Fixed Rogues shifted to the end of the Unit Pool after the most recent update. In (iOS)

Carnalvore

New Member
I was attempting Guild Expedition this morning after installing the newest update. When I was selecting units it appeared that all of my Rogues have been deleted. I had to scroll through 12 ages of unattached units to find a Rogue (I use rogues more than any other unit).

Should "All Ages" units populate first in the "All Ages" search criteria? I believe the Rogues should populate first, as they always have. I'm not sure what the Devs are thinking here.
 

Briwol

New Member
I was attempting Guild Expedition this morning after installing the newest update. When I was selecting units it appeared that all of my Rogues have been deleted. I had to scroll through 12 ages of unattached units to find a Rogue (I use rogues more than any other unit).

Should "All Ages" units populate first in the "All Ages" search criteria? I believe the Rogues should populate first, as they always have. I'm not sure what the Devs are thinking here.

Yes, I agree completely!!! this is a complete pain in the azz. I hope this is corrected quickly as fighting G.E. is no longer even fun. Due to the Pain of scrolling through every single troop I have to get to the rogues . Ps I use iOS on iPad
 
This has always been the case with Android, but if you click on the Light Unit Tab, (the little boot) it would bring up Rogues 1st and other light units 2nd.
 

Carnalvore

New Member
This has always been the case with Android, but if you click on the Light Unit Tab, (the little boot) it would bring up Rogues 1st and other light units 2nd.
Clicking the light unit tab sorts it out a little, however the rogues still populate last on iOS. I asked support how to revert to a prior version lol. They said I should complain here.
 
Not sure where to post this but in Angkor and Langendorn multiple players whose towns are in the Middle Ages are being attacked by players in the Modern Ages and Other ages higher than their current age. We've started a ticket several times but whoever is dealing with it doesn't seem to understand the problem. Thanks attacking people who have crossbows seems a little unrealistic. Multiple guild members are threatening to quit the game. Help!
 

sloppyjoeslayer

Well-Known Member
Not sure where to post this but in Angkor and Langendorn multiple players whose towns are in the Middle Ages are being attacked by players in the Modern Ages and Other ages higher than their current age. We've started a ticket several times but whoever is dealing with it doesn't seem to understand the problem. Thanks attacking people who have crossbows seems a little unrealistic. Multiple guild members are threatening to quit the game. Help!
You can get higher age units through the questline, not that you really need to with all the military GB's and Rogues anyway. So you'll just have to suffer with no hope in ever getting revenge because, well, the old merge system was worse so that makes the bad mergers now okay I guess, or something like that I've been told anyway.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Not sure where to post this but in Angkor and Langendorn multiple players whose towns are in the Middle Ages are being attacked by players in the Modern Ages and Other ages higher than their current age. We've started a ticket several times but whoever is dealing with it doesn't seem to understand the problem. Thanks attacking people who have crossbows seems a little unrealistic. Multiple guild members are threatening to quit the game. Help!
It's not a problem, it's by design. As sloppy mentioned, it used to be a lot worse. Tell your ready-to-quit friends that being attacked doesn't hurt them at all. Being plundered can be addressed by collecting on time so that there's nothing there to plunder.
 

sloppyjoeslayer

Well-Known Member
It's not a problem, it's by design. As sloppy mentioned, it used to be a lot worse.
Actually I qualified my statement with ..
so that makes the bad mergers now okay I guess, or something like that I've been told anyway.
Which sets the tone quite differently as I advocate for a weight class type merge, so I still see a problem regardless of the severity relative to the old merge.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
Actually I qualified my statement with ..

Which sets the tone quite differently as I advocate for a weight class type merge, so I still see a problem regardless of the severity relative to the old merge.
Okay. Doesn't change the veracity of my statement, and I wasn't setting a tone. I just agreed that the old way was worse because it was.

Even if they change it as you advocate I don't see that it makes much difference, there will still be players who can wipe the floor with my defensive army, and against whom I have no chance in a revenge attack, and I'll still have to collect on time to avoid being plundered. Doesn't matter if they're in a higher age or if they're in the same age with much higher A/D bonuses and using next-age troops.
 

sloppyjoeslayer

Well-Known Member
Even if they change it as you advocate I don't see that it makes much difference, there will still be players who can wipe the floor with my defensive army, and against whom I have no chance in a revenge attack, and I'll still have to collect on time to avoid being plundered.
It's not about plunder as to why I advocate for such but to the point I think maybe if they structure it right you would have a chance at revenge and there wouldn't be steamrolling, facerolling etc. I wouldn't think either as the whole point of a class system is to fix all that so not sure why you believe it wouldn't make a difference.
 
The higher level players weren't there until a few weeks back. So you're saying we'll always have people several levels above us that can take what they want when they want it? I thought this game was supposed to be fun and about strategy. There is no strategy involved when you use tank against arrows.
 

Graviton

Well-Known Member
The higher level players weren't there until a few weeks back. So you're saying we'll always have people several levels above us that can take what they want when they want it?
Yes, there will always be somebody in your hood who can beat your defense. Even if you're #1, I'd bet at least one person could do it.

But they can't take whatever they want unless you leave it laying around for them to take. Collecting on time is always a good strategy. If you're being plundered repeatedly by the same guy, adjusting your collection time is part of a good defensive strategy. A bad strategy IMO is depending on your defensive army to keep your uncollected stuff safe.
 

sloppyjoeslayer

Well-Known Member
I thought this game was supposed to be fun and about strategy.
The game is what you make it actually Playstyle Variants of FoE. Also the game started out mainly as a PvP game because aside from city building that's all there was but a lot has been added and changed since then. The CEO considers it mainly a city building game. I consider it a GvG game. Some consider it a GE game and of course lots of others listed in the link.

The imbalance in the hoods will hopefully one day be reevaluated by IG, perhaps they need another proposal. I would vote yes.

oh and look how far back the complaints go lol

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/get-rid-of-thugs-in-your-neighborhood.647/
 

Lex Lugar

New Member
When it comes to a new world like angkor the reason the hood mergers are uneven is because there are not enough players in different ages to spread it out evenly. It is always that way until the new world gets more populated and players ages more populated.
 

Lex Lugar

New Member
Not sure where to post this but in Angkor and Langendorn multiple players whose towns are in the Middle Ages are being attacked by players in the Modern Ages and Other ages higher than their current age. We've started a ticket several times but whoever is dealing with it doesn't seem to understand the problem. Thanks attacking people who have crossbows seems a little unrealistic. Multiple guild members are threatening to quit the game. Help!
ok my previous post was in response to this post