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.15 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » What i think what need sto be done about shang
Bottom
Topic Subject:What i think what need sto be done about shang
Elijeh
Clubman
posted 02-22-99 05:55 PM ET (US)         
Weaker miltary. Remove Camels. Shang without camels is Bait for Cavs/camels rushing. also with bronze sometimes being 2 or mor eminutes fast they can have Cavs in a tool camp . So why do they need camels? that would tone them down a bit. Villager cos tisn't the problem, its their Versitility. and unless units get taken away, they will continue to rule bronz eage.
AuthorReplies:
Sting
Clubman
posted 02-22-99 06:07 PM ET (US)     1 / 15       
Take away scythes, camels, and vill cost should be up'ed to 40. Of course thats just the way I see it, the +5 food for each vill wont make a huge difference but 20 vills is 100 food, and 30 vills is 150 food...still a tone down. I think the vill cost IS a problem, and in turn they dominate tool rushing. But you have to make sure to not take away TOO MUCH otherwise they are just another sucky civ. I hate it when ppl say stuff like "no slinger, no camels, no iron age, villagers are 60 food, walls are HALF HP instead of double" and all that stuff, cause thats ridiculous. (Of course I blew it out of proportion a little but...exaggeration is ok)

and BTW shang does not have the worst iron age in the game by any means. In fact, shang's iron age from early-mid iron is superb. After that, with scythes and horse archers and cats and ballistas, they can still hold their own against other civs iron. Not to mention shang gets guard towers...

neilkaz
Clubman
posted 02-22-99 07:51 PM ET (US)     2 / 15       
All time ago I said the only change in ROR that needs to be made to Shang is to increase peon cost to 40. As Kleitus, stated this would bring them equal to Phoe in ROR, IMO, which is enough of a set back, IMO, for a civ which has trouble from mid-late iron on vs full siege civs. With a peon cost of 40 you could still build your 8th vil w/the initial 200 food so the typical Shang creation of vil's w/out delay would be maintained usually. However, all Shang peon booming strats (my main ROR 3v3 plan !!) would be weakened by the extra 5 cost per peon. It would be more difficult to get blazing fast bronze boom times, etc.

The alternative, idea of elimating camels would still allow them a nasty cav rush, however, they'd then run the risk of having enemy camels hack up those cav and they would lose the defensive benefits of camels.

Eliminating scythe would really weaken Shang in iron and throw the civ back to it's AOE type play where it really needed to hurt someone very badly with a rush.

Doing all these things would castrate Shang IMO and reuce them to a the very best an average civ.

The simple elimination of Nobility and Scythe (ala Assy !!) would keeps Shang's speed and rush flavor while taking away a main weapon in iron.. like AOE. ... neilkaz

Angel Archaic
Clubman
posted 02-22-99 08:34 PM ET (US)     3 / 15       
I don't think anything needs to be done to Shang, tho your ideas are great, and they sound like they'd really give Shang a harder time in destroying civs before the 16 minute point.

I see people playing Shang less and less now, whereas 1 month ago that's all that anyone ever played. I think it's because people are starting to counter Shang attacks, weather they know it or not. A simple wall in the shallows could really screw up a Shang bronze rush, and give that other person the chance to get bronze. But once bronze, there's still the problem of Shang being able to counter anything that you can throw at them. That's when you must realize that you need to take a civ that has a major bronze age unit advantage. Such as..umm.. Sumerian. Their ST's fire 50% (is it 50?) faster than regular ST's. IF you put them behind a wall, there's not too much that a Shang could do. The Shang's infantry can't touch it, because it's behind a wall. The archers don't stand a chance, and that ST has a large firing advantage over the Shang's ST.

Hittite would also be good against Shang in bronze. Those extra HP on the SC could really do some damage to the Shang archers. AND, Hittite has +1 damage with their archers, so that would help out too.

U know, Shang's Iron sucked so bad in AoE that ES actually made it more powerfull in RoR...

Just my two or three cents

Bastyrdus I
Inactive
posted 02-23-99 04:24 AM ET (US)     4 / 15       
I know that we've had the "historical accuracy" argument a million times over, but I think that there is only one way to fix them without taking away their individuality or innovation. Mind you all, China is one of the great nations of anitquity, because they had so much at their disposal.
Anyhow, I thik that the gathering rate should be slowed. Perhaps by about 10%. This will make your early tool, or bronze. But it will make you think more carefully about going bronze too fast. You will eventually leapfrog yourself if you advance too quickly, and find yourself in bronze with very little, with your enemy able to overwhelm you by sticking to their guns.
Ender
Guest
posted 02-23-99 07:03 AM ET (US)     5 / 15       
The reason people don't play shang as much anymore is they know if they take shang everyone else will. Shang still owns everyone, and its not as much the rushing that does it, its usually the insane booms. I wouldn't be surprised to iron in 20 minutes with 80+ villagers/boats with shang, and thats with a 15 minute bronze.
Methos
Big Daddy
posted 02-23-99 10:56 AM ET (US)     6 / 15       
I can't believe people are still clinging to the assumption that Shang are balanced. Maybe you weren't in Seattle were it was basically admitted that Shang have no rival?

-Methos

Cherub Desert R
Clubman
posted 02-23-99 12:49 PM ET (US)     7 / 15       
Let them keep the units,but lets historically weaken them as much as possible.-15 this and -25 that and keep cutting.They should finally become down to earth after a while.
Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 02-23-99 03:57 PM ET (US)     8 / 15       
I have long felt as Bastyrdus -- just give Shang a gathering penalty and you have eliminated the problem. 10% penalty? I don't think that's quite enough. Palmy gets an all-around +0.2/sec in gathering, so Shang with an all-around -0.1/sec would probably be about fair. That would equate to a worst case 25% penalty (0.4/sec would drop to 0.3/sec) and with a 30% cheaper villager, you are still ahead...
O_Captian
Inactive
posted 02-23-99 04:18 PM ET (US)     9 / 15       
Just a comment, shang isn't balanced, they rule and that is that. However this is a game and the main objective, though some think it is to win, is to have fun. I don't see many players play shang that much anymore, (not talking about tourney's) unless to balance someone who has chosen it.

I remember when everyone would only play assy or yammy in AOE, and that is what started the slow civ games. I see alot of games w/ settings no shang. Obviously, it is very rewarding to beat a shang, especially w/ a slow civ, but among players of equal skill, it doesn't happen often.

What should be done w/ shang, nothing, its a tourney civ. Such that you don't take a machine gun to hunt rabbits, don't overkill players with Shang. Develop your game with all the civs. The best strat I have witnessed was w/ baby. He won a 3v1. I challenge everyone to find the niches with all the civs, map types, and game types, I have even played some DM and it was fun.

epic_hoplite
Inactive
posted 02-23-99 05:05 PM ET (US)     10 / 15       
I think when you guys talking about giving shang this or that penalty, you all missed one thing that ES always remember: marketing.
If you give shang a gathering or military penalty, you for sure lose costumers with Chinese background like myself. I don't like my civ to have cheap villagers with low gathering rate. I take that cheap villagers reflect high population. But why low gathering rate?

On the other hand, I agree that shang is too good in default RM games. The fix is very simple -- 40 food villagers.

The Persia, Greece problem also needs to be addressed. I propose to give persia 2nd woodcutting and farming techs, give greece fast fishing ships and a slinger bonus (David was greek, wasn't he?)

Cherub Desert R
Clubman
posted 02-23-99 05:48 PM ET (US)     11 / 15       
No,David was jewish.You need to go to sunday school man :P.And How about 45 food priced vills.That would slow them a bunch.But they still get a free villie for every 10 they build .And in a boom that could count.
Chanchito
Inactive
posted 02-23-99 05:58 PM ET (US)     12 / 15       
I agree with Epic that 40 food is about right. I think removing the camel is a good idea as well. I would leave them the scythe Chariot so they could have something in Iron. I do not hold the fear of the scythe that everyone else does. CA or HHA/HA with alchemy and ballistics is pretty common and they eat up the scyths. This would slow them a little and give them 1 weakness in bronze.

[This message has been edited by Chanchito (edited 02-23-99).]

Spam
Clubman
posted 02-24-99 11:08 AM ET (US)     13 / 15       
I agree with Elijeh that much would be solved if Shang's military was significantly weakened. Removing Camels (or all RoR units for that matter) wouldn't be enough though. They would still pack a horrible tool attack and they would still completely own 1v1. Insteadm, I think the whole Shang military should be weakened by for instance reducing their hit points by 15-20%. This would strenghten rather than weaken their character I think, since you would have to really know how to use their potential to win. It would become a "do or die" civ - you must either rush your opponents fast or outboom them by a wide margin to win. On equal footing, Shang will lose to all other civs this way, and it would drastically reduce their windows of opportunity.

My 2 cents

Spam

Rumata
Clubman
posted 02-24-99 02:11 PM ET (US)     14 / 15       
I don't know what the fuss is about. 1v1 - yes, they rule, but philosophically, once they are removed/weakened/etc., there will be the next best contender. In multiplayer games on a gig map, particularly with a complicated coastline/forests it's an entirely different story. However fast the civ is it cannot hope to control the whole expanse of the map (unless you are playing against ignorant newbies), and good ally interaction will ensure that Shang are kept at bay. Example: we just had a game in which a Shang knocked out my Assyrian ally, and the other was fighting a very hard game. I (Minoan) boomed in the meantime, was gathering here, fishing there (bronze 19 with pop over 40. The first wave of compies wiped the floor with Roman and continued advancing backed with STs (My other ally was still skirmishing and tying down the boomed and powerful shang. I was gaining ground steadily, grabbing gold everywhere, ironing with confidence and a lot of surplus resources. Pretty soon the compies were replaced by heles with HCats (with a few compies planted in between as a bait - they shoot first, and that's who Shang's mouted units attack) and Shang scythes were dying horribly to heles. This waves advanced slowly but deadly (triremes and cat triremes guarding the rivers and shallows in the meantime, and there was no stopping it.

I know I described a typical iron scenario where Shang is not a star, but this is precisely the point I am trying to make: Horses for Courses. Weaken Shang - and it will be reduced to a non-entity civ like ROR Assyrian and Yammie who nobody plays now. Shang has a very good window of opportunity in certain circumstances (in many cases even) but it's not everyone's universal bane. Leave the little buggers as it is.

A question here on historical accuracy: Shang are modelled on ancient Chinese. who are Choson modelled on?

O_Captian
Inactive
posted 02-24-99 03:49 PM ET (US)     15 / 15       
Ok, Im getting annoyed w/ balancing posts. If you are concerned with game balance, ES has it already taken care of without any patches. It's called Full Tech Tree. I for one have never played it, nor desire to, but if you want civ equality there you have it. Host a room with full tech tree settings.

Then again, if that got popular, then people would complain about map unfairness. Maybe we could do reveal map setting and then everyone could compare locations to determine if map is balanced. If not, then the team that had the advantage would have to pay the other team in tribute.

But what about better players??....hmmmm.....guess that's not fair either, well, you could then again tax a team that has more peons (head tax) and more production (revenue tax) to tribute the weaker team.

Man this is sounding too much like real life, no thanks, I prefer the game.

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

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames