A Medieval Attack

[Out4Blood]

What I meant by "surprisingly" is that people expect the 3 -> 2 nerf to make Mongols weaker. IMO, it'll only have a slight effect. In the end, the Mongol player kills maybe 2 villagers less...

[HalfLotus]

I've played against mongols in patch 3, and while they are still powerful, it is not blatantly overpowered the way patch 2 is. At the 4-6 minute mark, the difference between defending 4 HAs and 6 HAs is quite pronounced. Seemingly small changes make a larger impact on game balance than one might think.

Though it would be nearly impossible to accurately quantify how many fewer villagers they will kill, as that is strongly dependant on micro ability (or inability) and terrain.

[Out4Blood]

You're basically talking about a difference of 160 wood. I make ONE more stable and I've got 6 HA again. Or I could train those HAs. If having 6 HAs at an early point in time is what wins it, then you can still do that. If it is harassing folsk that wins it - you can still do that with 4.

IMO, the reason Mongols do so well (against certain folks) is that the civ bonus forces you to play a raiding game. Raiding is very effective, but most people don't do it. People who play Mongols do it a LOT and they learn to do it well.

[HalfLotus]

At higher levels of play, HA raiding loses alot of it's effectiveness. It is countered by a lower tech and cheaper unit, and provided you can micro at least a little(most good players can), you arent going to lose alot of villies. Heavy Cav raiding is another story, but Mongols don't get any of those for free.

In my experience, Mongols do well because they get so many free HA which I have to spend a good bit of food and timber very early in the game to counter (or food and wealth for archers, which is even worse). Even if he kills 0 villies he is still likely ahead in the resrouce department.

It's not a huge nerf to Mongol like I said, but it was noticeable when I _played the game_. Once again, I speak from experience, and you speak from hypotheticals. I'm glad you finally got on the MP train, but you might wanna ride a little longer before making so many judgments.

[Out4Blood]

There's no need to be so condescending.

I've played RON since it was released. I've played MP since it was released, although certainly not as much as I'd prefer, and perhaps not as much as you have - since I've been traveling out of the country quite a bit. But, I've played literally 10,000 games of various RTS games online the past several years, and during that time I've even helped game companies design and balance their games. And let me give you an insight from that experience. RTS games aren't all that different. Once you understand the mechanics of a particular game engine, you can extrapolate larger strategic possibilites. That's what I do.

Maybe once YOU'VE had more experience, you'll start to discuss things on the basis of facts instead of personal attacks.

[HalfLotus]

There's no personal attack, sorry if my post sounded gruff. I made an argument based on facts and my experience. I've played patch 3 while you're making educated guesses. With all your RTS experience you know that the only way to understand possible imbalances in a complex game is to play alot, not crunch numbers.

[Out4Blood]

Actually that's not completely true.

You do work on paper and then you test hypotheses with a game engine. Much of work in balancing a game is done on paper. Then most of the fine tuning is done with the game engine.

A great example of this is all the arguing about early classical versus COM2 on land maps. On paper early classical looks better than COM2 when you consider all the factors. The conventional wisdom and all the "experts" said I was full of crap. But lo' and behold! It is faster.

There's also a point where general RTS experience plays a considerable role. The Mongol HA nerfing provides a great example. In RTS games, fast raiding units are deadlier than they appear on paper because the slower counter units can never close the gap. Also, players who can properly micro these units can make them even MORE powerful than the typical player. Distorting their advantage. So most hardcore players immediately knew that Mongols would be pretty deadly. Even against a Mayan.

Giving them 2 instead of 3 doesn't radically alter the balance. The defender will be forced to make light cav and to station his light cav at vulnerable locations. But the Mongol player can ALSO make light cav to tank for the HA. The Mongol player wins any engagement. Also, because he'll own the initiative the Mogol will be able to strike with his entire force anywhere. The defender will need to get lucky and guess where he's attacking or run the risk of not being to defend multiple locations.
In order to have an equivalent force the defender would need to spend a LOT of resources to make HAs.

This imbalance has been reduced, but it still exists.

That's my HYPOTHESIS. You are welcome to produce facts that prove me wrong, or just describe a compelling competing hypthesis.

[HalfLotus]

Well if I have played against certain strategies and know how they work, I don't put much faith in hypotheses. But I think we basically agree on the Mongols current strength. And the early classical is not always better, but that's for another thread.

In RTS games, fast raiding units are deadlier than they appear on paper because the slower counter units can never close the gap. Also, players who can properly micro these units can make them even MORE powerful than the typical player. Distorting their advantage.

The counter to Mongol HA is light cav. It's cheaper, faster, and lower tech. The free mongol HAs are chased down and killed quite often. This is why I think raiding is not _extremely_ powerful. Heavy Cav as I said, is another story.

I like the dynamic of early game raiding in RoN very much though, I wouldn't change a thing. Much like the ancient rush, it is deadly vs an unprepared opponent, yet very manageable if they invest in proper countermeasures.

[Out4Blood]

The free mongol HAs are chased down and killed quite often

This is because most players out there are stupid. All a Mongol player needs to do to stop this is make some light cav and set them to guard the HA. 2 light cav + 4 HA vs. 2 light cav = rout.

You're right that HA plus Heavy cav attack is better, but this is more expensive and the heavies can't chase down the light cav very easily.

An alternative is to have some HI come with. Set them out beyond enemy range and lure the chasing light cav back into them.


OT: when do you play? I'm looking for some decent players to play some team games with - I hate random teams. If we're on at the same time sometimes, maybe we could link up.

[HalfLotus]

Yes, but the cav they send with the HA is not free. He must pay for it like I do. Most raiding takes place near a TC and/or Tower, and it will get few shots off and do good damage to the HA, LC. Also you have the power of garrison on your side and should not lose any military units. I haven't played any noob Mongols, most are pretty smart.

I need a good playing partner. I'm free to play on most weeknights from around 10pm-2am EST, and I usually play on the name neverlotus. My icq is 252686241, look me up.

[wd40]

Half_Lotus:

At the top of this page, click "edit" and then "Find on this page" and type in "alot".

I have nothing further.