You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.27 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » bronze, iron and tower shield
Bottom
Topic Subject:bronze, iron and tower shield
volume
Clubman
posted 08-10-09 08:35 AM ET (US)         
dont you think these shields should also apply to all other units besides infantry and mercenaries??
AuthorReplies:
Basse
Clubman
posted 08-10-09 09:09 AM ET (US)     1 / 27       
No, that would ruin the balance and archers would suck, and with archers assy and hittite
Alakazam
Clubman
posted 08-10-09 09:45 AM ET (US)     2 / 27       
Most heavy cavalry have a bit of Pierce Armour anyway.

A L A K A Z A M
Basse
Clubman
posted 08-10-09 10:04 AM ET (US)     3 / 27       
And with Rasteves new patch cataphracts would be immortal
volume
Clubman
posted 08-10-09 10:49 AM ET (US)     4 / 27       
yes but the real idea is not simply archers suck. im sure chariot and horse archers dont care anyway. but however ballista and helepolis is a major pain though.
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 08-11-09 07:03 PM ET (US)     5 / 27       
I think is a good idea. Archers would suck against cavalry as they should in real life, but they will just stay the same against infantry. Also cavalry is underused. I also propose that toolworking, metalworking and mettallurgy should apply for Hack Elephants (MOAHAHAHA, and I'm serious!, is not possible that on one on one a centurion can beat an elephant).
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-02-09 12:13 PM ET (US)     6 / 27       
I was thinking of the following changes:

- war eles/armoured eles affected by tool/metal/metallurgy
- slingers affected by leather/scale/chain armour

The patch will make slingers a bit more favourable in the bronze, so giving them armour will help them out when being hit by melee units.

I agree with suppy on the elephants.

In terms of the shield, I think that this should only really apply to infantry. But the cavalry infantry rush bonus could also apply to foot archers?

Cataphracts now have 4 pierce, and heavy cavalry could see a new pierce bonus of 2?

The patch has archers no longer firing 100% accurately.
Fisk
Champion of AoEH
(id: Fruktfisk)
posted 09-02-09 02:59 PM ET (US)     7 / 27       
I disagree on both prepositions.

Giving slingers melee armor would obviously make
them overpowered in tool age, with this bonus slingers in larger groups even be able to annihilate axemen by tool age, while making bowmen completly useless. Slingers are supposed to a special archer/tower counter unit for tool age, and should during all circumstances be killed by axemen.

Giving elephants melee attack upgrades would also make them overpowered, in combat against the elephants 2 main enemies, the priest and the heleopolis this will make a kill require 1 hit less for both, which in my opinion would make a bid difference. I personally think an heavily armored centurion armed with some sort of lance should defeat an elephant.

//The warrior of Isola

"I lack quotes that demonstrate Humor Intelligence or anything about me."

Pineapplefish
Cleidopus gloriamaris
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-02-09 05:02 PM ET (US)     8 / 27       
I have just test the changes:

Slinger armour doesn't affect the outcome too much. Axeman still cleaned up. Interestingly, they seem more stubborn against cavalry. Of course cavalry win but this may help when using combos (for example, camel and slinger?).

In terms of the armoured elephant I didn't notice any changes.

Bowmen are useless in RoR anyways. I have tried tool rushing with bowmen but end up getting destroyed by a group of angry woodcutters. In fact, I only ever see bowmen on AoE, not RoR.

In my experience, slingers are not that great at tool rushing. Villagers can easily counter them, but I would recommend something like 3 axemen and 2 slingers. With the changes you could go for more slingers?

(btw this is just speculation, I have no plans to include in the patch at this point).
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-02-09 11:40 PM ET (US)     9 / 27       
No one complains about war elephants blacksmith weapon upgrades in age of kings. I think is only fair to apply the same in AoE/RoR. Is not my fault that humans are so feeble. Okay, they would kill priests and helepolii faster, but for succeed in this, elephants must first reach them and the attack advantage won't help them do so.

Also i think that slinger with armor upgrades would help civs like Romans and specially Greek be stronger in RM, at least during tool age. Also let's face it they would only have +2 armor in tool age and +4 in bronze, they still have low hps so I see not such a big deal there. By the time they get +6 armor they would be already "useless".
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-03-09 00:13 AM ET (US)     10 / 27       
I may add this into v0.4 for play testing. I haven't noticed a real difference. Slingers are tougher but only deal 2 damage (before stone mining), so are still destroyed by a group of angry villies or a few axemen.
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-04-09 02:06 PM ET (US)     11 / 27       
And what happens with Scouts. If the armor upgrades count for slingers: Do you think that scouts (specially before toolworking) as attacking units would be affected?.
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-04-09 05:58 PM ET (US)     12 / 27       
Well, yes if you mean to say using scouts vs slingers. But it is very hard to build an effective scout army, and I believe most tool strats (rush etc) will train as many axemen and/or slingers, with 1 or maybe 2 scouts being used for their LOS (chasing down the fleeing villies).

In the patch scouts have +2 LOS over the pre-patch tool age, so you would have a bit more going for you when avoiding slingers.

When ever I get rushed with slingers I just group my woodies and attack. If they come with axemen I run.

A tool rush would probably be more devastating with the changes. Consider a axeman + slinger rush, the leather armour upgrade will boost your axemen AND slingers!!

Remember that it is not uncommon for people to agree to no rush games.
volume
Clubman
posted 09-05-09 01:38 PM ET (US)     13 / 27       
hey wait a min. armor for slingers? no dont do that. then the mob of 'angry woodcutters' would be weak against them. and slingers are supposed be only for archer and early tower attacks other than that they should be weak even weaker than villagers.
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-05-09 09:11 PM ET (US)     14 / 27       
As a military unit i've always thought that slingers should be stronger than villies.

Now is interesting how this thread started as a piercing armor discussion and now we're talking about slingers.

[This message has been edited by Suppiluliuma (edited 09-05-2009 @ 09:12 PM).]

volume
Clubman
posted 09-06-09 00:47 AM ET (US)     15 / 27       
slinger is more of a peasant unit rather than military unit considering its puny 25 HP just like vils. vils will obviously overpower any of them when they become jihadists.

anyways back to normal topic, we are talking about pierce armor in concern of all units not slingers nor their normal armor

i talked of pierce armor in concern of all units because i originally had in mind archers fire 100% accurately no matter the like anyways (since this is ror not aok)

[This message has been edited by volume (edited 09-06-2009 @ 00:52 AM).]

Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-06-09 12:09 PM ET (US)     16 / 27       
I am probably going to boost the heavy cav to 2 pierce armour, at cataphracts now have 4 pierce. This should make cavalry vs archers stronger in DM and late RM games.

When you say all units should have pierce, I am not sure this is the best idea. Consider, for example, compies with pierce etc. Even camel with pierce (camel should be used mostly to counter cavalry).

If you consider ancient archers, they would not have shields, but shield bearers would instead be used to help archer vs archer. Missiles only seem to get blocked by elevation, so I cannot see how we could use shield bearers. Also, giving shield to all units would unbalance the game.

I have given archers less accuracy, so other units should be able to cope a bit better. Heavy cav and cataphract changes should also help (fighting horse archers should be easier).


I mentioned slingers as I think that some play testing is needed for a armour change. In the current game slingers are a tool age only unit, but some civs (romans and greeks for example) could make use of them in bronze too. Bronze age is currently dominated by archer units (CA in particular).

With the change in accuracy, some players may start to use slinger in bronze, but then of course a couple of cavalry units could be used to quickly mop up the slingers. So, if slingers have a little armour you won't lose as many before you respond with your own cavalry (camel, or other unit). If you only use slingers, good luck lol.

Looking at the tool age, slingers are good when used with axemen in a tool rush. The leather upgrade would make slingers better, and probably result in you not using your woodies to fight back. I believe that slingers are currently even easier to fight back against than bowmen. The deal less damage and have less hp.

You can easily agree to no rushing when playing, so you dont have to worry too much, or you could use your own axemen/slinger combo.

If play testing suggests the change is unworkable (i.e. slingers are too powerful) then I will change back. I am not too worried about villagers fighting slingers, most mostly axemen with and without toolworking vs slingers.
volume
Clubman
posted 09-07-09 07:31 AM ET (US)     17 / 27       
well the shield represents pierce armor in aoeror not necessarily carrying actual shields as im sure they can still wear armor on their body designed to stop both swords and arrows so i dont see why not give pierce armor to all and as far as balance that shouldnt be too much a problem either considering look at aok and aom as all units can have pierce armor.

for your example lets say compies have pierce well then for those civs who dont have horse archers including minoan now they can be better capable of not only out range and out fire horse archers they also have a better defense. i think foot archers are better able to beat cavalry archers for that matter anyway including in aok, for example a mass of english longbowman versus the huns horse archers.

also if you have noticed again that not necessarily they have to carry a shield in order to have pierce armor such as armored elephants, axemen and shortswordsman and why horse archers have more pierce armor than heavy cavalry and cataphract when they dont carry a shield but the cavalry carry a shield? matter of fact i ought to mention the scythe chariot soldier carries a shield but has no pierce armor?? i dont see why not every unit can have shields (pierce armor). im not saying they should start with one so my point in this topic was to make bronze, iron and tower shield effects all. i ought to mention this was not taking into account about anything about archers now have less accuracy than 100%
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-07-09 11:03 AM ET (US)     18 / 27       
My judgement was based on the following:

- Shield techs give the unit a shield
- Shield is only used to block missiles
- Only infantry carry shields (not archery range or stable units)
- Heavy Cav, Cataphract, Armored Eles, HA/HHA have pierce armour due to nature of their armour


IMO AoK has a superior archer model, in that archers are good at wearing down the opponent. Without formations in AoE it is very hard to attack with multiple types of units. Of course, it is not impossible but still, you are more likely to find players using one type of unit per wave of attack.

Giving pierce to archers etc via the shield will completely change the game. I cannot speculate on all the differences without testing, but it will be such a huge change that I am sure it will put people off.

Having pierce armour would affect RM games as a good proportion of these games involve sizeable bronze archer wars. Pierce armour would lengthen these battles.

I am not saying that pierce is bad for stable units, but for archer units (due to the game engine limitations and how people play) it doesn't seem so good.

Also, Assyrians and Egyptians would need to be rebalanced as they do not get any shield!

In terms of the new accuracy rates - I believe these will help compies vs horse archers (note that heavy cavalry when I give them more pierce, and the new cataphracts are also good vs horse archers). 1 in 5 ha/hha shots miss, and 1 in 10 foot archer shots miss. You should notice the difference in HHA vs Compies.
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-07-09 02:31 PM ET (US)     19 / 27       
- Only infantry carry shields (not archery range or stable units)
I know i'm annoying, but volume's right: both Heavy Cavalry and Cataphracts have a nice looking shield



If you're legally blind as I am you can see it in this pic, between the horseman and the horse's head/neck.
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 09-07-09 08:06 PM ET (US)     20 / 27       
Damn you Suppy

Good spot.

Okay, I have played at least 12 games with the slinger armour change and it looks like the slinger is too strong in the tool age. I will revert this back so slingers do not get armour upgrades.

So here is my next proposal:

All units with shield get +1 pierce with each shield upgrade, which means:

Broadies, Long, Legion, Hop, Phal, Centies, HCav and Cataphracts get the shield upgrades.

This seems logical, as the tech will upgrade the unit's current shield (bronze, iron, tower etc).

Clubmen, axemen and short sword will no longer get the shield (do they need it anyway?).

Potentially, heavy cavs can go from their base 1pierce to 4pierce. I will have to remove the cataphract "super ability" and return them to 1pierce (with all the shields = 4pierce).

I will give the cataphract an increased LOS "super ability" to help them out.
Basse
Clubman
posted 09-08-09 10:22 AM ET (US)     21 / 27       
I think it is good as it is now. If units with piercing armour will get more piercing armour with the shield upgrades (I mean heavy cav and cataphracts) they will be able so counter a archer rush too easy. Cataphracts will get 4+3 piercing armour in Rasteves patch. That is far too much
volume
Clubman
posted 09-09-09 07:51 AM ET (US)     22 / 27       
- Only infantry carry shields (not archery range or stable units)
I know i'm annoying, but volume's right: both Heavy Cavalry and Cataphracts have a nice looking shield



If you're legally blind as I am you can see it in this pic, between the horseman and the horse's head/neck.
no youre not annoying suppy. at least you literally 'see' my point.
- Only infantry carry shields (not archery range or stable units)
ill be even more annoying, but do slingers carry shields?



if you are legally blind, no that little square object the slinger appears to be holding when he is facing you is not a shield but rather his pouch he slings over his shoulder possibly carrying his stones and munitions.
Giving pierce to archers etc via the shield will completely change the game. I cannot speculate on all the differences without testing, but it will be such a huge change that I am sure it will put people off.

Having pierce armour would affect RM games as a good proportion of these games involve sizeable bronze archer wars. Pierce armour would lengthen these battles.
im only asking to give them pierce armor when they research the shields, not asking them to start with pierce armor. also other infantry clubman, axeman and short sword can still have pierce armor when it is researched rather than totally eliminating it for them. you also say that rm games have a good portion of them being bronze archer rushes but bronze shield only give +1 pierce armor so who cares? thats little of a difference until they get iron and tower shield in iron which you would only need for example foot archers to counter horse archers if necessary.
Also, Assyrians and Egyptians would need to be rebalanced as they do not get any shield!
then give them damn shields! i dont see any reason why anybody would not have shields anyway. also i would like to see egypt get armored elephants from iron shield (since IMO egypt theme should be scythe chariot and armored elephant since they got nothing else) and sumer should get armored elephant to rechallenge the hittites again

finally i want to point out dont forget the scythe chariot has a shield



and cataphracts would probably need to have +2 base shield at least to help justify its most hefty cost. the larger LOS like hero caesar and scipio may balance things but they should need more and i am not asking much.
Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-09-09 11:01 AM ET (US)     23 / 27       
Yup slingers have shields but i think they already get them upgraded at with the storage pit technologies (I'm not sure tho, as i never use slingers after toola age).

Also i forgot about the Scythe chariot shields...however i'm not sure if they should be upgraded (Scouts are light cavalry so they don't need it, elephants have "hp defense" and if chariots get shield, camels would be the only combat average cavalry without shield). IMO chariots shouldn't get shield upgrades, even if Scythes have a shield, as they are already quite useful against some archer rushes (due to the area of damage and the trend of archers to get in crowded formations to maximize their attack)).
Thompsoncs
Clubman
posted 09-10-09 10:02 AM ET (US)     24 / 27       
I don't think shield upgr should affect non-infantery. I think inf would be outclassed. I'm not sure if it is possible, but can new units be added to the game?

Otherwise I would say: make two slinger units. One tool age version and a balearic slinger. These mercenaries from the baleares were famous for there slingerskills. Even Caesar had some with them. With a new unit and new look, slingers would seem less noobie and prehistoric. But I am not into the modding and only mod what is described on this site. So perhaps pro-modders can give it a try?
volume
Clubman
posted 09-10-09 06:58 PM ET (US)     25 / 27       
Yup slingers have shields but i think they already get them upgraded at with the storage pit technologies (I'm not sure tho, as i never use slingers after toola age)
slingers dont actually carry a shield but start with +2 pierce armor. the shield upgrades do effect slingers giving them a max of 2+3 =5 pierce armor shielding. nevertheless by then a stone thrower or ballista can instantly take them out.
IMO chariots shouldn't get shield upgrades, even if Scythes have a shield, as they are already quite useful against some archer rushes (due to the area of damage and the trend of archers to get in crowded formations to maximize their attack))
chariots dont carry shields



so therefore they dont need to be considered. however scythe chariot do carry a shield so they should have at least 1 base pierce armor if not 2 since we are talking about those who have a shield should have a shield (pierce armor).

finally the thing about slingers is a case closed. they are only useful in tool age and other than that whatever. if they are made stronger they will be too strong in tool for axeman or angry woodcutters.

[This message has been edited by volume (edited 09-10-2009 @ 07:00 PM).]

Suppiluliuma
AoEH Seraph
posted 09-11-09 12:08 PM ET (US)     26 / 27       
Slingers carry a small wooden shield i've seen it(I'm not kidding this time). Also Stone thrower line of units cause hack, not piercing damage (so shields have nothing to do with catapult protection in RoR at least).

And when i talked about chariots i talked about them in general (that is "basic" chariots and scythe Chariots and so i still think it would be best if Scythe chariots don't get Piercing armor upgrades).

Wow i'm a nuisance!

[This message has been edited by Suppiluliuma (edited 09-11-2009 @ 12:08 PM).]

Basse
Clubman
posted 09-12-09 11:35 AM ET (US)     27 / 27       
I think it is good as it is
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames