's necessary, but as long as it's not game breaking it's fine.

The philosopher prince change is good imo. It's still weaker than 400w, but a bit stronger than 500f. It might be an issue with brit though. If you can age one vill earlier (thanks to the food discount), then 500f is better than tower+200c for sure.

The naturalist change is overpowered imo. After all, 5v is usually a stronger shipment than 700w in semi ff wars. Likewise, 3v+4 cows is going to be much better than 400w (it's 3v+160f if you say that a cow is about 40f). I can't say much about the bishop change, but without testing it's risky.

I agree on the Naturalist. It's overpowered in terms of value. Personally, I'd much rather see 4 settlers and no cows/sheep or whatever.

Bishop is intended to be a longer term investment card or one explicitly for rushing. I can already see some abuse cases where by Russia can get 9 cossacks out by 4.5 mins or something with Iroquois.

4 settler is arguably even better haha, that's op for sure.

Fast Age up is nerfed on EP AFAIK.

[Darwin_]

Yeah politician changes should definitely be looked at imo for the regular EP and especially DE. I really prefer what smackdown patch did for aztec's warhut politician (1 warhut, +10% atk/hp, and 1 WP) compared to what EP tried, and there are numerous other politician changes that were really good. I'm not necessarily saying that every politician should be as good as 400w, but I would for sure welcome having at least 3 viable politicians for each civ at each age up.

I also think all fortress politicians/wonders should have normal research/build time (i.e. 90/120 seconds respectively) and should cost a bit more, but thats kind of a big, fundamental change but I think it would be very beneficial.

[Goodspeed]

Do you believe that there should be any changes to age up politicians for European (and maybe TWC) civs when AOE3:DE comes out later this year?

It's a total no-brainer. There is almost no variety in age up politicians at the moment.

If I were DE I would make viability changes across the board, and rebalance from there. Politicians would be no exception.

[Imperial Noob]

No, let's keep most of the game content unusable. This is somehow intelligent

[RefluxSemantic]

More option does not necessarily make the game better. Stop assuming it does.

[princeofcarthage]

You are right it doesn't but that boils down to human tendency and comfort. Like I am not comfortable playing twc civs or China and no matter how many options or viability changes you make I would still play brits.

[Goodspeed]

More option does not necessarily make the game better. Stop assuming it does.

Yeah not necessarily. I don't think anyone is assuming that, though. At least not explicitly, ITT. It's not good for example if those options are not fun to play (against) or if they don't take skill to execute. But I don't think there's much of a concern when it comes to politicians, in particular.

[RefluxSemantic]

More option does not necessarily make the game better. Stop assuming it does.

Yeah not necessarily. I don't think anyone is assuming that, though. At least not explicitly, ITT. It's not good for example if those options are not fun to play (against) or if they don't take skill to execute. But I don't think there's much of a concern when it comes to politicians, in particular.

You said it was a no brainer though. I dont see how it is a no-brainer to buff age up politicians.

[Goodspeed]

How is that the same as assuming more options always makes the game better?
Increased politician variety I think is a risk-free change, and introducing more choices there is good for the game because we need more build variety. If we make one of the choices (quartermaster) vastly superior to every other option in 99% of situations, why even have a choice at all?

But by calling increased politician variety a no brainer I'm not saying I want the Russian 5v age up into all in rush to be viable, for example.

[gamevideo113]

More option does not necessarily make the game better. Stop assuming it does.

Except for the fact that having only one option available (which often isn’t the case, fortunately) is where strategy dies. Since AoE is an RTS brand, it makes little to no sense to have its strategical options numbed down.
I agree that having 40 different equally viable politician options would be a disaster, having 3-4 would not, though.
I would like to see some content revamp in the DE. Not extreme stuff (since AoE3 probably has too much content, with all the natives, mercs, outlaws etc etc), but a good chunk of it should be more viable.
I think AoE2 is more appealing to many people because even if civs are more similar between each other, they have more tools, overall.
E.g to counter xbows you can use knights, mangonels, skirms, scorpions, light cavalry...
In aoe3 if you want to counter musks you basically just have skirms or cannons. I think having a couple extra viable units would be ok, for AoE3. Same for politicians.

[RefluxSemantic]

ah, so you just didn't give it a lot of thought. That's what you mean with no-brainer I guess.

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

[gamevideo113]

ah, so you just didn't give it a lot of thought. That's what you mean with no-brainer I guess.

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

Unscoutable?
You can basically always scout your opponent’s age up crates quite safely.

[Goodspeed]

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

Your point is conceptually valid but I think it's a negligible factor here. At the very least, I don't think it comes close to weighing up to the increased strategic depth from having more choices, in this case.

[RefluxSemantic]

ah, so you just didn't give it a lot of thought. That's what you mean with no-brainer I guess.

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

Unscoutable?
You can basically always scout your opponent’s age up crates quite safely.

Not before you have decided what age up politician to use. That was my point, imagine that there are two options, A and B, and if your opponent does A you want to do B, if he does B you want to do A. Now a competitive, very strategic game revolves around what is essentially a coin flip.

This decision is not a no-brainer. It's not even clearly a good choice to make. Goodspeed and others should stop pretending it is.

[RefluxSemantic]

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

Your point is conceptually valid but I think it's a negligible factor here. At the very least, I don't think it comes close to weighing up to the increased strategic depth from having more choices, in this case.

So it's clearly not a no-brainer. On top of that, it's very subjective too.

[Goodspeed]

It's a no-brainer to me.

[RefluxSemantic]

Yes, when you don't give something proper thought it will generally be a no-brainer to you.

[Plantinator]

ah, so you just didn't give it a lot of thought. That's what you mean with no-brainer I guess.

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

Dat Post has also been written with nobrain right?
1. U get even more screwed rn if u click on the cows instead of 400 wood
2. How does that make the game coin Flippy? Thats the same as for example that u could catch 5 bows from germans if u randomly walk by a rax in age 2 with cav but u could also get absolutely f~°€ed if he had dopps in queue

[RefluxSemantic]

ah, so you just didn't give it a lot of thought. That's what you mean with no-brainer I guess.

Choice isn't necessarily a good thing here. When age up politicians are all viable, that can mean you be screwed over just because you clicked the wrong age up politician. By introducing unscoutable options in the early game, the game will become more coin-flippy. That's a bad thing. So if you give it a bit of thought, it's clearly not a no-brainer to buff other politicians.

Dat Post has also been written with nobrain right?
1. U get even more screwed rn if u click on the cows instead of 400 wood
2. How does that make the game coin Flippy? Thats the same as for example that u could catch 5 bows from germans if u randomly walk by a rax in age 2 with cav but u could also get absolutely f~°€ed if he had dopps in queue

Read my follow up post, maybe that will help you understand.