ESOCommunity

gamevideo113 wrote:Was moving the infantry combat cards to earlier ages considered?

I would move one to Fortress and one to Colonial. IDK if it was considered, though, but it wouldn't be significant enough regardless.

zoom wrote:

gamevideo113 wrote:Was moving the infantry combat cards to earlier ages considered?

I would move one to Fortress and one to Colonial. IDK if it was considered, though, but it wouldn't be significant enough regardless.

Upgrading musks in age 2 and cassa in skirm wars isn't significant?

It isn't significant enough to 1v1 to achieve the desired buff, no. Portuguese tend to age, regardless, for one thing. It could be one thing among several.

A couple of suggestions: (1) i've seen on stream that now the majority of games which now have some player(s) fishing, players tend to not send schooners. Although as a viewer i appreciate more civs going on water, i feel that the schooners card has lost its viability, anybody else feel that the fishing ship discount from the patch maybe a bit too large?
(2) Can outposts include a bonus vs fishing ships as currently fishing ships with 270Hp and 30% RR just shrug of the outposts mere 25 ranged attack. This leads to the only way to counter water is to get on water yourself.
(3) Could All native units cost 10 less wood (generic change for all natives) each. This avoids trying to buff certain natives (and to extent playstyles on certain maps)

i wouldnt move them to colonial, would just be brits 2.0

I_HaRRiiSoN_I wrote:A couple of suggestions: (1) i've seen on stream that now the majority of games which now have some player(s) fishing, players tend to not send schooners. Although as a viewer i appreciate more civs going on water, i feel that the schooners card has lost its viability, anybody else feel that the fishing ship discount from the patch maybe a bit too large?
(2) Can outposts include a bonus vs fishing ships as currently fishing ships with 270Hp and 30% RR just shrug of the outposts mere 25 ranged attack. This leads to the only way to counter water is to get on water yourself.
(3) Could All native units cost 10 less wood (generic change for all natives) each. This avoids trying to buff certain natives (and to extent playstyles on certain maps)

Do you mean minor natives?

zoom wrote:

I_HaRRiiSoN_I wrote:A couple of suggestions: (1) i've seen on stream that now the majority of games which now have some player(s) fishing, players tend to not send schooners. Although as a viewer i appreciate more civs going on water, i feel that the schooners card has lost its viability, anybody else feel that the fishing ship discount from the patch maybe a bit too large?
(2) Can outposts include a bonus vs fishing ships as currently fishing ships with 270Hp and 30% RR just shrug of the outposts mere 25 ranged attack. This leads to the only way to counter water is to get on water yourself.
(3) Could All native units cost 10 less wood (generic change for all natives) each. This avoids trying to buff certain natives (and to extent playstyles on certain maps)

Do you mean minor natives?

Yh like the cheyenne, comanche, nootka etc. In top level games i only see the minor natives used as a wall segment haha!

Hazza54321 wrote:i wouldnt move them to colonial, would just be brits 2.0

Brits without manors, vill shipments, longbows, with fast age politician, 400w politician, skirms, mams (and other differences too )

gamevideo113 wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:i wouldnt move them to colonial, would just be brits 2.0

Brits without manors, vill shipments, longbows, with fast age politician, 400w politician, skirms, mams (and other differences too )

You've clearly never played AsFP

Darwin_ wrote:

gamevideo113 wrote:

Hazza54321 wrote:i wouldnt move them to colonial, would just be brits 2.0

Brits without manors, vill shipments, longbows, with fast age politician, 400w politician, skirms, mams (and other differences too )

You've clearly never played AsFP

Indeed i haven't

It would result in age II musk wars. And that's just as boring as skirm/goon.

Moving infantry ups in colonial for Ports wouldn't necessarily result in musk wars (all the time) but it's an incentive to not age which I think it's part of the design of Port civ. Ports can 100% of times reach fortress and they should aim for that 99% of cases. The TC bonus just suggest that, plus no vill cards, no ups in colo and so on. In theory it's even a industrial age civ but that's not entirely viable at high level play.

The tc bonus imo means that the civ is designed to scale better than other civs in the long run, regardless of what age you are in. To me ports feel like a civ that wants to drag the game as long as they can (assuming they have hunts) and i consider that to be valid in colonial, fortress and industrial.
Yes, getting 1 free tc when you age up is an incentive to actually age up, but having musk cards in age 2 wouldn't take the option of aging away from them. You can still do everything that ports like to do now, but if you end up getting stuck in colonial or fortress you have one more small perk.
If not inf atk and inf hp to the colonial age, at least inf combat to the fortress age would be good imo.
Btw in the current meta there isn't a huge amount of civs that are just happy wih staying colonial forever from what i saw in the tournament. Even if ports had the option to play long term colonial they might still want to age up at some point.

Moving inf improvement cards to fortress or colonial will create another France and Dutch clone, which we don't need....

gamevideo113 wrote:

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:Hi all

Suggesting that port vills have a slight reduction in train time. I think that despite their TC bonus, they can be outboomed fairly easily in age 2/3 by many civs that are also superior militarily. The 85f reduction has helped, but I think a little bit more is needed.

Ports are considered actually decent in this version of the EP. I also think that having 2 town centers is quite draining on the portuguese economy in early colonial so this change would make the portuguese eco even worse early on :/

Obviously, having increased vill-production-capacity with regard to balancing RTS should mean having to scout, if the production-capacity temporary should fully be used, what depends on what the opponent is doing (see Zerg in SC2 for example who can produce high amounts of vills or units from the same larves). Most people here seem to think that a good player always produces vills and that skipping vill production for a period of time is a sign of being a bad player, while in my opinion it is the other way round.
If the ratio of vill-production-capacity to vill-cost is defined a way that being a good player with ports just means you always produce vills and units, then being a good port-player would not really mean intellectual demand in terms of strategical decision making.

Russia -100f and 6th starting vil!

Kaiserklein wrote:Yea I argued a lot of times for fortress infantry combat. Also could slightly buff cassadores, like +1 attack or +5 hp for example. Cassadores are weaker against units dealing melee or siege damage (mostly hand cav and cannons), due to their low hp and useless rr in that case. They do have a 0.5 speed advantage over regular skirms, but it's not enough to make up for it. So it would just be fair if they would do a better job in ranged fights. Atm, skirm vs cassa 1v1 is a draw; I think the cassadore should need 1 less shot to kill the skirm.

Maybe buff the 2 organ guns shipment in some way, if the other changes aren't enough.

i always thought who need cassador and musk upgrade cards in industrial age when u can mass dragoons and get heavy cannon, i didnt understand why those 3 cards is not in fortress age or even in colonial, all rest of civs hv infantry upgrades cards in age 2 or 3.

richard wrote:

gamevideo113 wrote:

VooDoo_BoSs wrote:Hi all

Suggesting that port vills have a slight reduction in train time. I think that despite their TC bonus, they can be outboomed fairly easily in age 2/3 by many civs that are also superior militarily. The 85f reduction has helped, but I think a little bit more is needed.

Ports are considered actually decent in this version of the EP. I also think that having 2 town centers is quite draining on the portuguese economy in early colonial so this change would make the portuguese eco even worse early on :/

Obviously, having increased vill-production-capacity with regard to balancing RTS should mean having to scout, if the production-capacity temporary should fully be used, what depends on what the opponent is doing (see Zerg in SC2 for example who can produce high amounts of vills or units from the same larves). Most people here seem to think that a good player always produces vills and that skipping vill production for a period of time is a sign of being a bad player, while in my opinion it is the other way round.
If the ratio of vill-production-capacity to vill-cost is defined a way that being a good player with ports just means you always produce vills and units, then being a good port-player would not really mean intellectual demand in terms of strategical decision making.

Other civs like france or germany can have a 25/26 vill eco at 6 minutes, ports have usually 17 vills by that time. How are you going to catch up if you just stop making villagers? A no-eco early colonial all-in is not a reasonable option for them, they have to catch up in eco at some point if they want to win. I understand your point about making villagers but ports need to make villagers otherwise their bonus is not that useful and they get stuck forever with a low eco.

Skipping villagers should definitely considered in some cases, but in a large majority of cases it's just really bad. Bad play is skipping villagers when it's not needed (or just forgetting to make vilagers), which is what happens in most cases.

For example, if you're running out of food and about to push, it's probably better to use the bit of food you have left on units, instead of making batches of 3 villagers that won't be able to gather food anyway. If you win the fight, you get mapcontrol back, and you can gather food again, which is way more interesting than having +5 vils stuck in your base.
If you prepare a timing push that will probably decide of the issue of the game, it can also be interesting to skip a few vils just before the fight.
If you're russia and your bh is getting pushed, you can also skip vils to get more mass out.

So you never skip vils early on anyway, unless you have a fb and you get pushed super early. Ports shouldn't ever skip vils early on.

It's not as if ports have 17 vs 25 villagers at 7 minutes and nothing to show for it. Crates are still a powerful resource and Port can mount a scary semi-ff timing push, or a well defended ATP build, or a very decent dock boom, and can do so with decent map control.

Ports will have about 25 vills at 7 min.

buff navajo range pls

i just had the greatest idea ever
what if we gave urumi the mercenary tag so they effectively take bonus damage from spies and ninja's
because it's a broken unit
thanks michel103

Bachscharfschütze wrote:i just had the greatest idea ever
what if we gave urumi the mercenary tag so they effectively take bonus damage from spies and ninja's
because it's a broken unit
thanks michel103

you can't mass urumi and they die to skirms and cannon / cavalry easily

You wish. But in all honesty urumi ARE counterable.