The game is not strategic -- it is just a bunch of micro

[Wahoostargazer]

There is no strategy to this game at all. If you can micro your units better than your opponent, you win. Units don't do anything by themselves. Hell, I had a handful of spearmen practically standing next to a couple of raiding knights and they did nothing! They just stood there while my villagers died. Units are dumb and unresponsive and even if you do manage to micro well, which is exhausting for the casual player, if you don't have a crap town of siege, you lose. How exactly is this game strategic?!?!?!? Relic needs to get a clue because no one will keep watching TheVipers, Demuslims, and Beastyqts of the world play when the average player can't compete. This may sound like moaning but I have played a ton games -- over 330 -- so I have a clue about what's going on. Relic get a clue. If you want the game to be played by more than elite micro managers, then slow the game down and rebalance siege. Not everyone should have to micro every unit in order to compete.

[EdwardCarnby]

Here's a story: do you know what a lot of high level Starcraft 2 players are complaining about? That you can't micro in this game, like compared to SC2 the units are less responsive and you can do a lot less with them than in a game like SC2 where the game is mostly about that and the economy isn't that important.

So AoE 4 isn't really about micro, sure, you have to give the attack move orders and you have to position your units but it's mostly about getting the better economy and overproducing your opponent. So I say focus on that, don't worry about micro that much as that will improve over time and the game doesn't rely on it that much anyway.

[eC_Julian]

Aoe4 isn't really a micro fest and if it was up to me I would have implemented projectiles in order to even increase the micro part of the game. Apart from that aoe4 surely is very strategic. You've kind of mastered the game when you have a very good micro and at the same time are able make great strategic decisions under high pressure. Making good strategic decisions alone without having to micro or deal with lots of things at the same time isn't really that hard and wouldn't be enough to be a better than average player anyways.

[TheDiaper]

Git gud

[Müdavim]

I agree

[sp00ky]

That's basically RTSs though? I mean if you want micro free games play something like Civilization, Crusader kings, (and maybe total war to some extent)

[FatalError]

Originally posted by Wahoostargazer:

no one will keep watching TheVipers, Demuslims, and Beastyqts of the world play when the average player can't compete.

That makes zero sense because that's literally why people watch progamers.

That's how they became progamers.

Do you even esports bro?

[Candy_Ass Bill]

Sorry - but perhaps my reading is fundamental but it does sound like your moaning.

[🍮]

coh 2 has less micro because it doesn't require you to have villagers gathering resources. it might be a better RTS for you since you don't like the micro. aoe 4 is both strategic and micro. micro/macro is often the most important thing to decide who wins. there is micro in coh2 and it's very important but there is just less micro because you aren't managing villagers at the same time as your military. while sc 2 is all about micro at the highest pro level for most players it requires less micro than aoe 4. there are less units being managed in sc 2 because most of the micro is military units. in aoe 4 you micro both military and villagers fairly often. so for a good RTS without as much micro i recommend coh 2. sc2 is another option if you aren't trying to be a pro. aoe 4 is hard to get away from the micro as even at low skill level you still need to manage lots of villagers and build structures while controlling your army. so i rate them this way for the average player starting from lowest micro requirement to highest: coh 2, sc 2, aoe 4.

[Da_Real_HydrataH]

I agree with the siege aspect - whoever can just amass a bigger siege blob tends to win.

[Cacomistle]

Starcraft players said the game was all about micro. People didn't learn basic build orders till diamond league. Legit someone did a bronze to gm series and didn't start microing their units until diamond league.

Its the same in this game. You can hit the top 20% of players by just building up stuff at home with decent macro (which does not take high apm), then boxing everything and attack moving on your opponents base.

If you do not have the macro to get an army advantage like that, then that is a strategy problem. Because its not mechanically hard to do.

[G0ll0]

Relic starcrafized the game... The game is so simple in it's mechanics that the game offers very little in strategy alternatives

[G0ll0]

Originally posted by iexist:

coh 2 has less micro because it doesn't require you to have villagers gathering resources. it might be a better RTS for you since you don't like the micro. aoe 4 is both strategic and micro. micro/macro is often the most important thing to decide who wins. there is micro in coh2 and it's very important but there is just less micro because you aren't managing villagers at the same time as your military. while sc 2 is all about micro at the highest pro level for most players it requires less micro than aoe 4. there are less units being managed in sc 2 because most of the micro is military units. in aoe 4 you micro both military and villagers fairly often. so for a good RTS without as much micro i recommend coh 2. sc2 is another option if you aren't trying to be a pro. aoe 4 is hard to get away from the micro as even at low skill level you still need to manage lots of villagers and build structures while controlling your army. so i rate them this way for the average player starting from lowest micro requirement to highest: coh 2, sc 2, aoe 4.

Lol cohw is a hell of micro game every unit has special abilities, donde the game starts the fight starts the only difference is that COH offer a lot of possibilities, commanders system, you can take out a tank with infantry, mine, another tank, anti tank weapon, air strike, even artillery etc...in age mangos only counter is sepringalds, cav is useless

[Gix]

Strategy: Which group of units should I focus on while I sacrifice my attention elsewhere?

There is no strategy to this game at all. If you can micro your units better than your opponent, you win.

I want to see you micro an archer and win vs a knight. I want to see you micro your infantry to destroy 3 keeps that protect a sacred site. "Well I wouldn't use infantry..." EXACTLY! That's called strategy!

The OP's mindset is a common rookie mindset to have because the best players are actually the ones who know how to MACRO. The reason why we tend to focus so much on pro-gamers doing awesome micro is because they're doing that WHILE macroing; that's super impressive!

Unless you're a pro-gamer who already has an advanced understanding on how to strategize and macro correctly, you will NEVER win if you focus on micro-management.

If your opponent has more stuff than you, he didn't get to that point by microing better. You didn't have a good strategy.

[Despiser]

There hasn’t been a new control scheme for handling units for decades. The old ctrl 1-9 doesn’t hold up well in the meta universe. The tendency is to queue them up and control them en masse so as to pay more attention to the economy

[EnemySpotted1334]

i agree to some extent to this,and im coming from Starcraft BroodWar...so i have some micro and macro skills.