Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by noissance »

Allow sioux to train hunts with wood or something? (Hay and wheat/wood lures herbivores) 15 wood per deer 50 per bison?
Error 404: Signature not found
No Flag dicktator
Skirmisher
Posts: 116
Joined: Aug 28, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by dicktator »

princeofcarthage wrote:lol, lancer cavalry specifically used to carry long lances which would make them attack infantry before bayonets could kill their horses. They were specifically designed to engage infantry rather than cavalry. it makes sense having them bonus against infantry. Anyways I feel like lot of milky''s changes are focused on making civs linear than actually balancing them.
Just because a unit is designed a certain way doesn''t mean it''s balanced. I love how you complain about the changes to lancers then complain about our changes making the civs more linear. Did you proofread your post? How can the lancer change do anything except make Spain less linear. As they are now, in no lag, their best, and sometimes only, strat is to spam skirms, natives, and lancers, with mortars and maybe a few culvs behind. Now that lancers are nerfed, that strat is not as viable, Also, with the +10 pop given to Spain by making missionaries 0 pop, and the slight eco boost, other strats, such as going skirm heavy or making lots of artillery, are more viable. These strats were still present before the changes we made, so we are not completely changing the civ. Their skirm/nat/lancer composition will still be viable and quite strong, it''s just now Spain players actually have to be careful with lancers in the face of dop/huaminca/musk/etc masses. If you''d like to provide any more examples of how milky''s changes are making civs linear feel free to, and I will destroy your arguments again.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

dicktator wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote:lol, lancer cavalry specifically used to carry long lances which would make them attack infantry before bayonets could kill their horses. They were specifically designed to engage infantry rather than cavalry. it makes sense having them bonus against infantry. Anyways I feel like lot of milkys changes are focused on making civs linear than actually balancing them.
Just because a unit is designed a certain way doesnt mean its balanced. I love how you complain about the changes to lancers then complain about our changes making the civs more linear. Did you proofread your post? How can the lancer change do anything except make Spain less linear. As they are now, in no lag, their best, and sometimes only, strat is to spam skirms, natives, and lancers, with mortars and maybe a few culvs behind. Now that lancers are nerfed, that strat is not as viable, Also, with the +10 pop given to Spain by making missionaries 0 pop, and the slight eco boost, other strats, such as going skirm heavy or making lots of artillery, are more viable. These strats were still present before the changes we made, so we are not completely changing the civ. Their skirm/nat/lancer composition will still be viable and quite strong, its just now Spain players actually have to be careful with lancers in the face of dop/huaminca/musk/etc masses. If youd like to provide any more examples of how milkys changes are making civs linear feel free to, and I will destroy your arguments again.
1) I think you misunderstood me. By linear I mean his changes makes all civs kind of similar in concept breaking the main pillar of this game which is uniqueness.
2) About the lancer part I dont get your logic about how can a lancer is suppose to deal different amount of damage to 2 different infantry units? and why it should? what you said was "Spain needed a lancer nerf because its bullshit that lancers, hand cav, have a bonus VS all infantry." You are missing the concept of lancer, if a unit is specifically designed to counter infantry why wouldnt it do damage to all infantry? heavy infantry which is suppose to be well armored will resist more damage from a lancer than infantry with no armor and it does musk do get 20% hand resist.
3)What reason possibly could you nerf longbow?

I wonder if you get that the game is designed to be allow different playstyles rather than single one and this is achieved through creating different types of civilizations rather than giving every civ every unit. abus need +2 range? why their high damage compensates for their range. it doesnt even make sense having abus and skirm with same range. its like you are throwing a stone and it goes x distance and then you want to through a much larger stone with about same power and expect it to go the same distance which is illogical, Same goes for longbow. British longbows were the elite archers and in the era the game is based archers used to fire farther away than what rifles in those eras did.


Anyways, I said it was my personal opinion rather than an argument. Of course if you want to discuss why I feel x is wrong and y is right and know my thinking as a review or maybe correct me where I am wrong we can surely do.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
No Flag dicktator
Skirmisher
Posts: 116
Joined: Aug 28, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by dicktator »

[quote source="/post/74547/thread" timestamp="1446491193" author="@princeofcarthage"][quote source="/post/74537/thread" timestamp="1446489657" author="@dicktator"]Just because a unit is designed a certain way doesn't mean it's balanced. I love how you complain about the changes to lancers then complain about our changes making the civs more linear. Did you proofread your post? How can the lancer change do anything except make Spain less linear. As they are now, in no lag, their best, and sometimes only, strat is to spam skirms, natives, and lancers, with mortars and maybe a few culvs behind. Now that lancers are nerfed, that strat is not as viable, Also, with the +10 pop given to Spain by making missionaries 0 pop, and the slight eco boost, other strats, such as going skirm heavy or making lots of artillery, are more viable. These strats were still present before the changes we made, so we are not completely changing the civ. Their skirm/nat/lancer composition will still be viable and quite strong, it's just now Spain players actually have to be careful with lancers in the face of dop/huaminca/musk/etc masses. If you'd like to provide any more examples of how milky's changes are making civs linear feel free to, and I will destroy your arguments again.[/quote]1) I think you misunderstood me. By linear I mean his changes makes all civs kind of similar in concept breaking the main pillar of this game which is uniqueness. You said "making civs linear" which made me think you were talking about individual civs, so yes I did understand you. Still, I don't understand where you're seeing this.
2) About the lancer part I don't get your logic about how can a lancer is suppose to deal different amount of damage to 2 different infantry units? Because one type of infantry unit is supposed to counter hand cavalry, and another type of infantry unit is supposed to get countered by it. and why it should? what you said was "Spain needed a lancer nerf because it's bullshit that lancers, hand cav, have a bonus VS all infantry." You are missing the concept of lancer, if a unit is specifically designed to counter infantry why wouldn't it do damage to all infantry? They were specifically designed to counter all infantry yes, but this is not balanced for Spain in treaty. It makes them an extremely one dimensional civ in that they can only spam skirm nat lancer with a few culvs, and doing any other strat is almost not viable. heavy infantry which is suppose to be well armored will resist more damage from a lancer than infantry with no armor and it does musk do get 20% hand resist. Fair point but lancers as they are now still do too well against dops, huamincas, musks, and other heavy infantry that is supposed to counter hand cavalry. A pure musk spam would probably beat a pure lancer spam but lancers do well enough against hand inf that there is no need to micro them back like u would with other hand cav as long as you have ~30 skirms attack moved behind them.
3)What reason possibly could you nerf longbow? So that they can't snipe organ guns or culvs.

I wonder if you get that the game is designed to be allow different playstyles rather than single one and this is achieved through creating different types of civilizations rather than giving every civ every unit. We're not giving every civ every unit. The only example of this that I can think of is giving Russia heavy cannons, which I wouldn't have done but Milky did it because he thought it boosting strelets or musks would be too much but he still felt that Russia needed some boost to their military. abus need +2 range? You're confusing us with the ESOC FP, we did not boost abus range why their high damage compensates for their range. it doesnt even make sense having abus and skirm with same range. its like you are throwing a stone and it goes x distance and then you want to through a much larger stone with about same power and expect it to go the same distance which is illogical, Same goes for longbow. British longbows were the elite archers and in the era the game is based archers used to fire farther away than what rifles in those eras did. They still have a larger range it's just not as insane.


Anyways, I said it was my personal opinion rather than an argument. Of course if you want to discuss why I feel x is wrong and y is right and know my thinking as a review or maybe correct me where I am wrong we can surely do. [/quote]
User avatar
No Flag briowl
Dragoon
Posts: 349
Joined: Mar 3, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by briowl »

noissance wrote:Allow sioux to train hunts with wood or something? (Hay and wheat/wood lures herbivores) 15 wood per deer 50 per bison?
i think that would change the mechanics a bit too much, but I like the outside of the box thinking 8-)

The more I think about it the more I''m liking the age5 sioux warclubs petards concept. If you think about it, sioux is a civ that is all about physical bravery, getting in the enemy''s face, up close and personal doing damage like he''s invading the land you promised your ancestors you would protect :D Imagine you have camps setup around the opponent''s perimeter with wakina, bow riders and teepees. You have warhuts behind ur units from which you spam warclubs. If you have fertility dance on then they pop immediately so the stream of warclubs would be constant. Remember warclubs are crazy cheap so no problem keeping this assault up, but I don''t think it''s too strong as the opponents is going to be able shoot alot of them down.

The question is, is this even possible?
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

Yes sorry about range I thought I read it in milky's but don't you think every civ got its distinct combo you need to play with like brit has musk huss or port got cass/goon otto has jan/abus similarly spain has skirm lancer and making lancer worse is like changing that distinct feature. As far as your arguement is considered dopps still win vs lancers its just that lancer do better job than huss which is their job tbh. they dont win even in cost effectiveness. It's that type of question "when anti cav infantry fights anti infantry cav" there is no definite answer about who should win. I never calculated the cost effectiveness of Doppel vs lancer but if its close to 1-1 its favor but if it heavily favors lancer then ye you are right we need a bit nerf on lancer but 0.5x against hf is really not the solution. I dont know abt lb tbh historically the ratio seems perfect and being a game based on it I do favor it, but that being apart whats wrong with sniping organ abus can kill artillery while taking one hit. also it takes lot of time to kill organ or culv with lbs even with 2 shots and organs have justified their cost anything more should be considered luxury. @dicktator
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

i like the idea of an infinite bison card for sioux but 25 bison is 12.5k in res.... and i think with sioux hunt gathering cards they gather that faster than herdables. So that would make them have nearly unlimited food in treaty. For them to have such a strong eco I would think the teepees would have to be nerfed a little like only allowing a unit to have up to 5 teepee bonuses at a time. Especially if they got mortars too. because then from long range would be very strong mortars probably 1 hit kills to most buildings in a very strong defensive position, might make sioux the top tier civ with a partner who walls.

I think spain lancers are fine, would seem its about the numbers for lancers vs dopps. 1:1 vs 10:10 dopps are going to be more cost effective.
do the same with mahouts. they need to do better vs HI
monks no population? that's crazy they are so hard to kill. spains doesn't have a problem with a weak military, its problem is a lack luster economy and cant fight as long as most civs unless they really dominate the battle field and dont spam out too many rods and lancers.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:i like the idea of an infinite bison card for sioux but 25 bison is 12.5k in res.... and i think with sioux hunt gathering cards they gather that faster than herdables. So that would make them have nearly unlimited food in treaty. For them to have such a strong eco I would think the teepees would have to be nerfed a little like only allowing a unit to have up to 5 teepee bonuses at a time. Especially if they got mortars too. because then from long range would be very strong mortars probably 1 hit kills to most buildings in a very strong defensive position, might make sioux the top tier civ with a partner who walls.

I think spain lancers are fine, would seem its about the numbers for lancers vs dopps. 1:1 vs 10:10 dopps are going to be more cost effective.
do the same with mahouts. they need to do better vs HI
monks no population? that''s crazy they are so hard to kill. spains doesn''t have a problem with a weak military, its problem is a lack luster economy and cant fight as long as most civs unless they really dominate the battle field and dont spam out too many rods and lancers.
I am not sure if sioux can send all hunt cards in treaty. there coin gather is terrible (zero cards) mortar would be very very expensive shipment like 2 mortars for 2k its like 1k per mortar and they will have reduced range of 30-35 is my concept cuz sioux literally got nothing against walls. its 100% a sup civ, also dick 10 less military kinda should fare out if you think lancers are too strong.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

25 infinite hunts would totally change the way the civ is played. hunt cards would be viable and awesome, only needing minimal on hunts, and then most to coin and wood. i do think sioux needs a ranged artillery its why i dont play them. but just trying to imagine what they would be like hidden in 10-20 teepees with bow riders and rifle riders and all guarding them.

I think there is a problem with spain monks. they are so fast and with 1 hit they run and nothing has a counter to them, takes a dragoon 10 hits to kill one and they are so fast..., so basically the only way to kill them is if you sacrifice a huge amount of troops that are most likely going to get slaughtered or wait until he makes a mistake and sends them in the fight.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

Just dont kill missionaries unless you are 1000% sure you can focus fire and kill it in 1 hit
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

exactly prince you cant.... so thats why I think they need some kind of counter to balance in TR, having them zero pop makes them just that much more stronger. but also give spain a slight eco boost like 10% food or something, so they don't fizzle out so fast.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

Tbh spain is a good as it is. Spain is like iro or otto in sup which focuses on early and stronger military. Late game prolly they are weaker. Maybe a 10% eco might drag games longer.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
No Flag mongobillione
Dragoon
Donator 02
Posts: 467
Joined: Mar 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by mongobillione »

somppukunkku wrote:I think French is already too weak. What should be done is:
-Gendarme base hitpoints increased to 650 from 500. Also splash is increased.
-You can now train 100 cdbs.
-New shipment: Gendarmepower. Increases cdb gathering boost from 20% to 30%.
i hope ur not teolling i also feel like thwy need atleast 20-30 more vills
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

well I was thinking in terms of the OP balancing for Treaty. As they are a good civ but one of the first to deplete resources because their strength is as a melee civ which is trumped by strong skirm goon combos. And have a very basic boom.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

believe it or not if they have any weakeness it's artillery. In treaty where war is artillery dominant it's just hard to win it. try playing against spain without artillery and it will win any game. they have weaker eco but compensated by one of the strongest military
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

yes but a smart spain player will have cannons too and then they have cannons with 60% stronger attack and need even fewer. a spain player has to play very smart and effectively. Try playing any civ without artillery and most likely u will lose unless both arent. I actually think the bonus should be in coin since spain had so much coinage. but the balance would be that monks have a cav tag so dragoons have a chance at killing them or light cav so skirms could.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

spain coinage depended on their naval trade imo and they have good water. what I mean by artillery war is that missionaries doesnt increase hp so culv or any other art dies in 2 shots just like other civ art. It also doesnt increase culv atk to that point where it needs one hit less attack to kill other canons. so basically any civ can make more culv than you and just beat you. if you are winningyour culv war then yes its usually you win.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

i wasnt sure about how much more powerful spain culvs can be or if they 1 shot other culvs or art. but it may help out with other cross fire from skirms, or cav that are in battle. Culv wars are what really separates the 2nd lts to he lst lts. i think.
User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by noissance »

Introduce melee attack for cannons (as much as villager attack)
Error 404: Signature not found
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Dragoon
Posts: 205
Joined: Aug 5, 2015
ESO: Motch | Milky__

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by ocemilky »

thanks for your feedback guys. Let me explain some points.

Lancers are broken in treaty. I hit them too hard yes, they should still be more or less core to spain's main composition but they are simply too strong. When a unit can defeat 90% of the units that should counter it, something is wrong (e.g gendarme). Because of this as dicktator mentioned, different playstyles will be more viable for spain now, which is making them less linear and more diverse. I don't see how that is a bad thing. In general, you don't really see spain being played out of natives. I'm hoping that removing missionary pop cost along with a small boom boost will make them more viable. I don't see how

Longbows are super strong. I don't make them because as a player I don't like that kind of style of fighting (camping). However they can snipe missionaries, organ guns and sometimes culvs. They're too strong only in terms of their range. 2 range isn't going to kill them or make them unplayable, but it does reduce some unintended consequences of the unit.

As for Iroquois, they are too gimicky as a civ. They either do extremely well or do extremely poorly, and usually this is based on the map size. They are such a wood heavy civ it's not even funny. If the map is too small, you won't have enough wood to drain any of the tier 1 civs. Previously Kanya have barely been made because of this, and since reducing their reliance on wood will mean they can have a better trade, it makes sense to change the cost to gold. Kanya horseman are actually reasonably decent and hopefully we'll see more cav from iro. Same story with tomahawk.

Personally I don't like how card heavy the ottoman boom is for a civ that doesn't get xp for making vills. They also don't get fulling mills, so livestocking isn't even as optimal as it could be. I'm unsure if food silos is enough to compensate but now otto will be able to send an extra card, such as church card, which makes their post 40 more smooth.

Btw prince missionaries don't do anything to hp, they only boost attack.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me
howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Dragoon
Posts: 205
Joined: Aug 5, 2015
ESO: Motch | Milky__

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by ocemilky »

princeofcarthage wrote:Tbh spain is a good as it is. Spain is like iro or otto in sup which focuses on early and stronger military. Late game prolly they are weaker. Maybe a 10% eco might drag games longer.
My goal is that there is single or group of civs that are like iro/otto/india in sup.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me
howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
New Zealand ocemilky
Dragoon
Posts: 205
Joined: Aug 5, 2015
ESO: Motch | Milky__

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by ocemilky »

cometk wrote:what i think are current balance issues in treaty' the stem of the problem

general:
- villagers moving around mills/plants causes lag
- cav archer/gren are trash units

aztec:
- ...
+1 to this. I am hoping that after lots of testing we can minimize the amount of changes made to make transitioning easier.

To Jerom: I think the EP is more balanced than the RE patch for tr so I think we will probably use that for tr anyway in the meantime - better maps, some civs like dutch become more viable etc. At the moment we are just trying to figure out what changes to actually make. Then if possible we can load those onto late game cards/technologies to allow both balanced sup and tr on an EP.
sergyou wrote:i won't even bother reply to ur posts anymore and id like u to the same and not quote me
howlingwolfpaw wrote:cognitive dissonance is what people suffer from when refusing to look at 9/11 truth.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

lol so thats just making game linear if you want every civ to be fast and end games in 10 min I wasnt wrong after all. most of your changes are changing the way a civ is meant to be played. nerfing an already weaker civ? what good does that do lol.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
United States of America noissance
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 2031
Joined: Mar 28, 2015
ESO: noissance
Location: United States

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by noissance »

Aztec problem is solved if u give arrow knights more dmg or make thrm 1 pop. Also, coyote runners cost only food and macehuautins only gold. Let sioux train animals for wood (Card: Lure Totem)
Iroquois problem solved by getting rid of fur trade and putting in sublime porte instead.
Error 404: Signature not found
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Treaty 40 patch suggestions thread

Post by princeofcarthage »

noissance wrote:Iroquois problem solved by getting rid of fur trade and putting in sublime porte instead.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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