Radical suggestions for AoE3

[[Armag] diarouga]

Idk about aoe2 but in sc2, melee units are balanced to be viable at the GM level, so they're actually stronger than ranged units at the lower level, because not everybody can kite and split like a GM. In aoe3, it feels like melee units were designed to be viable assuming the opponent can't micro, which is why they suck when your opponent can hit and run.

[Imperial Noob]

Melee units in RTS PvP are well off when unit numbers are low, shooting animations are more awkward than pathing, and units have a lot of HP in relation to attack. AOE 3 fails in all three aspects.

They hang on the snare, really.

[iNcog]

Snare is also sort of a buff to cav though. Their speed makes them truly the most mobile unit of the game; you can't snare them anymore.

I've been playing with cav in aoe2 and the ability to disengage is so good. Just like SC2 melee units.

[Peachrocks]

Idk about aoe2 but in sc2, melee units are balanced to be viable at the GM level, so they're actually stronger than ranged units at the lower level, because not everybody can kite and split like a GM. In aoe3, it feels like melee units were designed to be viable assuming the opponent can't micro, which is why they suck when your opponent can hit and run.

Based on the things I heard and even read first hand from some of the dev team back in the day, yeah, this sort of logic is pretty accurate.

[iNcog]

It's kind of logic that isn't good for the game on a more fundamental level.

[Peachrocks]

It's kind of logic that isn't good for the game on a more fundamental level.

Pretty much but we are talking about the people who thought they designed a turtle civ when they made Otto.

[aaryngend]

It's kind of logic that isn't good for the game on a more fundamental level.

Pretty much but we are talking about the people who thought they designed a turtle civ when they made Otto.

Not really, Ottoman were not designed to be a turtle civ. They were made to either rush or "boom" (boom meaning FF, then get more TCs to speed up settler production) and attacking with a stronger army. Turtle is more of a niche option for them.
You ask how I know this? Just read the Collector's edition manual from Vanilla, they have some articles explaining how to do Rush, Boom and Turtle with every civ.
All in all, every civ was designed to be able to play any kind of style at least half decent to moderately, while still having their main strengths.
For example, the Ottoman Turtle category is very short and the Germans on the other hand where not meant to have a good boom at all.
Russian were meant to be good at all three categories.
These are just examples of the playstyle the developers had in mind when designing these civs.
We can see how different the intention is compared to the final product

[Peachrocks]

Nah, I was around very early and listened to the devs. Seriously they consider Ottoman turtle because they didn’t need to gather food to build villagers. Rushing was never considered. That’s why Jans and Abus were so busted and powerful in release vanilla and why 60 wood Crossbows lost per cost easily to Jans. To them to the Ottomans were a slow building up but eventually powerful and overwhelming force.

I’m not sure about the timeline of collectors edition but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a bunch of disagreement and confusion over where the game stood.

[duckzilla]

Villager/town center/tashunke prowler/envoy/house (except for Brits/Japan/China) build limits can all be removed honestly

So much this. I don't see a convincing argument for a build limit for houses lol

Town center/villagers don't need a build limit as well.

[duckzilla]

AOE2 has lots of very good melee units. In fact their balance of ranged vs melee is probably the best of any RTS.

Hmm.... don't really see it that way. The only good melee units are cavalry and only since the last expansion. Vanilla and TWC did not have a negative multiplier of skirmishers against melee cav.

I fail to see well balanced melee units outside of melee cavalry. Imo, they are either complete crap (pikes, dops, sams, halbs, rajput, etc.) or broken (urumi).

[Peachrocks]

AOE2 has lots of very good melee units. In fact their balance of ranged vs melee is probably the best of any RTS.

Hmm.... don't really see it that way. The only good melee units are cavalry and only since the last expansion. Vanilla and TWC did not have a negative multiplier of skirmishers against melee cav.

I fail to see well balanced melee units outside of melee cavalry. Imo, they are either complete crap (pikes, dops, sams, halbs, rajput, etc.) or broken (urumi).

Urumi are primarily strong because they are basically melee skirmishers. They don’t have all the problems the other units have. Melee resist in general is just straight up inferior for starters. It was one of my ideas to give range resist for some of the heavy infantry minor natives to try and make them a bit more then early rush units that are basically useless after the first 8 minutes or so. There are some complications there though (range resist helps them vs. tc fire) and it’s be in line with other changes in general but that’s neither here or there.

[aaryngend]

Nah, I was around very early and listened to the devs. Seriously they consider Ottoman turtle because they didn’t need to gather food to build villagers. Rushing was never considered. That’s why Jans and Abus were so busted and powerful in release vanilla and why 60 wood Crossbows lost per cost easily to Jans. To them to the Ottomans were a slow building up but eventually powerful and overwhelming force.

Turtling is not about not having to gather food for settlers. Turtling is almost the same as booming, the only difference is that a lot of your resources are also poured into defensive structures and walls and you anticipate of being rushed. If you don't expect to be rushed, you boom instead. Read the collector's edition manual, they explain their vision pretty well.
Ottoman were obviously meant to have Rushing as one of their main strategies, why do you think Janissaries were so durable or Abus Guns so strong? Here is what the manual says about Ottoman Rushing (only the first two sentences):

The advantage of the Ottoman Rush is that it doesn’t really weaken their economy to attack early. You’re still going to get just as many Settlers as with another strategy. The difference is likely in how quickly you’ll Age up.

As you can see, Ottoman cannot boom like the British for example (who just can decide to plant their manour houses,) as there is no way to get more settlers quickly in the Colonial Age (Mosque upgrades take too long to matter with a single TC), they rely on aging up instead and getting 3 TCs. Formidably with abusing strong Fortress shipments to attack first, then plant more TCs or the other way round. I think this was the original idea.

An excerpt about Turtling:

Turtling is essentially Booming except that you devote many more resources to defense. You anticipate being Rushed, so you want to be ready for it. Turtling often assumes building defenses—such as walls, Outposts, or a stronger Town Center—but could also involve devoting an early Shipment to soldiers who will remain close to your town to defend it. Like Booming, Turtling is generally easier and safer if you aren’t on the front lines. When Turtling, you should be able to fend off a Rush, but your economy is going to fall behind a pure Boom because you don’t have as many villagers.

Then Booming:

Booming is a strategy where you focus solely on growing your economy in the hope that you will get a larger, more powerful
army late in the game. This strategy can make you vulnerable if you are attacked early in the game, but a Booming player will have a better economy than a defensive player almost every time.
Two common styles of Booming are:
1) reverting all resources into villagers, and
2) pursuing economic upgrades to increase the speed of gathering resources.

I’m not sure about the timeline of collectors edition but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a bunch of disagreement and confusion over where the game stood

The collector's edition obviously came out with Vanilla. It can't take future patches into consideration, same as it cannot adapt to players becoming more skilled and over time, finding more optimal ways to play. It does capture their original views and ideas very well though.

Villager/town center/tashunke prowler/envoy/house (except for Brits/Japan/China) build limits can all be removed honestly

That would be madness! Tashunke prowlers grow in strength by numbers. Can you imagine 70 of them together??
Limitless houses would defeat the purpose, as you could just build 50 or so houses and can never get popped. Having 20 TCs would also be kind of freaky as you could train 20 villagers at once and also call hundreds of minutemen...
If you ask me, there should be even more build limits. Imagine a build limit of exceptional units like cuirassiers. If you couldn't have more than 30 at once at all times it would lead to them being less scary even in their unnerfed form.

[edeholland]

That would be madness! Tashunke prowlers grow in strength by numbers. Can you imagine 70 of them together??
Limitless houses would defeat the purpose, as you could just build 50 or so houses and can never get popped. Having 20 TCs would also be kind of freaky as you could train 20 villagers at once and also call hundreds of minutemen...
If you ask me, there should be even more build limits. Imagine a build limit of exceptional units like cuirassiers. If you couldn't have more than 30 at once at all times it would lead to them being less scary even in their unnerfed form.

What? If you let your opponent make 70 Tashunke Prowlers you have bigger problems on your hand. I don't see why a build limit is necessary. And what is wrong with never being popped if you build 50 houses? It means you wasted 5000 wood, after all. Same for Town Centers, it's not possible to build 20 Town Centers. You won't have the wood and you will be on 200 villagers way before you can build so many TC's. Can you explain how these build limits are good for the game?

[duckzilla]

The capitol tech giving you 100 pop space eliminates the risk of getting housed in late game anyway. Before late game, building >20 houses is very costly, so most people won't do it anyway. I usually build exactly 17 houses + 3 TCs. The house building limit does not serve any real purpose.

[aaryngend]

That would be madness! Tashunke prowlers grow in strength by numbers. Can you imagine 70 of them together??
Limitless houses would defeat the purpose, as you could just build 50 or so houses and can never get popped. Having 20 TCs would also be kind of freaky as you could train 20 villagers at once and also call hundreds of minutemen...
If you ask me, there should be even more build limits. Imagine a build limit of exceptional units like cuirassiers. If you couldn't have more than 30 at once at all times it would lead to them being less scary even in their unnerfed form.

What? If you let your opponent make 70 Tashunke Prowlers you have bigger problems on your hand. I don't see why a build limit is necessary. And what is wrong with never being popped if you build 50 houses? It means you wasted 5000 wood, after all. Same for Town Centers, it's not possible to build 20 Town Centers. You won't have the wood and you will be on 200 villagers way before you can build so many TC's. Can you explain how these build limits are good for the game?

I'm obviously talking about treaty or large, drawn out teamgames here. In a 1v1 or normal teamgames, these issues will likely never pop up. Things that scale way too hard always end up getting OP at one point.

The house building limit does not serve any real purpose.

It would be no fun to see the whole map cluttered with buildings, at least to me. I could also ask you why you want the house build limit to be removed (except for British, Japanese, etc.).
If it doesn't have a benefit then the limit shouldn't bother you, no ?

[duckzilla]

A house costs 100 wood and has 1200hp. A piece of wall costs 5wood and has like 8000hp (?). Why would anyone choose to clutter the map with houses instead of walls?
Walls are even more flexible because you can make gates.

[aaryngend]

A house costs 100 wood and has 1200hp. A piece of wall costs 5wood and has like 8000hp (?). Why would anyone choose to clutter the map with houses instead of walls?
Walls are even more flexible because you can make gates.

Yes and that is why walls were nerfed heavily in the Esoc Patch and discussion came along on how to further nerf those annoying bricks

[edeholland]

A house costs 100 wood and has 1200hp. A piece of wall costs 5wood and has like 8000hp (?). Why would anyone choose to clutter the map with houses instead of walls?
Walls are even more flexible because you can make gates.

Yes and that is why walls were nerfed heavily in the Esoc Patch and discussion came along on how to further nerf those annoying bricks

Walls are still way stronger per cost than houses, I don't understand your point.

[aaryngend]

A house costs 100 wood and has 1200hp. A piece of wall costs 5wood and has like 8000hp (?). Why would anyone choose to clutter the map with houses instead of walls?
Walls are even more flexible because you can make gates.

Yes and that is why walls were nerfed heavily in the Esoc Patch and discussion came along on how to further nerf those annoying bricks

Walls are still way stronger per cost than houses, I don't understand your point.

Regard both arguments as seperate. With the houses, the devs followed a clear line where everything concerning economy has a limit such as villagers, TCs, houses, gatherers per mill/plantation, etc.

[Peachrocks]

Ottoman were obviously meant to have Rushing as one of their main strategies, why do you think Janissaries were so durable or Abus Guns so strong?

So strong that Janissaries overwhelmingly beat every single answer that crossbow civs could produce per cost? Yeah no. With this in mind they are arguably even more incompetent . I mean misreading and creating a design flaw or strategy is one thing. Not testing a unit against its counter or anything a civ can build is an entirely different level of incompetence.

The more likely is that the people I talked to and read their forum responses on were notoriously clueless, yet they also had some level of influence over the design and balance of the game which really explains a lot. By the way, I need to stress I'm not telling you that you are wrong, because that's impossible, you've got written material. This is a classic case of left hand not knowing what right hand is doing and all that.

They really had no foresight and I know for a fact what I've read. I didn't mean of course that this came out after the game either. I meant different spaces in the timeline of development, which we can only speculate on. For example, Portugal started with a TC wagon or 2 TC's at one stage during development, which is why they started with 6 vills in release vanilla.

Also I know what turtling is, but did the people I speak to know? Remember that one thing that was definitively designed in aoe3 was that resources were designed to make map control a big deal, an issue we face to this day. Ottomans consuming less food would in their twisted theory mean they could play more defensively. Unfortunately I can't present proof, but you might find tidbits of idiocy lying around.