Treaty balance

[ssaa22]

It seems that some elements that people feel are unfair are not being modified at all because of the treaty mode. In the first place, I think that the RTS is considering the balance of the treaty mode itself is a problem.

Usually, the official mode of RTS is 1vs1 supremacy, but the developer is also considering the balance of the treaty, so it has not been able to adjust the balance and solve many controversies at all.

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah it's always annoying when some changes are made for treaty purposes. We shouldn't affect supremacy because of it. But yeah since they didn't make a separate patch for it, sadly there's no other way

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Well any change for treaty purpose can be locked in behind age 5 techs and will not affect supremacy at all (unless the game goes age 5 where supremacy balance looks a lot like treaty balance).

[ssaa22]

Well any change for treaty purpose can be locked in behind age 5 techs and will not affect supremacy at all (unless the game goes age 5 where supremacy balance looks a lot like treaty balance).

Thoroughbreds no longer benefitting train time and Mass Cavalry's reduced effectiveness to 35% are also some of the treaty's balance impacts. Perhaps it is also part of the treaty's balance impacts that Sweden and the Incas still have a 99 settler limit.

[harcha]

Honestly I don't see a big issue balancing treaty with age 5 techs because supremacy balance can only improve from this as well. The bigger problem i think is team game balance.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Well any change for treaty purpose can be locked in behind age 5 techs and will not affect supremacy at all (unless the game goes age 5 where supremacy balance looks a lot like treaty balance).

Thoroughbreds no longer benefitting train time and Mass Cavalry's reduced effectiveness to 35% are also some of the treaty's balance impacts. Perhaps it is also part of the treaty's balance impacts that Sweden and the Incas still have a 99 settler limit.

All of those things were irrelevant to supremacy. You never reach 99 vills in supremacy (maybe in team but late game team imbalances really looks like treaty imbalances). You never send mass cavalry to supremacy. And thoroughbreds was irrelevant in most supremacy games and OP in late team game so the nerf is well deserved (any way France late game is still one of the best if not the best in supremacy even without thoroughbreds).

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Honestly I don't see a big issue balancing treaty with age 5 techs because supremacy balance can only improve from this as well. The bigger problem i think is team game balance.

A simple solution would be to give more and better team cards to bottom tier team civs.

An ambitious solution would be to give each civ a team bonus like they got in AoE2, with the weaker (team) civs getting stronger bonuses.

[juicyfruit1268]

At least treaty gets some developer attention. The balance of deathmatch is absolutely atrocious, and was made even worse with DE.

[Hazza54321]

who even plays deathmatch

[princeofcarthage]

CometCuck

[harcha]

CometCuck

i don't think anyone expected you could become any more annoying, but yet again you have proven everyone wrong

[princeofcarthage]

CometCuck

i don't think anyone expected you could become any more annoying, but yet again you have proven everyone wrong

How is this annoying. CometK said for himself somewhere, probably in some stream chat. More so I said and mean it in friendly way just like ppl have been calling riotcoke, riotcuck. I believe and I hope so I still have the friendly relation with Trevor that I can say that. Anyways if anything its he will reply or report the post. Don't see how it can be annoying to you. Haven't seen you post this to when someone called/said riotcuck.

[harcha]

that's because i was the one calling him riotcuck

[princeofcarthage]

Ah! Trying to be funny...

[AndiAOE]

who even plays deathmatch

no need to put salt into the wound