I appreciate that the information needs to be clearly communicated to the viewers but I'm somewhat disappointed that the elephant/monk changes were not expressed in terms of chonkers and honkers.
2:12 You skipped over that one, but it's HUGE, no longer will reinforcements from far away buildings have to waltz through an enemy castle, we can put waypoints to go around it!!!!
Wouldnt be surprised if the devs saw your criticism in your videos about Victors and Vanquished, haha. A whole bunch of this issues have been adressed and some of the campaigns (like Charlemagne and Otto) have received significant overhauls.
I honestly, you should REALLY go through V&V scenarios changelogs, some a borderline reworks, like the time limit removed in Fetih and time limit doesn't make you lose on Robert, big changes to enemy balance on Otto and a big reworked objectives in Charlemagne, Honestly, to me some of them deserve a replay and a re-ranking on the tierlist.
@@OrnLu_AoEprobably right tho personally as someone who really disliked V&V I’m interested in seeing if all these changes made a big difference or not.
Massive balance changes! Scorps getting balistics is going to make them much better. We'd already started to see them a lot more over the last 12-18 months. Not sure what I think about elephant conversion resistance though... That's a complete change to counters.
I always welcome a turtle ship buff! Turtle ship for the win 🐢🚢 Also, I think I can predict that Khmer will be nerfed soon, as the really feel strong with that patch... perhaps either arbalester or hissar will go (but not both)
I think it makes more sense to remove hussar. Khmer being a hussar civ feels weird. Also push them towards battle eles. And If you wanna spam LC you still can.
I couldnt disagree more with not changing things that have been in the game since forever. I feel like this kind of philosophy brings in a completly false logical fallacy arguement. The change being or not being made should always be discussed with actual pros and cons and its always been like this just cannot be one of the cons.
I half agree and half disagree. On one hand, appeal to tradition is a fallacy, on the other hand, there are things that a big number of players count on and changes could repeal them. I don't think it would be true in the case in the video, but in certain cases it can be relevant.
@MrShadowThief Well then it begs the question - do we want it to be the game we are used to or a better game than we are used to. A lot of the things that are in the game since release make it a great game and there are other arguments that can be made to not change those...might promote strategical variance, increase depth, increases player percieved agency..or might be that the multitasking defines the game and what players do to make meaningful choices that feel good. Many of the things that define the game and have been present since the release are just good mechanics and features - we dont need the argument that players are used to them and theyve been in for so long. But the argument lets not change it because its been like this is a self-fulfilling prophecy...what we dont change will remain being like its always been. To give an example of a game dynamic where many good arguments for a change can be made eventhough its always been like this is the Caste-Treb-BBC scenario which often results in a period of stalemate where the progress thats being made (res lost in repairs and trebs/BBC) doesn't promote any action in the game and it boils down to units being sent to the same place over and over again unit you cant - and the number up top has been exhausted. This could be adjusted so that this happens less likely - a stalemate were there rocks flying until no more rocks to be sent flying or to repair are available. I am not talking about any huge changes but from a game design perspective stalemates (wheter it's the castle treb one or trash war where you're selling 10food to get 3 rams) which AoE2 is very prone to are a problem.
Impressive. This is the first Update we've had in a long time, though this technically means that the AoE2 team was busy working on AoM Retold. Hopefully they can now balance resources on both fronts.
That ram bonus was super necessary imo. So far in castle wars, it's mostly a race to imp because taking down opposing castles in castle age is a nightmare if your opponent has units and relies a lot on them not actually expexting it because it's so bad.
I think if Romans are losing scorpion edge by losing they’re ballistic bonus towards scorpions, they need to fill that gap bonus. Perhaps Romans should get Ballistics for free?
I am scared about the +2 conversion resistance for the battle elephants for some maps. For example in Michi, it is already difficult to defend against a full elephant spam (pikes are not pop efficient enough, camels don't do enough bonus damage, monks require micro, mangonels only work when the elephants are clustered) if conversions take longer they might become imposible to stop (bomber towers is the only thing I think might work but they cost stone and that is a non-renewable resource, unlike food and gold in Michi).
The Romano-British mission you now get to play as Romans and Charlemagne age up requirements were drastically overhauled if you want to play those again
honestly, the scorpions change imo is gonna completely kill archers "which is fine by me i hate them' but more importantly it's gonna change so many things in the game. if you think about it, one such example would be bulgarians. scorpions would become such a great tool to allow them to extend the game to late game where they can unleash the power of the stirups spam. other examples that can fall in the same catagory would be dravidians and celts. especially that they both are infantry civs with a bonus to scorpions 'discount / health" and if scorpions are gonna become such a lethal anti CA/archer tool now then infantry civz can find themselves in a new position. mongols would also be an interesting example of which scoprions can bedcome a reliable unit to go solo cuz htey would be fast enough to micro "hit and run" and to dodge "mangonels" and to also chase slow enemies / even go after villagers.
I will never understand the devs hostility towards the militia line. Do they really think that small buffs like bringing squires to feudal age or lowering some upgrade costs would make such a rarely used unit broken?
Well, it hasn't worked now has it? So, give them some major buffs, make them overpowered for a bit. It's fine. Then, nerf them so that they are balanced. Because the opposite approach has done very little, and it's been years.
@@souloftheworld9810 Buff them to what? They're already cheap. So let's say they become as strong as TKs. Will that make them more used? No. Just as TKs aren't used much. The go-to buff that players keep suggesting is to make them fast. That just turns infantry into cavalry. That's basically giving up and accepting that nothing except cavalry and archers work.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn There are a lot of options. Give them more attack, or bonus against cavalry/siege. Make them even cheaper. Add a technology to make them cost fraction of a pop. Just because you can't think of something doesn't mean there aren't options.
@@souloftheworld9810 they could take a page from how infantries are designed in other aoe games. Like how their generalist infantries can at least soft counter cavalry while still having average speed and great at destroying buildings.
Me too. Saves 75 food on bloodlines/light cav upgrades, (to 75f, 100/50g respectively) and 300 food on winged hussar (which makes it the same total cost as hussar upgrade, but more gold-intensive). Doesn't make setting up a Folwark farming economy any easier, so I don't expect it to have a huge impact on their late-game. Poles are a bit weak on open maps, and this will make early scout gameplay easier. On closed maps, cavalier is still a more powerful option (though the buff would help with contesting relics)
Funny how all the problems with the Hussite Wagon started when they made it fire its volley all at once; maybe they should fiddle around with that instead of everything else :P
I wish they were reworked. In history there were used to make "instant fortifications" to resist cavalry charges and provide protection from arrows, but were vulnerable while on the move. I wish they would work like the trebuchet, but having resistance to cavalry and being like a tower+palisade you could deploy.
@@thomasfplm And even more, swap the Hindu unique technology with the Bohemian unique unit. Hussite wagons with siege engineers have 7 range and hand cannoneers too. The range units were meant to shoot... from behind them. So give the Bohemian HC more than 7 range.
Really good balance changes overall I would say, all Scorps affected by Ballistics and Chonkers getting conversion resistance are two changes I have been hoping to see for a long time hahah. I only hope that between the previous buffs to Scorpion HP they will not be too powerful, and they will not push CAs and Crossbows from the meta now that they got some help again. I agree that the ram bonuses were unnecessary too. Poles getting some help is okay, I feel like this doesn't help their early game that that much while at the same time their lategame is still completely unfair. I would have preferred to see Folwarks reworked to garrison vils and defend like a Fortified Church; but lose Crop Rotation as a tradeoff. Bohemian and Portuguese nerfs are... very weird. On one hand they are completely stupid in early castle (Organs are completely stupid even before that to be fair hahah), but they are so toxic currently because they also have Redemption to counter their counters. I would have touched that. Hunnic Horse is completely idiotic imo, they should have removed it and only give them a -50 wood penalty on hybrid maps, but a good start is a good start. Georgian nerf feels not nearly enough, Monaspas still ruin the civ imo. Weird Romans didn't get a compensation like cheap Ballistic... We'll hope to see Bulgarians and Sicilian help in the future, and some Militia line changes that will bring them back to the meta.
I mean, portuguese, vikings, and armenians all lacking fast fire ships... yeah, I can see thirisadai having a few more favorable matchups they can be played in now.
Disappointed there's no update to fix villagers chosing incorrect drop off point. I.e. walk 10 tiles to drop off at lumber camp instead of 5 tiles to drop off at tc
I think the deer pushing change was exactly in the wrong direction. deer pushing should be harder and take longer so the trade-off is larger. converting multiple elephants with multiple monks is easier now, bc you no longer get a fast conversion before you distributed all your monks. at least for people that arent Ganji. let me explain the battering ram buff: every battering ram is now a Celt Battering Ram. like the ballsitics add for scorpions. its particularly useful when fighting CA. which is a big issue currently. will be intersting if Aztecs are actually 15% now or the 15% that was advertised and actually 18%. I think the Poles buff went in the wrong direction.
I feel like deer pushing should be harder, but more consistent, so maybe the spawns should be further away so it takes longer, but the behavior be less frustrating
The issue was that if you got a map with deer blocked off, and your opponent did not get a map with deer blocked off, you were immediately at a disadvantage. This is to bridge that gap.
@@julianxamo7835I think deer pushing should be easier but take longer. And both of those things could be accomplished with the same change: make deer wait a fraction of a second longer after they have run before they run again.
It's been so quit for both AOE II and AOE III both games were dead for more than half year in terms of content, also player base dropping I hope they will soon anounce new DLCs, don't care about the cost make it 20€ or more IDC just add new content😂😂😂😭😭😭😭
