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.269 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » Age of Empires: The Rise or Rome RasPatch
Bottom
Topic Subject:Age of Empires: The Rise or Rome RasPatch
« Previous Page  1 ··· 7 8 9 10 11  Next Page »
Rasteve
Clubman
posted 08-05-09 08:50 PM ET (US)         
UPDATED 11 NOVEMEBER

v0.5 is now complete and available via the granary.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Feel free to email if you have any questions. My email address is rasteveBBBatBBBtalkBBB21BBBdotBBBcom (remove the BBB's).

v0.5
Enhancements

- Single player games now have 200 population limits as default
- Civilisation unique bonuses improved to strengthen weaknesses
- Super units have unique abilities
- Iron age market technologies have special bonuses
- Ships and buildings are prone to fire damage
- Shield upgrades apply to all units with a shield
- Gaia buildings have the Roman tileset
- Installation does not overwrite original game files

Balance Changes
- Cataphracts have double LOS (super ability)
- Legions train 6 seconds faster (super ability)
- Centurions have 1 range (super ability)
- Gold mines have +200 gold
- Stone mines have +50 stone
- Foot archers have 90% accuracy (previously 100%)
- Mounted archers have 80% accuracy (previously 100%)
- Clubmen, axemen and short swordsmen no longer affected by shield technologies
- Scythe chariot, heavy cavalry and cataphracts affected by shield technologies
- Broad, long, legion, hoplites, phalanx, centies and scythes start with 1 pierce
- Heavy horse archers speed increased to 2.6 (previously 2.5)
- Fire galley deals 12 fire damage (shield and armour cannot reduce damage)
- Fire galley deals +12 bonus vs ships and buildings (no change vs ships)
- Scouts have 12 LOS (no longer increased with each age advancement)
- Stone throwers, catapults and heavy catapults minimum range +1 (3)
- All farm technologies +150 food yield (previously +75)
- All wood technologies +25% woodcutter work rate (previously +0.2 work/sec)
- All stone technologies +40% stone miner work rate (previously +0.3 work/sec)
- All gold technologies +40% gold miner work rate (previously +0.3 work/sec +25% coinage)
- All gold technologies +2 gold carriage (previously +3)
- Coinage increases gold mine yield (amount of gold) by 40% (previously 25%)
- Craftsmanship increases arrow and missile speed by 20%
- Irrigation reduces farm cost by 50%
- Jihad +20% villager speed (previously +0.3 speed)
- Alchemy gives additional +1 bonus vs ships and buildings (including previous effects)
- Assyrian cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts have +2 pierce bonus
- Babylonian stone miners +50% work rate (previously 44%)
- Carthaginian fishing and trade ships have 30% speed increase (like transports)
- Choson short, broad, long and legion have +60 hit points bonus
- Egyptian gold miners +50% work rate (previously 44%)
- Greek slingers have +1 pierce armor bonus
- Minoan improved bowmen also have +2 range and los (like compies)
- Persian hunters +70% work rate (previously 67%)
- Persian scout ship and war galley also have 50% fire rate increase (like triremes)
- Roman barracks units (club, axe, sling, sword) have 33% attack rate bonus
- Cheat units are no longer affected by technologies or civ bonuses
- Hero units are no longer affected by technologies or civ bonuses
- Text improved for technologies (popup help, status line etc)
- More help references added to Rise or Rome content (for future changes to help file)
- Buildings and units have been grouped differently

Bug Fixes
- Status box text size reduced ("200/200" no longer overlaps command buttons)
- Removed redudant technologies string references (alpha/beta strings no longer required)
- Hero12 is now named Hero Pericles
- Elephant king attack animation now shows correctly
- All trees contain the wood that is displayed in the status box
- Assyrian villager speed bonus of 20% (previously 18%, not 30% as quoted in manual)
- Assyrian archers fire rate bonus of 40% (previously 27% for bowman, 36% for mounted)
- Assyrian placed elephant archers are affected by 40% fire rate bonus (scenario builder)
- Babylonian rejuvenation bonus of 30% (previously 27%)
- Babylonian placed war elephants no longer upgrade to armored eles in post-iron settings
- Carthaginian transport speed bonus of 30% (previously 25% for light, 43% for heavy)
- Carthaginian placed rafts are affected by 30% speed bonus (scenario builder)
- Choson priest cost reduction implemented as a subtraction rather than multiplication
- Choson post-iron barracks now train legions with the hp bonus
- Egyptian nobility yields +33% bonus +15% hp for chariots (previously dropped 1hp)
- Egyptian chariots hp the same whether nobility researched or iron/post-iron start
- Greek heavy infantry speed bonus of 30% (previously 33%)
- Greek warship speed bonus of 25% (previously 17% missile ships, 22% catapult ships)
- Hittite placed triremes are affected by +4 range/LOS bonus (scenario builder)
- Hittite placed impies no longer upgraded to composite bowmen in post-iron settings
- Hittite duplicated afterlife restriction removed
- Minoan post-iron archery range now trains composite bowmen with the range bonus
- Palmyran villagers work rate bonus of 50% (previously ranged between 33% and 50%)
- Palmyran repairman and builder work rate bonus of 50% (previously 0%)
- Palmyran farmers work rate bonus of 50% (previously 0%)
- Persian elephant speed bonus of 50% (previously 56%)
- Persian trireme rate of fire bonus of 50% (previously 39%)
- Persian placed hoplites no longer upgraded to centurions in post-iron settings
- Persian farms no longer benefit from irrigation in post-iron settings
- Phoenician catapult ship rate of fire bonus of 65% (previously 72%)
- Phoenician unknown restriction removed
- Roman swordsman attack rate bonus implemented as a multiplication
- Shang duplicated villager bonus removed
- Sumerian catapult class rate of fire bonus of 50% (previously 43%)
- Yamato villager speed bonus of 20% (previously 18%, not 30% as quoted in manual)
- Yamato ship bonus of 30% (rounded up, previously dropped 1hp and fb/fs at 33%)
- Yamato placed war elephants no longer upgrade to armored eles in post-iron settings
- Phalanx upgrade now adds 1 to researched technologies score within achievements
- Centurion upgrade now affects placed phalanx units (scenario builder)
- Long swordsman upgrade now affects placed broad swordsman units (scenario builder)
- Legion upgrade now affects placed broadies and long swordsman units (scenario builder)
- Trireme upgrade now affects placed war galley units (scenario builder)
- Added fire galley prerequisite text to galley upgrade
- Aristocracy now increases academy units speed by 25% (previously 28%, 21% Greek)
- Added centurion prerequisite text to aristocracy
- Nobility now increases hit points by 15% (rounded up, previously dropped 1hp)
- Added scythe chariot prerequisite text to nobility
- Added ballista tower prerequisite text to ballistics
- Added juggernaught prerequisite text to engineering
- Alchemy now adds the correct attack type to each unit
- Alchemy text now details actual benefits
- Wheel technology increases villager speed by 60% (previously 64%, 54% Assy/Yammy)
- Artisanship now increases LOS for all archery range units (previously omitted mounted)
- Added correct technology effects text to all market technologies
- Catapult upgrade text now follows standard convention
- Heavy catapult upgrade now affects placed catapult units (scenario builder)
- Fixed more help reference for catapult (previously pointed to heavy catapult)
- Cataphract upgrade now affects placed heavy cavalry units (scenario builder)
- Armor text has been changed to make effects clearer
- Added heavy horse archer prerequisite text to chain mail for archers technology
- Added cataphract prerequisite text to metallurgy technology
- Storage pit attack technologies have been altered to remove legacy elephant affects
- Shield text has been changed to make effects clearer
- Armored elephant prerequisite text added to iron shield technology
- Changed the way astrology effect is applied
- Changed astrology research text to include affects on healing rate
- Fanaticism increases rejuvenation rate by 50% or 40% babylon (previously 43% or 34%)
- Legion prerequisite text added to fanaticism technology
- Added babylonian rejuvenation rate change text to fanaticism technology
- Changed medicine research text to declare actual benefit
- Added building exclusions to monotheism research text
- Changed jihad technology text to indicate actual affects
- Changed martyrdom technology text to include enemy priest exclusion
- Guard tower uppgrade now affects placed sentry towers (scenario builder)
- Ballista tower upgrade now affects placed sentry and guard towers (scenario builder)
- Removed duplicated archery range upgrade for iron age advance
- Removed duplicated technology effect from medicine technology
- General reinforcement of technology prerequisites

Test Packs
- DM Test Pack: Includes Choson, Persian and Egyptian DM games (2 maps for each) - 1v1 Iron Hillz (large) setting
- DM Test Pack Unstable: Same as above but the AI scripts are very prone to crashing on my machine.
- RM Test Pack: Assyrian RM game (2 maps) - 1v1 Stone Hillz (large) HARDEST (starting resources boost) setting

Dat Change Count
v0.1: 446 dat changes
v0.2: 602 dat changes
v0.3: 313 dat changes
v0.4: 2401 dat changes
v0.5: 1001 dat changes

Total Changes
4763 dat changes
298 dll changes
4 AI replacements
5 PER changes
15 other changes

v0.6 Proposal
This version will concentrate on the units, and will include such fixes as enabling units in the editor, placeable gaia units near edge of map, text updates etc.

I will also make the following changes to heroes:
  • All ranged heroes will automatically have alchemy and ballistics
  • All heroes will have increased attributes (as techs no longer affect them)
  • Villager heroes will no longer change to villagers when tasked

    Further balance changes:
  • Archers fire 100% accurate: More units get shields now
  • Stone: Mines have 350 stone (+100 on original, +50 on last update)
  • Egypt: Gets 40% coinage-like bonus to replace current gold bonus
  • Palmyran: villagers have 40% work rate
  • Shang: ballista/helepolis missiles travel 20% faster
  • Persian: barracks units cost 20% less
  • Babylonian: priests get 30% conversion+healing bonus instead of rejuvenation rate bonus
  • Phoenician: 20% work rate woodies
  • Sumerian: academy units cost 20% less
  • Hittite: siege gets 50% hp bonus and not 100%, missile and siege ships have +2 range bonus (not +4 for missiles ships)

    Wishlist
  • Siege can be repaired by villies
  • Trade involves more resources


    Please let me know any problems, suggestions or general feedback.

    Just in case you were wondering, this patch builds upon the RoR v1.0a US Language version.

    [This message has been edited by Rasteve (edited 11-30-2009 @ 10:26 PM).]

  • AuthorReplies:
    volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-15-09 05:43 AM ET (US)     201 / 269       
    take a heavy cat cost 180 wood and 80 gold..wood essentially becomes or is in fact more expensive.
    This is why I would disagree with the above statement. Yes 180 > 80 but wood is far easier to get hold of than gold. However, in this example it is probably true that any player would have difficulty maintaining 180 wood to every 80 gold gathered. I would say 180 wood = 80 gold is closer than 1 wood = 1 gold.
    no that is >2 wood to 1 gold. perhaps you misunderstood me, im talking about because more stuff costs wood, wood essentially becomes as or more expensive as gold. true wood is more abundant and you can get more and lets say you did and now your resources has you with a sizable amount of wood. lets say you are low on food, gold, stone and there is not much gold left and you need some to build some units so you trade, would you trade wood for gold?

    also dont forget despite the abundance of trees, you are not exactly chopping every tree on the map.
    I have to disagree on the military aspect. Egypt had lost many conflicts, had been conquered many times, and during their peak couldn't defeat Hittite. They were a civilisation but by no means conquerors. I believe most of their neighbours ended up as Pharaoh.
    no they did not lose many conflicts and had not been conquered many times nor during their peak couldnt defeat hittite. they actually lost fewer conflicts then perhaps other civilizations. had only been occupied rather than conquered a few times by the persians, greeks and then romans and during their peak although they didnt defeat the hittites, they werent defeated by them either. that was a matter of the pharaohs military leadership rameses II was too cocky and was ambushed. although he almost lost, he gathered the rest of his men and routed out the hittites pushing them back and restoring the situation. egypt had stopped the hittites advance.

    egypts military was mediocre but by no far weak, during the catastrophe of 1200 BC the philistines/sea peoples/other peoples had overwhelmed all other known civs of the time and had annihilated the hittites, they also attacked egypt but egypt under the military prowess of pharaoh rameses III defeated them and egypt had survived.

    i did not say egypt were conquerors, they were generally capable of beating opponents particularly invaders and no most of their neighbours did not end up as pharaoh only alexander the great was the only foreigner made pharaoh. other civs some time might of finally got egypt after its decline but they only occupied it and were later pushed away such as the nubians.

    overall if egypt was weak, do you think they would have survived that long let alone be longest surviving ancient civilization? their pyramids wouldnt survive or be as famous and would only be known as ruins such as assyrian and babylonian ziggurats.
    I am considering a coinage-style bonus to replace the current gold bonus (for reasons already stated).
    ok how about give them 'free' coinage? (they have coinage but is researched from start just like in aok)
    Siegecraft - no! They were never known for their siege warfare, and will unbalance the game (egypt already has its own unique RM and DM strats).
    really?

    what about the earliest representations of siege warfare have been dated to the protodynastic period of egypt, central 3000 BC. they destroyed city walls by divine animals using hoes. namely the onager (wild ass) or catapult

    the first siege equipment is known from egyptian tomb reliefs of the 24th century BC, showing the egyptians storming the canaanite town walls on wheeled siege ladders. later egyptian temple reliefs of the 13th century BC portray the violent siege of dapur, a syrian city, with soldiers climbing scale ladders supported by archers

    although not particularly amazing compared to the greeks or romans, the first siege ever in early civilization was done by the egyptians. they had the catapult (portrayed in aom) and they are known to fortify including using ballistas in towers (portrayed greatly with aom) and this was during up to their peak as a self ruled civilization
    Coinage - no! They don't need a double gold bonus, one will be good enough here. Secondly, Egypt as a self-ruled civilisation ended before the Iron Age, and "Egyptian coins" refer to Greek/Macedonian/Roman conquered Egypt.
    in that case how about give them coinage and make it researched from start (like in aok 'free' tech) secondly, egyptian coins do NOT refer to Greek/Macedonian/Roman conquered Egypt as egypt was not conquered but rather present or maybe occupied by them. and the greeks were the first ones when the egyptians (as a civilization that still exists 'doesnt matter who governed them') that gave egypt coinage during the time by alexander was made pharaoh
    Not to sound like a smart arse but I believe you had gone back on yourself here. Firstly, was the Egyptian military force strong or weak? Secondly, are you saying gold-based units are cheap or very expensive?
    i was talking about two different topics here. first, egypts military was decent though not that they were outstanding or anything. their great economic power helped sustain their military as a standing force. second, i was talking about how to give them more gold intending to include with coinage so to let them even more affordable elephants and priests. yes gold is expensive.
    I think most of the infantry were Nubian warriors, carrying light shields (possibly not even metal).
    some were nubian warriors as the egyptians are known with their gold to hire mercenaries from nubia and elsewhere. although during the old kingdom their military was simply levied or conscripted by their nome their population backed by their economic power were the main force including i doubt the pharaoh would entrust foreigners to be his own personal guards. as for the shields, they were wood and leather and then copper and during especially the new kingdom possibly mixed with bronze just like their khopesh short swords.
    Tower shields are more Roman-era, and giving the armored elephant would unbalance the game. It is not a bad idea, but just too much of a change. I would say giving Egypt iron shield and armored eles would add a new dimension to the civ, but they already have a set strat, so why change it?
    well actual tower shields are of course only roman. but i think ror's depiction since other civs besides rome get tower shields are simply any large rentagular shield that suppose to as its namesake 'tower' and protect you. giving egypt armored elephant would help because they got the war elephant anyways and perhaps elephants are prominent in africa. it somehow always gave me the impression, ok egypts military is about best chariot and elephant since they dont really got much else. and so what if they have set strat and would change it? i would say it wouldnt change their strat but rather enhance it since they got the war elephant anyways. as a matter of fact aoe originally did gave them iron shield!
    Egyptian with siegecraft, coinage, war eles, tower shields...makes me think of Hittite
    do they have strong heavy horse archers? do they have long range warships? do they have super heavy catapults? ;p i think hittite is way too overpowered and needs someone to challenge them! which reminds of me about sumer but alas they lack armored elephant due to iron shield, lack of adaquate attack (metalurgy), lack of adaquate range (craftsmanship) but they were a civilization truly dead before the bronze age was even over.
    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-15-09 09:45 AM ET (US)     202 / 269       
    no that is >2 wood to 1 gold. perhaps you misunderstood me, im talking about because more stuff costs wood, wood essentially becomes as or more expensive as gold. true wood is more abundant and you can get more and lets say you did and now your resources has you with a sizable amount of wood. lets say you are low on food, gold, stone and there is not much gold left and you need some to build some units so you trade, would you trade wood for gold?
    But wood is cheap, therefore anything costing wood can be shown as "cheap". But it depends how you look at it. If you are stuck for wood because you need to get a bunch of forwards up etc then wood is expensive!
    also dont forget despite the abundance of trees, you are not exactly chopping every tree on the map.
    No, you don't need to, but you will find you will need all the gold!
    no they did not lose many conflicts and had not been conquered many times nor during their peak couldnt defeat hittite. they actually lost fewer conflicts then perhaps other civilizations. had only been occupied rather than conquered a few times by the persians, greeks and then romans and during their peak although they didnt defeat the hittites, they werent defeated by them either. that was a matter of the pharaohs military leadership rameses II was too cocky and was ambushed. although he almost lost, he gathered the rest of his men and routed out the hittites pushing them back and restoring the situation. egypt had stopped the hittites advance.
    They lost fewer because they were involved in fewer! They are not known for their military. Rameses was one of their strong points, but they had many poor rules too. Peoples like the Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Macedonians etc conquered huge amounts of territories in much shorter times compared to the full length of the Egyptian civilisation timespan (which didn't conquer anything really).
    egypts military was mediocre but by no far weak, during the catastrophe of 1200 BC the philistines/sea peoples/other peoples had overwhelmed all other known civs of the time and had annihilated the hittites, they also attacked egypt but egypt under the military prowess of pharaoh rameses III defeated them and egypt had survived.
    Which led to Libyans, Nubians etc as the new rulers of Egypt, and then the conquest by all other regional powers.
    i did not say egypt were conquerors, they were generally capable of beating opponents particularly invaders and no most of their neighbours did not end up as pharaoh only alexander the great was the only foreigner made pharaoh. other civs some time might of finally got egypt after its decline but they only occupied it and were later pushed away such as the nubians.
    I am sure they had many foreign rulers (including Nubians, Libyans etc). Wasn't Cleo Greek? Egypt didn't have the military experience/technology to be conquerors. I think AoE portrays Egypt correctly in RM and DM, considering the strats you need to win, as well as their strengths and weaknesses.
    overall if egypt was weak, do you think they would have survived that long let alone be longest surviving ancient civilization? their pyramids wouldnt survive or be as famous and would only be known as ruins such as assyrian and babylonian ziggurats.
    This is a testament to their architecture. In fact, when conquerored by Persians etc the Pyramids were already ruins! I am sure if the Ziggurats were made from more permanent materials we would be looking at them in the same light now.
    ok how about give them 'free' coinage? (they have coinage but is researched from start just like in aok)
    Yes, I will try this in the next version.
    what about the earliest representations of siege warfare have been dated to the protodynastic period of egypt, central 3000 BC. they destroyed city walls by divine animals using hoes. namely the onager (wild ass) or catapult

    the first siege equipment is known from egyptian tomb reliefs of the 24th century BC, showing the egyptians storming the canaanite town walls on wheeled siege ladders. later egyptian temple reliefs of the 13th century BC portray the violent siege of dapur, a syrian city, with soldiers climbing scale ladders supported by archers

    although not particularly amazing compared to the greeks or romans, the first siege ever in early civilization was done by the egyptians. they had the catapult (portrayed in aom) and they are known to fortify including using ballistas in towers (portrayed greatly with aom) and this was during up to their peak as a self ruled civilization
    I have never seen any evidence of ballista towers existing. Also, the walls they were climbing were probably made from bud brick and other inferior materials compared to the walls knocked down by later civilisations.
    some were nubian warriors as the egyptians are known with their gold to hire mercenaries from nubia and elsewhere. although during the old kingdom their military was simply levied or conscripted by their nome their population backed by their economic power were the main force including i doubt the pharaoh would entrust foreigners to be his own personal guards. as for the shields, they were wood and leather and then copper and during especially the new kingdom possibly mixed with bronze just like their khopesh short swords.
    Yes and I believe bronze was really as far as the civ got in terms of military equipment before being ruled by foreign powers.
    well actual tower shields are of course only roman. but i think ror's depiction since other civs besides rome get tower shields are simply any large rentagular shield that suppose to as its namesake 'tower' and protect you. giving egypt armored elephant would help because they got the war elephant anyways and perhaps elephants are prominent in africa. it somehow always gave me the impression, ok egypts military is about best chariot and elephant since they dont really got much else. and so what if they have set strat and would change it? i would say it wouldnt change their strat but rather enhance it since they got the war elephant anyways. as a matter of fact aoe originally did gave them iron shield!
    In terms of shields - Romans are well known for their "tower shields" but other civs would have had long/full shields.

    In terms of Egypt - I don't think Egypt were well known for deploying elephants in battle (mostly Carthage and Persians?).

    In terms of Egypt Iron Shield - this was a bug.

    I am not totally against giving Egypt the armored ele, but I don't want to change the tech trees to balance the game. I would rather change bonuses to improve 10 year+ strats that giving totally new ones.

    If I start changing Egypt then I will have to think about changing others.
    do they have strong heavy horse archers? do they have long range warships? do they have super heavy catapults? ;p i think hittite is way too overpowered and needs someone to challenge them! which reminds of me about sumer but alas they lack armored elephant due to iron shield, lack of adaquate attack (metalurgy), lack of adaquate range (craftsmanship) but they were a civilization truly dead before the bronze age was even over.
    With these changes Egypt will move from a defensive DM civ to a strong attacking DM civ.

    Sumerian are not that bad in DM!

    Hittite are overpowered - partly due to the range of units on offer and its siege. Any suggestions here would be welcome.
    Suppiluliuma
    AoEH Seraph
    posted 11-15-09 01:56 PM ET (US)     203 / 269       
    Again i'm pleased to see you're delivering new material on a regular basis Rasteve. Also i'm glad you have taken care of even small details and minutae and that you take in consideration what other fellow forum users have to say. Thanks again for your efforts and for sharing them with the community.
    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-15-09 04:10 PM ET (US)     204 / 269       
    The patch is intended for everyone, so I am trying to use the best ideas and work them into the patch.

    Most of the ideas are not my own, but a mix of feedback from playing online etc.

    In terms of changing tech trees I have been given the indication that competitive players will dislike civs with less (such as taking away units, buildings etc) and only the weaker civs need to be added something. Still, to be careful not to add something which will unbalance the game.

    However, I am thinking hard about Hittite (also considering scythes get all shield upgrades...).

    Suppy, any thoughts on Hittites current weakness? I would like to tone them down a little seeing as they have best units and good bonuses - possibly looking at making any weaknesses more apparent?
    volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-16-09 10:37 AM ET (US)     205 / 269       
    But wood is cheap, therefore anything costing wood can be shown as "cheap". But it depends how you look at it. If you are stuck for wood because you need to get a bunch of forwards up etc then wood is expensive!
    how about this. food is cheap! you can simply build a farm and you are good to go! wood is generally cheaper than gold but the only method is to chop trees, although abundant (depending on map), gold on the other hand can be mined or traded unlimitedly (which is why you would never trade wood for gold even if you had an immense load. only trade food. i made this mistake of trading wood one time since i had an immense supply but almost lost, fortunately my opponent also ran out resources anyway). unless its DM which all resources generally wouldnt matter much anyways, wood is just like stone though better since theres more of it but you can only get it from one resource, trees. just like stone only from mines.
    No, you don't need to, but you will find you will need all the gold!
    true. but that brings me to a thought about which is more easier to protect? what if the enemy brought heavy cats or juggernauts and destroyed the forests! oh wow! now wood is really expensive and stone is cheaper than wood! which is a huge reason when i argued with you about raising or making more available stone along with your then i thought 'gold craze' i didnt neglect wood including attempting to use craftsmanship like coinage. alas, oh well aok did a good job of inventing the market! (which i still had wished you can trade whatever for whatever directly)
    They lost fewer because they were involved in fewer! They are not known for their military. Rameses was one of their strong points, but they had many poor rules too. Peoples like the Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Macedonians etc conquered huge amounts of territories in much shorter times compared to the full length of the Egyptian civilisation timespan (which didn't conquer anything really).
    actually though they were involved in fewer battles than other civs, they were somewhat 'forward deployed' to defeat and defend against 'egypts problems' including

    1. The Libyans from the Sahara to the west
    2. The Nubians from the south
    3. The Sinai and Canaanites to the northeast
    4. Internal conflict when the regions or nomes divided from the monarchy to form rival factions

    they encountered with other powerful near eastern kingdoms like mitanni, the hittites, and later the assyrians and babylonians, all making it necessary for the egyptians to conduct campaigns far from home.

    they more likely lost from fewer battles because they simply were at a defensive role and were used to simply beat weaker civilizations or discords among their ranks. nevertheless, they were involved. though of course not as big like the romans and greeks. they even built a decent navy 'not even neglecting the seas'. yes they werent known for their military but they were considered very decent at their time due to how primitive it was. they were considerably armed with composite bows and bronze weapon (yes they were bronze as i had verified) khobeshes while other civs only held mace like prehistoric cavemen. i also checked that they had conquered the canaanites and sinai though the mitanni and then hittites took over when they left. egypts military wasnt outstanding but you certainly cant compare them to romans with iron steel and everything.
    Which led to Libyans, Nubians etc as the new rulers of Egypt, and then the conquest by all other regional powers.
    the libyans were defeated along with the 'sea peoples'. the nubians and other powers claimed egypt after the catastrophe of 1200 BC when egypt remained the sole known civilization left and has no one to trade with effectively crippling their economy and there were other disasters such as drought which also starve them into decline.
    I am sure they had many foreign rulers (including Nubians, Libyans etc). Wasn't Cleo Greek? Egypt didn't have the military experience/technology to be conquerors. I think AoE portrays Egypt correctly in RM and DM, considering the strats you need to win, as well as their strengths and weaknesses.
    they had fewer foreign leaders including the hyksos, nubians, then macedonian greeks and then romans. cleo was the final line from alexander's ptolemy before egypt became a roman province and even she was rather 'egyptianized' as she learned egyptian and also adopted common egyptian beliefs and deities with her patron goddess being isis. true egypt didnt had the military experience/technology to be full out conquerors but they were considered decent for what they had and they did conquer something namely the hyksos, canaanites and sinai. concur, aoe did portray egypt correctly but not so for ror! i would say though they got the scythe chariot, they are still quite neglected.

    and here is another thing. egypt survived as a culture and civilization despite being ruled by someone else a few times. it existed regardless of who ruled it. i believe it certainly survived on its own longer than the romans had obviously by age difference. its military was originally primitive because they were primitive. the more advanced weaponry and technology was introduced by migrants from the middle east and asia such as the hyksos who had invaded during the second intermediate period introducing egypt the horse, chariot, composite bow and bronze weapons which the egyptians used themselves to get rid of the hyksos and expand their campaigns to further protect themselves.
    This is a testament to their architecture. In fact, when conquerored by Persians etc the Pyramids were already ruins! I am sure if the Ziggurats were made from more permanent materials we would be looking at them in the same light now.
    so to say the assyrians, babylonians and sumerians didnt have good architecture with their ziggurats? the ziggurats were step pyramids built of mud bricks, the same materials as the egyptian pyramids! and so the pyramids were already in ruins by the time persians conquerored them? so to say the persians vandalized or destroyed the pyramids? not sure what you define ruins as but i define it as something ancient and rather destroyed.
    I have never seen any evidence of ballista towers existing. Also, the walls they were climbing were probably made from bud brick and other inferior materials compared to the walls knocked down by later civilisations.
    i have no notion about anyone having 'ballista towers' neither but i researched some stuff to indicate probably something like the egyptian version 'siege tower' which is actually a ram tower supported by archers. and so are you saying they have to have destroyed something like trojan walls in order to have demonstrated siegecraft? they used siegecraft simple catapults or stone throwers and rammed and other undermines to conquer canaan and brutally destroy sinai both of which must of pissed off the pharaoh. obviously their catapult and ballista was not the classic greek/roman catapult/ballista portrayed in the game and might of had different projectiles and/or different purposes but the greeks didnt had the classical catapult neither more like the stone thrower for them or the petrobolos. romans of course had the big bad classical catapult but some catapults were something else, fired something else and/or were for other purposes.
    Yes and I believe bronze was really as far as the civ got in terms of military equipment before being ruled by foreign powers.
    true. and btw i verified their khopesh during the new kingdom were made up with a mix copper and bronze making it more durable and sharper than either material alone. foreign powers may have ruled them but they still existed as a civ and had adopted the best equipment out of them such as the hyksos they got the chariot and composite bow as well as other bronze weapons which in turn the egyptians used them to rid themselves of the hyksos, canaanite problem and sinai troublemakers. so that actually opens them up to be included of new such technology since their egyptian civilization existed, self-ruled or not.
    In terms of shields - Romans are well known for their "tower shields" but other civs would have had long/full shields.

    In terms of Egypt - I don't think Egypt were well known for deploying elephants in battle (mostly Carthage and Persians?).

    In terms of Egypt Iron Shield - this was a bug.

    I am not totally against giving Egypt the armored ele, but I don't want to change the tech trees to balance the game. I would rather change bonuses to improve 10 year+ strats that giving totally new ones.

    If I start changing Egypt then I will have to think about changing others.
    so arent those rectangular or 'square' shields the egyptians had a such long/full shield?

    yes, i know i have not heard of egypt deploying elephants prominently but due to their region, they still have them and would of probably more likely at least did use them. i have never heard of the hittites or sumerians using them or seemingly prominent to use them?

    the iron shield might have of been a bug. but it didnt seem like it ;p

    so you couldnt enhance existing strats? how much difference does making now egyptian scythe chariots that were fully upgradable needs to remain fully upgradable with the shields to be best chariot and making war elephants armored elephants provided you got the expense? changing bonuses will definitely change some strats.

    well other civs probably are neglected as well since aoe and then now ror. likely you do need to change something since ror is really more about rome rather than the original 12 civilizations. how about this one: wheel! why does persia have this



    and macedonia have these



    and i suppose they didnt discover fire too? they both have alchemy as i recall ;p
    With these changes Egypt will move from a defensive DM civ to a strong attacking DM civ.
    well my intention is to give them a better defense and a somewhat better offense. im only saying let them be decent and perhaps fierce and sting with scythe chariot and pound with armored elephants. im not saying lets give them everything and make them own everybody.
    Sumerian are not that bad in DM!
    that is until ror
    Hittite are overpowered - partly due to the range of units on offer and its siege. Any suggestions here would be welcome.
    well im not willing to reduce hittite and im sure everybody else arent willing to neither. alas i guess they need to be researched on what weakness they have. yes thats right 'what weakness?' and of course im sure everybody would be pretty pissed if hittite was to be weakened any bit.

    [This message has been edited by volume (edited 11-16-2009 @ 06:06 PM).]

    Basse
    Clubman
    posted 11-16-09 11:16 AM ET (US)     206 / 269       
    Of what I read on the internet, the Hittites was attacked by sea-people and thereby their capital got burned to the ground. So the Hittites should really have a weaker navy because that was their weakness.
    Nacht Jaeger
    Clubman
    (id: RCM7525)
    posted 11-16-09 12:14 PM ET (US)     207 / 269       
    Well historical accuracy should take backseat to gameplay.

    Nacht Jaeger - Ex AoEH Angel
    peter
    HG Alumnus
    posted 11-16-09 12:57 PM ET (US)     208 / 269       
    Of what I read on the internet, the Hittites was attacked by sea-people and thereby their capital got burned to the ground. So the Hittites should really have a weaker navy because that was their weakness.
    That's not correct. Everyone was getting overrun by what were called the sea peoples, with only a few exceptions, like Egypt, and that escaped barely. The sea people burned pretty much everybody else's capitals to the ground. Does that mean everybody's navy was weak? No, the sea people had a strong land force. They may have come from the sea, but they needn't have fought from the sea. On the other hand, from what I read about the Hittites, their focus was largely on the land, and I can't remember reading about their navy at all.
    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-16-09 01:05 PM ET (US)     209 / 269       
    v0.6
    This version will concentrate on the units, and will include such fixes as enabling units in the editor, placeable gaia units near edge of map, text updates etc.

    I will also make the following changes to heroes:
  • All ranged heroes will automatically have alchemy and ballistics
  • All heroes will have increased attributes (as techs no longer affect them)
  • Villager heroes will no longer change to villagers when tasked

    Proposals
    Archers fire 100% accurate: More units get shields now
    Egypt Bonus: Gets coinage-like bonus to replace current gold bonus
    Hittite Bonus: Warships +2 range (not +4), includes catapult ships (via scenario builder/WarPatch)
    Trees: Forests have 50 wood (+10)
    Stone: Mines have 250 stone (+100 on original, +50 on last update)

    Other possibilities
    Palmyran villagers: cost/work rate balance
    Shang DM: new bonus to a super unit (such as all missiles +25% speed to help cater for lack of ballistics)
    Persian RM: archery range cost bonus (seeing as archer units have no range!)
    Babylonian Priests: change rejuvenation to conversion/healing (helps a potential bug, and makes priests more efficient)
    Phoenician woodcutters: slight increase in work rate
    Sumerian DM: academy units cheaper (lack shield and metallurgy)
    Egypt DM: get bronze, iron shields and armored eles (only change which alters tech tree)
  • volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-17-09 08:07 AM ET (US)     210 / 269       
    so heroes 'really' have special attributes as indicated by the put the ? on them. are the heroes a combined all civ strengths and all techs researched? for example cleopatra's barge is as fast as a greek warship and fires as fast as a phoenician juggernaut.
    Egypt Bonus: Gets coinage-like bonus to replace current gold bonus
    Hittite Bonus: Warships +2 range (not +4), includes catapult ships (via scenario builder/WarPatch)
    Trees: Forests have 50 wood (+10)
    Stone: Mines have 250 stone (+100 on original, +50 on last update)
    make egypt gets coinage researched from start like aok 'free' coinage!
    hittite warship may be necessary to balance by weakening this to +2 warship including siege ship range! *sigh*
    trees have 50 wood, why?
    stone have 250 stone, why did you reduce it?
    Palmyran villagers: cost/work rate balance
    Shang DM: new bonus to a super unit (such as all missiles +25% speed to help cater for lack of ballistics)
    Persian RM: archery range cost bonus (seeing as archer units have no range!)
    Babylonian Priests: change rejuvenation to conversion/healing (helps a potential bug, and makes priests more efficient)
    Phoenician woodcutters: slight increase in work rate
    Sumerian DM: academy units cheaper (lack shield and metallurgy)
    Egypt DM: get bronze, iron shields and armored eles (only change which alters tech tree)
    palmyran may as well need 50 food and 20% work rate, making them a combination of better than phoenician woodcutting, persian hunting, egyptian gold mining and babylonian stone mining + build rate + free armor
    shang super unit fires missiles with greater speed? what unit would that be?
    persia has cheap archers! alright! but what about how do they have wheeled siege weapons when they dont have the wheel? i suppose they dragged their catapults across the earth! got an answer rasteve? and dont forget the macedonian who conquered them doing the same thing!
    babylon priest: so what potential bug affects priests rejuvenating? do they still rejuvenate reasonably faster?
    phoenicia woodcutters: i wonder why they decreased this down to a meer 15% in the first place?
    sumer gets cheap academy! alright! but think they might need something else to help beating their rival the hittites?
    egypt DM: dont forget they had rectangular shields (tower shields) also is this only limited to DM?
    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-17-09 10:23 AM ET (US)     211 / 269       
    so heroes 'really' have special attributes as indicated by the put the ? on them. are the heroes a combined all civ strengths and all techs researched? for example cleopatra's barge is as fast as a greek warship and fires as fast as a phoenician juggernaut.
    I wouldn't say combined all civ strengths but something along the lines of all techs researched. Other changes may follow at a later date.
    make egypt gets coinage researched from start like aok 'free' coinage!
    hittite warship may be necessary to balance by weakening this to +2 warship including siege ship range! *sigh*
    trees have 50 wood, why?
    stone have 250 stone, why did you reduce it?
    Egypt - to improve
    Hittite - to weaken
    Trees - slight wood boost (I won't change stragglers because of how many strats rely on the current amounts)
    Stone - I meant to say 350 (+50 on last version, +100 on original)
    palmyran may as well need 50 food and 20% work rate, making them a combination of better than phoenician woodcutting, persian hunting, egyptian gold mining and babylonian stone mining + build rate + free armor
    shang super unit fires missiles with greater speed? what unit would that be?
    persia has cheap archers! alright! but what about how do they have wheeled siege weapons when they dont have the wheel? i suppose they dragged their catapults across the earth! got an answer rasteve? and dont forget the macedonian who conquered them doing the same thing!
    babylon priest: so what potential bug affects priests rejuvenating? do they still rejuvenate reasonably faster?
    phoenicia woodcutters: i wonder why they decreased this down to a meer 15% in the first place?
    sumer gets cheap academy! alright! but think they might need something else to help beating their rival the hittites?
    egypt DM: dont forget they had rectangular shields (tower shields) also is this only limited to DM?
    Palmyran - only if testing shows current changes too strong. I would like to keep these as a boomer.
    Shang - possibly Ballistae (note this isn't to change rate of fire but speed of missile, to make up for lack of ballistics)
    Persia - lack of wheel is a gameplay choice, and something I will keep in. Mace and Persia are winnable in RM and DM, but Persia is harder to play than Mace. Cheaper archers, although out-ranged, will still put pressure on other players
    Babylon - fanaticism boosts rejuvenation by 50% but only 40% for Babylon (technical issue, because you can only set or add values to the rejuve variable and not multiply). Changing this to something like improved conversion and healing rate will mix with current techs and keep priests strong.
    Phoenicia - one of the original fast civs, and as with shang, yamato and assyrian, all have been watered down by ES (yamato and assyrian only in RoR).
    Sumer - centies will get +1 extra shield (following shield changes), cost less and have +1 range (super ability) - I am hoping this will help combat eles better and to soak up some HHA fire before the heavy cats come rolling in
    Egypt - I am still reluctant on making this change as it will completely change the civ. It will go from being on the backfoot to the frontfoot.

    I was also considering making the Hittite siege bonus +50% and not double. They will still be OP (as they get so many techs/units) but the siege will not be as strong (but still stronger).
    Suppiluliuma
    AoEH Seraph
    posted 11-17-09 10:29 AM ET (US)     212 / 269       
    Hittite weaknesses? though question. They almost have all the units, storage pit upgrades, towers and important stuff. i was about to say make it easier to convert, but that weakness couldn't be that evident. Also you may downgrade the infantry, but honestly who uses hittite infantry.

    Maybe you could try to remove all elephant units both the archers and war/armored and dont give them scythe chariots just normal ones. (i'm not sure about the last suggestion as hittites were mostly a chariot civilization irl).
    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-17-09 11:28 AM ET (US)     213 / 269       
    I can't believe what ES have done. Centies, Armored Eles, Scythes, Heavy Cats, HHA and Ballista Towers - with all upgrades, archer bonus and siege bonus!!!!

    And now centies +1 pierce +1 range
    Scythes +4 pierce (with all shields)

    Okay, warships could be toned down to +2 but this only affects RM
    Siege could be toned down to +50% hp

    I would say take away eles - but I have suggested this before and it wasn't welcomed.
    Aran
    Clubman
    posted 11-17-09 01:29 PM ET (US)     214 / 269       
    Hittite- I think no Armored Eles, Archer eles, Cents, + half Hp for Catapults.
    volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-18-09 05:54 AM ET (US)     215 / 269       
    Palmyran - only if testing shows current changes too strong. I would like to keep these as a boomer.
    Shang - possibly Ballistae (note this isn't to change rate of fire but speed of missile, to make up for lack of ballistics)
    Persia - lack of wheel is a gameplay choice, and something I will keep in. Mace and Persia are winnable in RM and DM, but Persia is harder to play than Mace. Cheaper archers, although out-ranged, will still put pressure on other players
    Babylon - fanaticism boosts rejuvenation by 50% but only 40% for Babylon (technical issue, because you can only set or add values to the rejuve variable and not multiply). Changing this to something like improved conversion and healing rate will mix with current techs and keep priests strong.
    Phoenicia - one of the original fast civs, and as with shang, yamato and assyrian, all have been watered down by ES (yamato and assyrian only in RoR).
    Sumer - centies will get +1 extra shield (following shield changes), cost less and have +1 range (super ability) - I am hoping this will help combat eles better and to soak up some HHA fire before the heavy cats come rolling in
    Egypt - I am still reluctant on making this change as it will completely change the civ. It will go from being on the backfoot to the frontfoot.

    I was also considering making the Hittite siege bonus +50% and not double. They will still be OP (as they get so many techs/units) but the siege will not be as strong (but still stronger).
    a boomer probably would be irrelevant compared to everything else considered especially when rushed.
    shang: i like to see how that is supposed to work when you dont have ballistics but you have its projectiles travel faster. but then i dont see how you can have ballista without ballistics or vice versa? oh well shang does have them.
    Persia - so you will keep in a serious handicap? i say they get no siege just because of that! you get my point? unless you create siege thats dragged onto battle! im not sure how persia happend to have scythe chariots to use against alexander the great? or perhaps that was hearsay much like the 'siege ships' thing? the scythe chariots also made 'little impression' or didnt faze his disciplined phalanx, i suppose thats because they didnt have wheels but instead had spinning blades to move them? mace also apparently dragged their siege on their hinges without wheel. so much for being 'cheap'. Mace and Persia are winnable in RM and DM, true but perhaps they are loathsome to play including especially without wheel as well. mace has the weakest of all villagers and may as well be sitting ducks being so slow. persia at least has jihad which i would always research just because no wheel and even still appears slow! both persia and mace comparably have fewer techs than most decent civilizations.
    sumer: hell give them the iron shield so they can have the armored elephant! then they are about as favorable again as hittite.
    egypt: in the best tradition of making them the ultimate chariot particularly scythe chariot, they need all shields for it and they got the war elephant, so why not the armored elephant? is that too much to ask? and what little difference it makes?

    in summary: for the civilizations that could use or need some help, boost or enhancement; this will make them more attractive to play and will get more players other than newbies to play them. after all, you did enchance and even embellish other civilizations already!

    the only civilization i can think of that needs weakening is hittite and i can only reason and willingly accept +2 warship range. removing any elephants, scythe chariot, centurions and the like and half-assing the catapults is not good or thoughtful and is unwelcome!
    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-18-09 11:00 AM ET (US)     216 / 269       
    v0.6
    This version will concentrate on the units, and will include such fixes as enabling units in the editor, placeable gaia units near edge of map, text updates etc.

    I will also make the following changes to heroes:
  • All ranged heroes will automatically have alchemy and ballistics
  • All heroes will have increased attributes (as techs no longer affect them)
  • Villager heroes will no longer change to villagers when tasked

    Proposals
    Archers fire 100% accurate: More units get shields now
    Egypt Bonus: Gets coinage-like bonus to replace current gold bonus
    Hittite Bonus: Warships +2 range (not +4), includes catapult ships (via scenario builder/WarPatch)
    Trees: Forests have 50 wood (+10)
    Stone: Mines have 350 stone (+100 on original, +50 on last update)

    Other possibilities
    Palmyran villagers: cost/work rate balance
    Shang DM: new bonus for ballistae - missiles travel faster (help balance unit against crappy range and accuracy)
    Persian RM: archery range cost bonus (seeing as archer units have no range!)
    Babylonian Priests: change rejuvenation bonus to conversion+healing (helps a potential bug, and makes priests more efficient)
    Phoenician woodcutters: slight increase in work rate
    Sumerian DM: academy units cheaper (lack shield and metallurgy)
    Hittite DM: siege gets 50% hp bonus and not 100%

    Possible Tech Tree Changes
    Egypt DM: get shields and armored eles (will give them better scythes too)
    Hittite DM: remove eles (they have huge choice already, with all techs)
    Assyrian DM: give them chain mail and HHA (possibly take away new cavalry bonus)
  • Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-18-09 11:13 AM ET (US)     217 / 269       
    Persia - the lack of wheel gives Persia a characteristic. I am not saying this is historically correct, and I agree all civs had the wheel! But in both cases (Persia and Mace) they have unique RM and DM strats which work when done correctly. I would say Persia is harder to pull off which is why they are getting more changes than most civs. Persia need to pull off a rush before the bronze market takes affect. Some people will rush (first wave, maybe 2) without any bronze market upgrades. Depending on your strat, some don't even research the wheel until mid/late bronze.

    Sumer - if they have cheaper (plus improved) centies then this will help, no need for armored eles.

    Egypt - scythes get more hp, and will now have 1 pierce by default so they will be better than most. The armored ele will make them completely different.
    in summary: for the civilizations that could use or need some help, boost or enhancement; this will make them more attractive to play and will get more players other than newbies to play them. after all, you did enchance and even embellish other civilizations already!
    Yes, and I am trying to achieve this with minimal tech tree changes (none if possible). Changing the tech tree has a huge knock-on effect, compared to modifying a work rate or unit bonus.
    the only civilization i can think of that needs weakening is hittite and i can only reason and willingly accept +2 warship range. removing any elephants, scythe chariot, centurions and the like and half-assing the catapults is not good or thoughtful and is unwelcome!
    The warship change will only affect RM. DM is where they are undisputed kings, which is why if anything needs removing it must be eles. Not every hitt play goes for eles, as many prefer HHA (archer bonus) and Heavy Cats (siege bonus). Note that with the shields the scythes could get to 4 pierce, so with these 3 units hitt will still be dominant. No eles means no ele rush followed by heavy cats, which effectively gives a win when done properly.
    volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-19-09 06:31 AM ET (US)     218 / 269       
    Persia - the lack of wheel gives Persia a characteristic. I am not saying this is historically correct, and I agree all civs had the wheel! But in both cases (Persia and Mace) they have unique RM and DM strats which work when done correctly. I would say Persia is harder to pull off which is why they are getting more changes than most civs. Persia need to pull off a rush before the bronze market takes affect. Some people will rush (first wave, maybe 2) without any bronze market upgrades. Depending on your strat, some don't even research the wheel until mid/late bronze.
    i understand tool rushes and sometimes (especially in particular newbies) dont even research the wheel until mid/late bronze (in this particular case they get to iron late and are usually beaten). so what about dm or starting in iron? you couldnt give them the wheel? is that too much to ask? regardless of strategy, i still say even though persia has the fastest elephants and mace has the strongest centurions, they both are loathsome to play and therefore suck just because they dont have the wheel. i understand they are beatable with but its just simply their appeal to play with. slow villagers is a no no.
    Sumer - if they have cheaper (plus improved) centies then this will help, no need for armored eles.
    giving them armored elephants was intended to raise their appeal for play especially versus hittite
    Egypt - scythes get more hp, and will now have 1 pierce by default so they will be better than most. The armored ele will make them completely different.
    what different? are you to say that they are not supposed to rush with elephants? they can still do that nevertheless. it is just to enhance their play. besides i say give them all shields for ultimate scythe chariot and since you have to give them iron shield, then you have to give them armored elephant. aoe and ror are the only age games where for an ultimate unit when a prerequisite unit exists and also their required tech exists then they will have that ultimate unit. the largest example being the scythe chariot which requires wheel, chariot and nobility in order to have a scythe chariot. you take any of those three away then you will not have your chariot like the assyrians. but if you have all those, then you must give!
    Yes, and I am trying to achieve this with minimal tech tree changes (none if possible). Changing the tech tree has a huge knock-on effect, compared to modifying a work rate or unit bonus.
    so you are saying you would rather make berserk or cheaper in quality and appeal civilizations then you were to simply make small enhancements?
    The warship change will only affect RM. DM is where they are undisputed kings, which is why if anything needs removing it must be eles. Not every hitt play goes for eles, as many prefer HHA (archer bonus) and Heavy Cats (siege bonus). Note that with the shields the scythes could get to 4 pierce, so with these 3 units hitt will still be dominant. No eles means no ele rush followed by heavy cats, which effectively gives a win when done properly.
    take away elephants? HELL NO! many prefer HHA? i dont think so! armored elephants and heavy cats are the general purpose deathmatch! for any civilization who has them! hha may be included but never is it solely based as cats can simply kill them.

    also to add i applaud your new suggestion of giving chain mail and hha to assyria. being the fastest firing archers, and you increasing their speed a little, i would say makes more sense and makes them more reputable including towards hittite.

    now the hittite siege being reduced to +50% im not too sure of and definitely im sure most including myself are STRONGLY OPPOSED to it! but i think we can compromise. how about give +50% to all hittite siege including ballista and helepolis since you want to reduce the cats from double HP. but you did say siege, so am i right what you are implying? then again, people dont like half-ass catapults!

    [This message has been edited by volume (edited 11-19-2009 @ 06:38 AM).]

    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-19-09 02:31 PM ET (US)     219 / 269       
    i understand tool rushes and sometimes (especially in particular newbies) dont even research the wheel until mid/late bronze (in this particular case they get to iron late and are usually beaten). so what about dm or starting in iron? you couldnt give them the wheel? is that too much to ask? regardless of strategy, i still say even though persia has the fastest elephants and mace has the strongest centurions, they both are loathsome to play and therefore suck just because they dont have the wheel. i understand they are beatable with but its just simply their appeal to play with. slow villagers is a no no.
    Iron isn't the defining age for all civs, and I have been hit by very good players without bronze techs. It is not uncommon to have cav running into your woodies without even toolworking or leather, or chariot archers without artisanship. Sometimes woodworking is the only tech before 2 waves of cav hit you, or sometimes just the wheel. If someone can get cav or CA into your town earlier without certain upgrades, they will! This is not to say that they omit certain techs for long, but if they get some good kills they can keep up the pressure. A lot of RM games end with one outrushing the other - i.e. "already?", "gg".

    I think Persia are easy to play in DM - simple strat. Of course, if you fail you lose, but remember their cataphracts will also be excellent (all shield upgrades) - and we have the possibility of cheap HHA and ele archers? Mace are also good and now the academy units will start with +1 pierce, +2 bonus pierce and shield upgrades +3 shield techs = +6!!! That is 40 hits from a full upgraded Hittite HHA, 54 from a full upgraded non-hitt HHA and 80 from a non-alchemy/non-hitt hha! Or 11 hits from a ballista tower. Both civs have enough to terrorise during the initial few minutes and villager speed only comes into it later in the game.
    giving them armored elephants was intended to raise their appeal for play especially versus hittite
    Sumeria are not that bad, but lack a few techs. I thought a centie bonus would be new, as giving everyone eles is something that can be achieved via the warpatch.
    what different? are you to say that they are not supposed to rush with elephants? they can still do that nevertheless. it is just to enhance their play. besides i say give them all shields for ultimate scythe chariot and since you have to give them iron shield, then you have to give them armored elephant. aoe and ror are the only age games where for an ultimate unit when a prerequisite unit exists and also their required tech exists then they will have that ultimate unit. the largest example being the scythe chariot which requires wheel, chariot and nobility in order to have a scythe chariot. you take any of those three away then you will not have your chariot like the assyrians. but if you have all those, then you must give!
    Previous Egypt strat:

    Build stables, towers, stables - scythes/ballista tower upgrades
    Build archery ranges/temples - for support, get relevant techs
    Use scythes to mix into what ever units the enemy sends in, towers to provide cover, mobile CAs, priests for some conversions (eles?) but mostly healing

    If plenty of scythes are still standing counter (keep stables training) go after forwards

    Keep repeating until enemy runs out of gold.

    Volume Egypt (armored eles, plus gold bonus, plus shield):

    Build stables, armored eles upgrade - rush
    Farm earlier, scythe upgrades - switch back to above strat

    Rasteve Egypt (better gold bonus):

    Same as original strat, but use ele archers as well as chariot archers, more priests

    As you can see - the two proposed changes will have completely different outcomes. The free-coinage alone will boost their current strat, but with armored eles there is a different strat altogether.
    so you are saying you would rather make berserk or cheaper in quality and appeal civilizations then you were to simply make small enhancements?
    Balancing via tweaking than balancing via major changes is not berserk. Tweaking to balance is to improve quality (best quality = all civs have unique strats with strengths and weaknesses, using strengths to win and/or exploiting weaknesses to win). It is no good giving all civs which can beat hittite siege armored eles, when I could just tone down hittite siege?
    take away elephants? HELL NO! many prefer HHA? i dont think so! armored elephants and heavy cats are the general purpose deathmatch! for any civilization who has them! hha may be included but never is it solely based as cats can simply kill them.
    HHA in teams from my experience. Plus don't forget archer wars. I don't always see eles when facing hitt (okay, some go straight for hcats, but it is not uncommon to see a bunch of hha).

    You see, if I change tech trees for egypt, I will have to consider changing others on the same basis "too strong, too weak".
    also to add i applaud your new suggestion of giving chain mail and hha to assyria. being the fastest firing archers, and you increasing their speed a little, i would say makes more sense and makes them more reputable including towards hittite.
    I don't understand why assy didn't get this. It won't affect RM games (considering mass CA is a valid strat) but will also help them in DM.
    now the hittite siege being reduced to +50% im not too sure of and definitely im sure most including myself are STRONGLY OPPOSED to it! but i think we can compromise. how about give +50% to all hittite siege including ballista and helepolis since you want to reduce the cats from double HP. but you did say siege, so am i right what you are implying? then again, people dont like half-ass catapults!
    Well it is no doubt hitt hcats rule. Nothing comes close (unless it wants a rock on their head ). The hcats are too strong, and when you do get some units over they spend too long hacking it down. With 50%, siege vs siege will still be in hitt favour, and adding the fact all catapults have +1 minimum range, they are more vunerable to land units.

    Hittite needs a weakness, and it could be the fact that unguarded hcats could be destroyed with ease (with good micro). Having all your hcats bunched up will add to the casulties, as the minimum range will be higher.

    Tech Tree Changes
    We could go down the route of changing tech trees but I think it would suit the game better by only modifying attributes and bonuses.

    Egypt - if scythes need a boost, why not +40% hp?
    Assy - we could stick with the current +2 pierce for all cav
    Hitt - tone down ship and siege dominance
    Wheel - it makes it more interesting having different villager speeds
    volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-21-09 06:00 AM ET (US)     220 / 269       
    Iron isn't the defining age for all civs, and I have been hit by very good players without bronze techs. It is not uncommon to have cav running into your woodies without even toolworking or leather, or chariot archers without artisanship. Sometimes woodworking is the only tech before 2 waves of cav hit you, or sometimes just the wheel. If someone can get cav or CA into your town earlier without certain upgrades, they will! This is not to say that they omit certain techs for long, but if they get some good kills they can keep up the pressure. A lot of RM games end with one outrushing the other - i.e. "already?", "gg".
    iron may not be the defining age for all civs but someone at iron generally beats someone at bronze. you have more units and flexiblity in iron. i also should laugh at the cav running into my woodies without toolworking or leather too! the few times that happend to me, my woodies simply 'amateur-jihad' and took down the cav with including with a quick few towers while pumping extra peons elsewhere to replace the lost. i actually beat the best rusher at the time doing this. considering a cav without toolworking or leather is nothing more than a slightly stronger scout. i only lost a quarter of my woodies which were quickly reinforced. now chariot archers without artisanship is irrelevant, however, missing the wheel IS relevant! missing the wheel puts you at a huge disadvantage with management, rushing, being rushed, even getting the chariot archer or to iron or should i say even a difference between victory or defeat since you like to disregard iron? a lot of RM ending up being one rushed by the other means the one being rushed has no chance to counter it including missing wheel or is a newbie. i would say wheel is perhaps the first thing i would research when i hit bronze. i dont have to worry about toolworking or leather since i would of already gotten that on my way to bronze. and artisanship is of later concern.
    I think Persia are easy to play in DM - simple strat. Of course, if you fail you lose, but remember their cataphracts will also be excellent (all shield upgrades) - and we have the possibility of cheap HHA and ele archers? Mace are also good and now the academy units will start with +1 pierce, +2 bonus pierce and shield upgrades +3 shield techs = +6!!! That is 40 hits from a full upgraded Hittite HHA, 54 from a full upgraded non-hitt HHA and 80 from a non-alchemy/non-hitt hha! Or 11 hits from a ballista tower. Both civs have enough to terrorise during the initial few minutes and villager speed only comes into it later in the game.
    but are you saying villager speed is completely irrelevant? afraid not. and more like in DM persia has to quickly rush with elephants and horse archers and if not rather piecemeal, they cant get away from being rushed. mace is even worse as it comes down to they only have their centurions to defend with.
    Sumeria are not that bad, but lack a few techs. I thought a centie bonus would be new, as giving everyone eles is something that can be achieved via the warpatch.
    regardless of warpatch or not, 'not bad sumer' could still go at a standard in DM with armored elephants and heavy cats especially versus hittite and not just cheap-ass centurions (although you could still give them that)
    Previous Egypt strat:

    Build stables, towers, stables - scythes/ballista tower upgrades
    Build archery ranges/temples - for support, get relevant techs
    Use scythes to mix into what ever units the enemy sends in, towers to provide cover, mobile CAs, priests for some conversions (eles?) but mostly healing

    If plenty of scythes are still standing counter (keep stables training) go after forwards

    Keep repeating until enemy runs out of gold.
    and where did you get this strat as original? more like someone neglects to use better more tactics.
    Volume Egypt (armored eles, plus gold bonus, plus shield):

    Build stables, armored eles upgrade - rush
    Farm earlier, scythe upgrades - switch back to above strat
    if i had done the above, i would say i would be rushed.

    my strat can include the above but however, i am not dependent on the first 'Build stables, armored eles upgrade - rush' nor anybody should be. armored elephants since have to be upgraded may be slow. instead i use scythe chariot and chariot archer first and war elephants and elephant archer as backup. when i get to armored elephants then i can have a better assault/defense buffer.
    Rasteve Egypt (better gold bonus):

    Same as original strat, but use ele archers as well as chariot archers, more priests
    i would include the same but also use war elephants as buffer.
    As you can see - the two proposed changes will have completely different outcomes. The free-coinage alone will boost their current strat, but with armored eles there is a different strat altogether.
    false. but with armored eles there is an enhanced strat altogether. armored elephants vice war elephants can mainly enhance the position as a defense buffer or launch the same but more meaningful assault. and besides you did add it into your wedsaz's balancing patch and i foresaw why and it was enhance the defense/assault and make it more meaningful rather than piecemeal.
    Balancing via tweaking than balancing via major changes is not berserk. Tweaking to balance is to improve quality (best quality = all civs have unique strats with strengths and weaknesses, using strengths to win and/or exploiting weaknesses to win). It is no good giving all civs which can beat hittite siege armored eles, when I could just tone down hittite siege?
    now that you say this. okay, so instead of countering the strong hittite siege, you want to make it a joke and make it weaker hittite siege instead? i only asked to enhance their current unit and to be more meaningful. i didnt ask to add a whole new unit altogether. for example, i asked to upgrade some armored elephants NOT give them a whole new line of cavalry. if they didnt had the war elephant to begin with then i would not ask to give them all war elephant, armored elephant and elephant archer.
    HHA in teams from my experience. Plus don't forget archer wars. I don't always see eles when facing hitt (okay, some go straight for hcats, but it is not uncommon to see a bunch of hha).
    and when i bring the hcats i kill the hha. someone who doesnt use eles with hittite either gotten to the point where they already had completely owned somebody or they were negligent and fail to enhance their rush.
    You see, if I change tech trees for egypt, I will have to consider changing others on the same basis "too strong, too weak".
    then do so right? what about your consideration for assyrian hha? i dont see extra shields for their cavalry be any meaningful. also you proposing cheaper units is just too 'cheap' in quality, appeal and thoughtfulness.
    I don't understand why assy didn't get this. It won't affect RM games (considering mass CA is a valid strat) but will also help them in DM.
    this is one of the same reasons why i also suggest armored elephant for egypt and sumer! whats wrong with enhancing their unit to enhance their strat? i didnt say lets give them a whole new line or everything to own everybody.
    Well it is no doubt hitt hcats rule. Nothing comes close (unless it wants a rock on their head ). The hcats are too strong, and when you do get some units over they spend too long hacking it down. With 50%, siege vs siege will still be in hitt favour, and adding the fact all catapults have +1 minimum range, they are more vunerable to land units.
    i think with double the HP, their hcats were intended to withstand damage better. unfortunately 50% seems for senseless i.e. hittite hcat 300HP vs 225HP and what about cat and ST being 75 + 50%? how does that work? i would say although it may be necessary it would also be very senseless as well to everyone else.
    Hittite needs a weakness, and it could be the fact that unguarded hcats could be destroyed with ease (with good micro). Having all your hcats bunched up will add to the casulties, as the minimum range will be higher.
    a bunch of heavy cats could still beat a bunch of cavalry despite risking casualties to themselves and could possibly reduce casualties with 'attack ground' and their damage radius. i dont think weakening their strength of their strongest unit is any of a good idea. the only weakness i could perceive is early rushing them in their town particularly in bronze and their navy. not realistically take away their 'tip of the blade' by depleting their current units or their attributes.
    Tech Tree Changes
    We could go down the route of changing tech trees but I think it would suit the game better by only modifying attributes and bonuses.

    Egypt - if scythes need a boost, why not +40% hp?
    Assy - we could stick with the current +2 pierce for all cav
    Hitt - tone down ship and siege dominance
    Wheel - it makes it more interesting having different villager speeds
    only modifying attributes and bonuses is rather piecemeal and thoughtless. its the same as with this hittite issue where you attempt to take away elephants.

    Egypt - a scythe boost to +40% from +33% alone is definitely piecemeal and NOT thoughtful nor even meaningful.
    Assy - the +2 shield for all cav seems out of order and not particularly meaningful but rather out of nowhere.
    Hitt - we can tone down the ship but i dont know about the siege. maybe we can try tweaking with everybody sieges minimum range to be little more?
    Wheel - it makes it more loathsome and not appealing for that civ to be played should they lack the wheel. and whats next? lack fire. or how about arent they suppose to discover fire and the wheel before they get out of stone age? what if that didnt happen and they are stuck in the stone age? then what?

    [This message has been edited by volume (edited 11-21-2009 @ 06:22 AM).]

    Rasteve
    Clubman
    posted 11-21-09 11:30 AM ET (US)     221 / 269       
    iron may not be the defining age for all civs but someone at iron generally beats someone at bronze. you have more units and flexiblity in iron. i also should laugh at the cav running into my woodies without toolworking or leather too! the few times that happend to me, my woodies simply 'amateur-jihad' and took down the cav with including with a quick few towers while pumping extra peons elsewhere to replace the lost. i actually beat the best rusher at the time doing this. considering a cav without toolworking or leather is nothing more than a slightly stronger scout. i only lost a quarter of my woodies which were quickly reinforced. now chariot archers without artisanship is irrelevant, however, missing the wheel IS relevant! missing the wheel puts you at a huge disadvantage with management, rushing, being rushed, even getting the chariot archer or to iron or should i say even a difference between victory or defeat since you like to disregard iron? a lot of RM ending up being one rushed by the other means the one being rushed has no chance to counter it including missing wheel or is a newbie. i would say wheel is perhaps the first thing i would research when i hit bronze. i dont have to worry about toolworking or leather since i would of already gotten that on my way to bronze. and artisanship is of later concern.
    If a rush involves 1 cavalry and the woodies take it out with a few loses, you lose food and wood. A few seconds after taking the cav down 1 or 2 more show up... without walling and/or units you are dead. Alternatively, the rush involves 2-3 initial cavalry! Wheel doesn't matter for rushing, unless it is something like CA or Compies.

    In competitive games you are struggling for resources throughout. If one player starts amassing 40 CAs, you need the same - Iron Age is not a priority. With someone like Choson you can't do anything until the Iron - so you wall and play defensive until you get there.
    but are you saying villager speed is completely irrelevant? afraid not. and more like in DM persia has to quickly rush with elephants and horse archers and if not rather piecemeal, they cant get away from being rushed. mace is even worse as it comes down to they only have their centurions to defend with.
    Like with RM, the wheel only shows its benefit during the mid-latter stages. The most deadly early exchanges are not dependant on villager speed, but unit bonuses.
    and where did you get this strat as original? more like someone neglects to use better more tactics.
    It works very well in RoR. You use a lot of towers and CA to defend your spot, with priests constantly healing and converting (healing being the priority) and scythes go out and act as a meat shield. You have stables around the edge of your town mixed with towers to slow down the enemy. You have 50+ villies on wood alone, and try to starve the other player of gold (constant scythe raiding gold spots, killing gold units etc). If done right it works very well. I have seen this done on IGZ, and have discussed it with DM players.

    Although I am a noob - even Suppy and Fruity can tell you from one particular game I held onto my town throughout the game - resulting in a stalemate (i.e. no gold!).
    if i had done the above, i would say i would be rushed.

    my strat can include the above but however, i am not dependent on the first 'Build stables, armored eles upgrade - rush' nor anybody should be. armored elephants since have to be upgraded may be slow. instead i use scythe chariot and chariot archer first and war elephants and elephant archer as backup. when i get to armored elephants then i can have a better assault/defense buffer.
    On 200 pop limit anyone with eles go for eles from the beginning.
    i would include the same but also use war elephants as buffer.
    Eles are not a defensive unit - they get siegecraft and blast damage - you want them running into enemy forwards, towers and towns.
    false. but with armored eles there is an enhanced strat altogether. armored elephants vice war elephants can mainly enhance the position as a defense buffer or launch the same but more meaningful assault. and besides you did add it into your wedsaz's balancing patch and i foresaw why and it was enhance the defense/assault and make it more meaningful rather than piecemeal.
    Wedsaz's patch was his own suggestions, I neither agreed or disagreed as such threads were made and finished a long time before my time. A lot of work went into it, and as a testament to its history with AoEH I thought it would be a good patch to make.

    On 200 pop eles are the rush unit.
    now that you say this. okay, so instead of countering the strong hittite siege, you want to make it a joke and make it weaker hittite siege instead? i only asked to enhance their current unit and to be more meaningful. i didnt ask to add a whole new unit altogether. for example, i asked to upgrade some armored elephants NOT give them a whole new line of cavalry. if they didnt had the war elephant to begin with then i would not ask to give them all war elephant, armored elephant and elephant archer.
    No I am applying logic to make the least amount of changes to 1 problem - Hitt siege. As already stated - AoE uses a method whereby a civ must have the prerequisite tech and prior unit to get the super unit. In this case Egypt miss shields, so war eles cannot become armored.
    and when i bring the hcats i kill the hha. someone who doesnt use eles with hittite either gotten to the point where they already had completely owned somebody or they were negligent and fail to enhance their rush.
    Some like saving gold for hcats, using ha/hha to harass forwards. In team games a choson-hittite combo does well without making 1 ele.
    then do so right? what about your consideration for assyrian hha? i dont see extra shields for their cavalry be any meaningful. also you proposing cheaper units is just too 'cheap' in quality, appeal and thoughtfulness.
    Because of the knock-on effects in all forms of the game (RM, DM, map types, size, teams etc). The extra shields make for a good rush, less loses to towers/hha etc.

    The goal is to make good strats possible - if a unit is cheaper more can be made, more risk will be taken with the unit, and more resources may be available for other units/techs.

    Yamato with and without horse cost bonus? I wouldn't say that this reduces quality, appeal and thoughtfulness.
    this is one of the same reasons why i also suggest armored elephant for egypt and sumer! whats wrong with enhancing their unit to enhance their strat? i didnt say lets give them a whole new line or everything to own everybody.
    The easiest DM strat is AE + Hcats. Giving more civs this combo will throw out their current strats. It would be better to enhance their current state of play rather than change it.
    i think with double the HP, their hcats were intended to withstand damage better. unfortunately 50% seems for senseless i.e. hittite hcat 300HP vs 225HP and what about cat and ST being 75 + 50%? how does that work? i would say although it may be necessary it would also be very senseless as well to everyone else.
    Well in siege war we have 150hp vs 225hp and not 150 vs 300. Also, it is possible to get units up to the hcats but you have a second or 2 to get a few hits in - and these are not nearly enough to make any kills. Most kills are from "friendly fire". Changing the strat makes hitt players think - "wait, I need to put something in front" - possibly scythes to slow down rushing units.

    Stone throwers/catapults have no effect on DM, and in RM they are not massively common - sometimes 1 or 2 behind CA lines. Anyway, their hp will be either 112 or 113, depending on how the engine copes with fractions (possibly 112).

    BTW - with 50% they still withstand damage, but not at the OP way they used to. Who knows without testing - 50% may still be too high?
    a bunch of heavy cats could still beat a bunch of cavalry despite risking casualties to themselves and could possibly reduce casualties with 'attack ground' and their damage radius. i dont think weakening their strength of their strongest unit is any of a good idea. the only weakness i could perceive is early rushing them in their town particularly in bronze and their navy. not realistically take away their 'tip of the blade' by depleting their current units or their attributes.
    Well, for almost 12 years players have complained about hitt siege. The only positive comments: "they rulez" - which says it all. MinRange+ and HP- will balance them. They shouldn't rule, and even if they did, they should have a weakness. You say rush them - but they get armored eles. You say take away their tip of the blade - but they are bringing a gun to a knife fight.
    only modifying attributes and bonuses is rather piecemeal and thoughtless. its the same as with this hittite issue where you attempt to take away elephants.
    Adding armored eles to all civs which cannot beat hitt is piecemeal and thoughtless. It disregards their current strats completely. Modifying bonuses/attributes across civs and all units is more thoughtful.
    Egypt - a scythe boost to +40% from +33% alone is definitely piecemeal and NOT thoughtful nor even meaningful.
    Scythe is the main egypt DM unit - if it is too weak they it could be strengthened.
    Assy - the +2 shield for all cav seems out of order and not particularly meaningful but rather out of nowhere.
    It gives them a more meaningful cataphract rush strat, and something more in RM iron.
    Hitt - we can tone down the ship but i dont know about the siege. maybe we can try tweaking with everybody sieges minimum range to be little more?
    We can change the one problem unit.
    Wheel - it makes it more loathsome and not appealing for that civ to be played should they lack the wheel. and whats next? lack fire. or how about arent they suppose to discover fire and the wheel before they get out of stone age? what if that didnt happen and they are stuck in the stone age? then what?
    Well, it is a wheel tech not the discovery of the wheel - and it is a gameplay choice and not real-life model. If you can't stand lack of wheel it is a personal choice - but I can find Persian/Macedonian RM and DM games on Voobly and GameRanger no problem. That includes vs "wheel" civs. They have specific strats but need to punch a hole into the enemy before the wheel (which boosts eco) comes into affect. Mace also get the LOS bonus which actually makes them very good at rushing.

    If you play without rushing then the wheel is more important.
    Suppiluliuma
    AoEH Seraph
    posted 11-22-09 11:40 AM ET (US)     222 / 269       
    Although I am a noob - even Suppy and Fruity can tell you from one particular game I held onto my town throughout the game - resulting in a stalemate (i.e. no gold!).
    Oh i remember that. Yeah i'm a noob as well and my butt has been kicked awfully by expert egyptian players even when i have played as hittite, but considering that Rasteve is about the same skill as me (well i think he's way better, but for the reasons of this therad let's say that) and hold with Egypt against the unleashed hittite power (lol) demostrates that egyptians, even in deathmatches aren't as sucky as one may think.
    volume
    Clubman
    posted 11-22-09 12:29 PM ET (US)     223 / 269       
    If a rush involves 1 cavalry and the woodies take it out with a few loses, you lose food and wood. A few seconds after taking the cav down 1 or 2 more show up... without walling and/or units you are dead. Alternatively, the rush involves 2-3 initial cavalry! Wheel doesn't matter for rushing, unless it is something like CA or Compies.

    In competitive games you are struggling for resources throughout. If one player starts amassing 40 CAs, you need the same - Iron Age is not a priority. With someone like Choson you can't do anything until the Iron - so you wall and play defensive until you get there.
    for the few cavalry that are unarmed and unarmored and taken out with a few loses, you are supposed to reinforce them by quickly building a tower or two and simply either rush in additional units and/or send your new ones to chop elsewhere. if you do what the computer does and simply rush all vills in only then of course the loss is going to be on your factor. likewise with a few loss in food and time in wood, they lost some more food and gold and perhaps time because it didnt faze you being rushed. trust me, i know the scenario more than a few times. now if it was chariot archer or compies, then its a different story and you may (including with wheel) definitely need to flee your vills and outrun them. likewise if you have no experience taking down the 2-3 few cavalry or so or if there is more, then you need (especially with wheel) to flee your vills.

    anyways, iron or not wheel makes a huge difference. that means i can easily pull the rush on mace or persia compared to someone with wheel.
    Like with RM, the wheel only shows its benefit during the mid-latter stages. The most deadly early exchanges are not dependant on villager speed, but unit bonuses.
    no it is NOT. the wheel benefits immediately and in the long run. the only definite unit bonus would be the assyrian and hittite bonus. in general, rushing or not, it all depends on your civs speed and the wheel represents that otherwise you would not have your prerequisite for engines of war even.
    It works very well in RoR. You use a lot of towers and CA to defend your spot, with priests constantly healing and converting (healing being the priority) and scythes go out and act as a meat shield. You have stables around the edge of your town mixed with towers to slow down the enemy. You have 50+ villies on wood alone, and try to starve the other player of gold (constant scythe raiding gold spots, killing gold units etc). If done right it works very well. I have seen this done on IGZ, and have discussed it with DM players.

    Although I am a noob - even Suppy and Fruity can tell you from one particular game I held onto my town throughout the game - resulting in a stalemate (i.e. no gold!).
    like i had said still lacks more better tactics. you can include the above but lets say for example i add in war elephant to act as better assault/meat shield or you say no gold and its a stalemate? no problem! thats when i jihad!
    On 200 pop limit anyone with eles go for eles from the beginning.
    really? i did this with 50 pop even. i can throw some in but note i had said i send in the faster unit in first?
    Eles are not a defensive unit - they get siegecraft and blast damage - you want them running into enemy forwards, towers and towns.
    war elephants dont have siegecraft and the idea is to send them into the enemy lands to keep them busy since they can withstand alot, not just simply have them 'stand guard' at home. the fact that egypt dont have any siege is also why i wanted armored elephants not simply for siegecraft but also they got better protection especially versus towers. and besides egypt only has such main units being the chariot and elephant, so why not give them at regular all techs associated? all is missing is just the shields.
    Wedsaz's patch was his own suggestions, I neither agreed or disagreed as such threads were made and finished a long time before my time. A lot of work went into it, and as a testament to its history with AoEH I thought it would be a good patch to make.

    On 200 pop eles are the rush unit.
    ok but you still made the patch didnt you? meaning you had to suggest or figured of something.

    eles are rush unit regardless. so whats the problem?
    No I am applying logic to make the least amount of changes to 1 problem - Hitt siege. As already stated - AoE uses a method whereby a civ must have the prerequisite tech and prior unit to get the super unit. In this case Egypt miss shields, so war eles cannot become armored.
    and what logic are you applying? so instead of enhancing civs to counter hittite siege you are instead going to be like 'oh hittites the strongest civs. i want to make them weak instead'. as in the case of egypt miss shields to become armored then whats wrong with giving them it? it will also enhance their scythe chariot and give them more protection especially versus towers.
    Some like saving gold for hcats, using ha/hha to harass forwards. In team games a choson-hittite combo does well without making 1 ele.
    the concept is that simple, but it is unfortunately not since eles can withstand that much and can usually disrupt things as well. as for a team game, yes you can do without but still you can enhance the play and btw it kind of seems alot of friendly fire on choson-hittite dont you think?
    Because of the knock-on effects in all forms of the game (RM, DM, map types, size, teams etc). The extra shields make for a good rush, less loses to towers/hha etc.

    The goal is to make good strats possible - if a unit is cheaper more can be made, more risk will be taken with the unit, and more resources may be available for other units/techs.

    Yamato with and without horse cost bonus? I wouldn't say that this reduces quality, appeal and thoughtfulness.
    knock-on effects? nonsense. whatever. extra shields dont make for good rush but at least offers better protection agains towers and hha etc.

    a cheaper unit is just plain 'cheap'. hell why not send in some unarmed armorless weak units to go fight instead? piecemeal. for more resources being available for other units/techs is what resource gathering is for, otherwise whats the point of gathering resources?

    for horse units, perhaps there was really no other much meaningful bonus to give them. at least, yamatos horse cost bonus does not lack 'regular quality'. for example their best cataphract and hha dont lack attack, armor, range or nobility HP. however, since you are going to include cav get shield upgrades, they lack tower shield, so perhaps lets give them that? i say the japanese had some retangular shield they used with those scythes or halberd-like weapons.
    The easiest DM strat is AE + Hcats. Giving more civs this combo will throw out their current strats. It would be better to enhance their current state of play rather than change it.
    giving more civs that combo is not going throw out their current strats. AE + Hcats is only a DM standard. they can still do the same strats as well as enhance it. and besides, i didnt say lets give everybody eles, armored elephants and Hcats. i only said lets upgrade the elephant to be armored.
    Well in siege war we have 150hp vs 225hp and not 150 vs 300. Also, it is possible to get units up to the hcats but you have a second or 2 to get a few hits in - and these are not nearly enough to make any kills. Most kills are from "friendly fire". Changing the strat makes hitt players think - "wait, I need to put something in front" - possibly scythes to slow down rushing units.

    Stone throwers/catapults have no effect on DM, and in RM they are not massively common - sometimes 1 or 2 behind CA lines. Anyway, their hp will be either 112 or 113, depending on how the engine copes with fractions (possibly 112).

    BTW - with 50% they still withstand damage, but not at the OP way they used to. Who knows without testing - 50% may still be too high?
    well if it is siege war, i think the purpose is to have hittite be the factor. other than that, i see no reason to have something else. since you say most kills are from 'friendly fire' then that is what the double HP bonus of hittites siege is intended for so they can withstand better. making them less than double results in this meaningless. you obviously not going to simply only have siege only in a regular battle so to be attacked by cavalry.

    lowering stone thrower/catapult makes them even more meaningless.

    50% too high? i would have to call you out on that. thats BS. i would say too low considering the too small difference it is withstanding attack or even friendly fire. with your 50% too high suggestion, which is going to be a wrong suggestion everybody will tell you. more like 'i think hittite is too strong so lets make them totally weak instead'. it all comes down that this HP thing attempting to weaken that would result in a meaningless bonus.
    Well, for almost 12 years players have complained about hitt siege. The only positive comments: "they rulez" - which says it all. MinRange+ and HP- will balance them. They shouldn't rule, and even if they did, they should have a weakness. You say rush them - but they get armored eles. You say take away their tip of the blade - but they are bringing a gun to a knife fight.
    wow the complaint about hittite siege was apparently 'they rulez'. i can see the minrange+ being manageable and could do something but the HP- however will make their purpose less meaningful. i dont how that supposed to balance out. and what you mean they shouldnt rule? so instead you say they should rather suck? apply your weakness elsewhere. i say rush them but that is in either tool or bronze or even initial iron. nothing wrong with them having armored elephants. i did not say take away their tip of the blade. i said you instead want to do that and make them weak instead. they are supposed to be the gun but you need to also be the gun.
    Adding armored eles to all civs which cannot beat hitt is piecemeal and thoughtless. It disregards their current strats completely. Modifying bonuses/attributes across civs and all units is more thoughtful.
    did i say to add armored eles to all civs? only to those that would seem fit and can help them beat hittite. even alone armored elephants can disrupt some hha and hcats. it does not disregard anyones current strat but enhances it with even better protection. modifying bonuses/attributes across civs and all units alone is not thoughtful enough.
    Scythe is the main egypt DM unit - if it is too weak they it could be strengthened.
    and how you propose them to be strengthened? easily beaten by other virtually every iron unit especially missile fire. so lets make them research shields!
    It gives them a more meaningful cataphract rush strat, and something more in RM iron.
    not much of worthy add on to such strat and is seemingly out of proportion out of nowhere. although they can use cataphracts i dont think its a main strat is it?
    We can change the one problem unit.
    how is that?
    Well, it is a wheel tech not the discovery of the wheel - and it is a gameplay choice and not real-life model. If you can't stand lack of wheel it is a personal choice - but I can find Persian/Macedonian RM and DM games on Voobly and GameRanger no problem. That includes vs "wheel" civs. They have specific strats but need to punch a hole into the enemy before the wheel (which boosts eco) comes into affect. Mace also get the LOS bonus which actually makes them very good at rushing.

    If you play without rushing then the wheel is more important.
    as quoted from the game manual under Researching technology: The Sumerians are credited with inventing both the wheel and writing around 3500 BC. The invention of writing, especially, was a gradual process. Both technologies provided immediate and easily understood benefits that persist today. The wheel made carts possible, greatly improving the efficiency of moving goods. The wheel was also a prerequisite for the chariot and other engines of war.

    'mace and persia has no wheel! lets take away their siege!'

    i have found mace and persia to be no problem without the wheel but they just truly suck to play. as quoted from the same Voobly, GameRanger, even the old IGZ etc. 'they lack the wheel. ouch!' so lets raise their appeal to be the same as everybody else? unless they rush at tool, they are handicapped at bronze.

    [This message has been edited by volume (edited 11-22-2009 @ 12:44 PM).]

    Aran
    Clubman
    posted 11-22-09 01:05 PM ET (US)     224 / 269       
    Egiptian and Armored Elephant. I don't think so. Egiptian Priests can easily convert anything they want. This is the best defensive unit in the game. But they could have better Light Inflantry.

    Macedonia and Persia wheel. I say yes. Two of them were conquers of the world and they would be more playfull. But Macedonia could have worse LOS bonus or less units.

    Hittite have the best land army. My proposition for this civ is lack of Centurions and Eles and Scythes. They will be more range Civ. Another sugestion is no Enginnering and Heavy Catapults and Scythes. Next sugestions is no Balistic and Enignering.
    Suppiluliuma
    AoEH Seraph
    posted 11-22-09 01:49 PM ET (US)     225 / 269       
    Well Aran i think if we do that to the hittiets they would end as another persian or shang like civ and that would be a bit too extreme (specially if we remove the ballistics)
    « Previous Page  1 ··· 7 8 9 10 11  Next Page »
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames