AOE3 Forums

i have not tried this but i imagine it would work. the idea is: instead of playing for 40 mins building up eco, THEN fighting, play DM, and make it NR 3mins, or 5, or 6.

 the benefits: france would be nerfed to the extent that spamming cuirs endlessly would no longer be a viable tactic, as in (say 3 mins) u dont have time to get full eco, and (as in dm on nilla, i dont have tad) if u spammed cuirs ud die.

 also, games would be quicker / more fun as u spend 3 mins building up (eco done for u) instead of 30/40

also, games would be more balanced as you could not afford to spam endless cannons, or waste eco as u can with bad micro but op units (france......) in the average treaty game with fur trade, which brings me to....

FUR TRADE!!!!!! nerfed. gone. kaput. seeya

 as i say i have not tried this and it is just an idea i have thought for a while that NR treaty players should try out. theres pluses which ive shown u, (and im sure more) and im sure theres minuses but treaty on twc(never played,never gonna on tad) was so amazingly unbalanced and stupid as a game mode that im sure the pluses ive shown, on their own would outweigh whatever negatives may arise with trial of this game type

 so, in conclusion, go and try it out and tell me if it works :)

ps, i should imagine, though france is nerfed, russia would still be hugely OP. but so is german on nilla dm, just refuse to vs russia and the other civs should be fairly well balanced (i would guess brit would become v strong but the likes of otto could now be used competatively where they have 0 chance at the mo vs the better civs.

me too :) i only play dm now, but i thought it was a good idea for the reasons i stated.

 you say bad idea, for what reasons?

german is op in dm, normal dm, because of their rush/mercs. in this new game type german would not be op because you would have time to amass an army of your choosing. i would think german would be a balanced civ in a nr DM game, with strong quick eco and good units, but they can definitely be beaten head on by dutch,brit,otto,french (ofc), port, so theyre ok

 russia yes would be op, as i say juat refuse to play vs russia in dm.

 just try it :P

mikeypikey1:

i have not tried this but i imagine it would work. the idea is: instead of playing for 40 mins building up eco, THEN fighting, play DM, and make it NR 3mins, or 5, or 6.

 the benefits: france would be nerfed to the extent that spamming cuirs endlessly would no longer be a viable tactic, as in (say 3 mins) u dont have time to get full eco, and (as in dm on nilla, i dont have tad) if u spammed cuirs ud die.

 also, games would be quicker / more fun as u spend 3 mins building up (eco done for u) instead of 30/40

also, games would be more balanced as you could not afford to spam endless cannons, or waste eco as u can with bad micro but op units (france......) in the average treaty game with fur trade, which brings me to....

FUR TRADE!!!!!! nerfed. gone. kaput. seeya

 as i say i have not tried this and it is just an idea i have thought for a while that NR treaty players should try out. theres pluses which ive shown u, (and im sure more) and im sure theres minuses but treaty on twc(never played,never gonna on tad) was so amazingly unbalanced and stupid as a game mode that im sure the pluses ive shown, on their own would outweigh whatever negatives may arise with trial of this game type

 so, in conclusion, go and try it out and tell me if it works :)

ps, i should imagine, though france is nerfed, russia would still be hugely OP. but so is german on nilla dm, just refuse to vs russia and the other civs should be fairly well balanced (i would guess brit would become v strong but the likes of otto could now be used competatively where they have 0 chance at the mo vs the better civs.

I just feel like thats a dumd statement i play it for the challenge not the quick games or for rank i love a long challenge it takes skill to play treay!

i'm not a treaty player (i play Sup) but from the one treaty game 'ive played, except for the 40 mins before treaty ends DM is ALMOST the same thing, battles with countless units.

and now i agree with the sentence one someone's sig "Don't play treaty, play DM, it skips the boring part"

someday i'll try treaty again(on the rare days i have more than 2 free hours in a row), but now my opinion is this.

BTW, i know some of you will flame me for this...
 

s0me0ne-else:

i'm not a treaty player (i play Sup) but from the one treaty game 'ive played, except for the 40 mins before treaty ends DM is ALMOST the same thing, battles with countless units.

and now i agree with the sentence one someone's sig "Don't play treaty, play DM, it skips the boring part"

someday i'll try treaty again(on the rare days i have more than 2 free hours in a row), but now my opinion is this.

 

BTW, i know some of you will flame me for this...
 

Nah, I agree. Nr 40 is a massive bore fest. Play nr 30 instead, its like that except u either dont have enough time to make massive stockpiles of resources or upgrade ur units. U actually have to make a tactical choice here...

Nr 10 is also good, although admittedly a little, teensy wennsy bit broken (Just from strats like the Otto fast revolt and)

Nr 20 is good as well, it gives u an even more paramount choice, rush the opponent or continue to boom. Its like a high end sup game.

mikeypikey1:

also, games would be more balanced as you could not afford to spam endless cannons, or waste eco as u can with bad micro but op units (france......) in the average treaty game with fur trade, which brings me to....

FUR TRADE!!!!!! nerfed. gone. kaput. seeya

advanced market + furtrade....

 you can probably buy back the food with more gold left over then you started
 

blade19:

you cant hit age V in DM and treaty is fun takes more skills than to spam units with supplies you dont even gather yourself.