AOE2, AOE3, or AOE 4 for someone who is new to multiplayer.

[Mastermatta]

I own all 3 and play them solo occasionally but which game has the most beginner friendly multiplayer experience?

[Kaleygh]

AoE Online is great too. It`s still around and they are always adding new civs.

[Eazy_V]

AoE 4.

AoE3 has a lot of stuff you gotta learn about the cards for each nation, AoE2 has a really high skill cealing and the game is quite hard.
AoE 4 seems simple enough and all the nations are very distinct and it's easy to learn

[Large C]

try aoe4 on ranked system, after some games you will find your ppl

[Coekie]

aoe4 imo.

[Molagbalu]

Aoe 4 will be best for you

[JMM]

If you just want to win easily, AoE3 is much better than other two. Spanish and Ottoman Fast Fortress is quite easy to learn and also dominate in low elo

[El Jeffe Epstein]

Publicado originalmente por Mastermatta:

I own all 3 and play them solo occasionally but which game has the most beginner friendly multiplayer experience?

4 is good for campaign, terrible for multiplayer. landmarks are a dumbest victory condition they ever thought up. it was meant to streamline matches, instead it has become a race to build rams the fastest and 90% of games do not go beyond the first set of rams meaning civilization balanced around late game are relegated to special custom matches where the base game rules dont disqualify them from the outset.

[Cacomistle]

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

Publicado originalmente por Mastermatta:

I own all 3 and play them solo occasionally but which game has the most beginner friendly multiplayer experience?

4 is good for campaign, terrible for multiplayer. landmarks are a dumbest victory condition they ever thought up. it was meant to streamline matches, instead it has become a race to build rams the fastest and 90% of games do not go beyond the first set of rams meaning civilization balanced around late game are relegated to special custom matches where the base game rules dont disqualify them from the outset.

Landmark snipe doesn't decide even 10% of games, let alone 90%. There are few cases where your base can be destroyed and the game is not over.

Rushes in general are not unique to aoe4. When you can't gather wood because your opponent has 10 archers in your base in aoe2, you're dead. And in aoe3, they don't even need rams because TCs don't do much damage and can't shoot without vills garrisoned. If I had to say, I'd say aoe2 is the least rush-centric, and aoe3 is the most rush-centric, but the difference is not that big.

[El Jeffe Epstein]

Publicado originalmente por Cacomistle:

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

4 is good for campaign, terrible for multiplayer. landmarks are a dumbest victory condition they ever thought up. it was meant to streamline matches, instead it has become a race to build rams the fastest and 90% of games do not go beyond the first set of rams meaning civilization balanced around late game are relegated to special custom matches where the base game rules dont disqualify them from the outset.

Landmark snipe doesn't decide even 10% of games, let alone 90%. There are few cases where your base can be destroyed and the game is not over.

Rushes in general are not unique to aoe4. When you can't gather wood because your opponent has 10 archers in your base in aoe2, you're dead. And in aoe3, they don't even need rams because TCs don't do much damage and can't shoot without vills garrisoned. If I had to say, I'd say aoe2 is the least rush-centric, and aoe3 is the most rush-centric, but the difference is not that big.

not really, and I dont even mean sniping, games being based around landmarks is stupid because it creates unnecessary defense points and weakens certain civs. Some civs have mobile landmarks where landmarks are not a problem, some civs have landmarks which can defend themselves, other civs have very few landmarks, in every edition of AoE about half the games come to an elastic defense where you can lose some of your base in order to inflict losses on your opponent or hit them somewhere in their base, AoE4 totally remove this as landmarks are necessary to survive, ruins the long term dynamic. AoE4 isnt a bad game in totality, but its a terrible version of AoE.

[Cacomistle]

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

Publicado originalmente por Cacomistle:

Landmark snipe doesn't decide even 10% of games, let alone 90%. There are few cases where your base can be destroyed and the game is not over.

Rushes in general are not unique to aoe4. When you can't gather wood because your opponent has 10 archers in your base in aoe2, you're dead. And in aoe3, they don't even need rams because TCs don't do much damage and can't shoot without vills garrisoned. If I had to say, I'd say aoe2 is the least rush-centric, and aoe3 is the most rush-centric, but the difference is not that big.

not really, and I dont even mean sniping, games being based around landmarks is stupid because it creates unnecessary defense points and weakens certain civs. Some civs have mobile landmarks where landmarks are not a problem, some civs have landmarks which can defend themselves, other civs have very few landmarks, in every edition of AoE about half the games come to an elastic defense where you can lose some of your base in order to inflict losses on your opponent or hit them somewhere in their base, AoE4 totally remove this as landmarks are necessary to survive, ruins the long term dynamic. AoE4 isnt a bad game in totality, but its a terrible version of AoE.

You gave a specific number, 90%. 90% of games are not decided in any way by the landmark system. I'm going to assume that was just an exaggeration that you didn't really mean, since the number has now dropped down to half.

Half the games don't come down to elastic defense in other aoe games either. I watch other aoe games. Lets just define it in a simple way, an elastic defense is where a player loses their main town center, and the game isn't functionally over.

I've seen maybe like 5 games of aoe3 out of like 100 I've watched where someone loses their main town center and the game isn't over. Its more common in aoe2 than aoe3, but its still well under 50% of games. Hell it only happens frequently in 2 types of games, either when 1 player castle drops, or when someone does an early castle mangonel push, and neither of those are really a thing in aoe4.

Aoe4 is more like aoe3, you just do a push with regular units and run your opponent over. Plus, the main town center in aoe4 is far tankier, and you've got 2-4 landmarks, so you've got far more time to react than in aoe2. Extra TCs in aoe4 are also, much like aoe3, fragile and expensive, whereas in aoe2 they're cheaper and harder to take out.

I guess technically with the definition I used, its not too uncommon in aom, but that's only cause of god powers. And if someone loses their main town center to a tornado and then promptly replaces it, I don't think that counts as an elastic defense. If they lose it and fail to take it back, they've probably lost the game since tc's give pop.


Criticize the landmark system if you want. Just don't tell me it decides 90% of games. And to be clear, I hate the thing people do where they say "this thing is a minor issue so why are you complaining". If it affects even 1% of your games, and that annoys you, I think that's a fair complaint.

[El Jeffe Epstein]

Publicado originalmente por Cacomistle:

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

not really, and I dont even mean sniping, games being based around landmarks is stupid because it creates unnecessary defense points and weakens certain civs. Some civs have mobile landmarks where landmarks are not a problem, some civs have landmarks which can defend themselves, other civs have very few landmarks, in every edition of AoE about half the games come to an elastic defense where you can lose some of your base in order to inflict losses on your opponent or hit them somewhere in their base, AoE4 totally remove this as landmarks are necessary to survive, ruins the long term dynamic. AoE4 isnt a bad game in totality, but its a terrible version of AoE.

You gave a specific number, 90%. 90% of games are not decided in any way by the landmark system. I'm going to assume that was just an exaggeration that you didn't really mean, since the number has now dropped down to half.

Half the games don't come down to elastic defense in other aoe games either. I watch other aoe games. Lets just define it in a simple way, an elastic defense is where a player loses their main town center, and the game isn't functionally over.

I've seen maybe like 5 games of aoe3 out of like 100 I've watched where someone loses their main town center and the game isn't over. Its more common in aoe2 than aoe3, but its still well under 50% of games. Hell it only happens frequently in 2 types of games, either when 1 player castle drops, or when someone does an early castle mangonel push, and neither of those are really a thing in aoe4.

Aoe4 is more like aoe3, you just do a push with regular units and run your opponent over. Plus, the main town center in aoe4 is far tankier, and you've got 2-4 landmarks, so you've got far more time to react than in aoe2. Extra TCs in aoe4 are also, much like aoe3, fragile and expensive, whereas in aoe2 they're cheaper and harder to take out.

I guess technically with the definition I used, its not too uncommon in aom, but that's only cause of god powers. And if someone loses their main town center to a tornado and then promptly replaces it, I don't think that counts as an elastic defense. If they lose it and fail to take it back, they've probably lost the game since tc's give pop.


Criticize the landmark system if you want. Just don't tell me it decides 90% of games. And to be clear, I hate the thing people do where they say "this thing is a minor issue so why are you complaining". If it affects even 1% of your games, and that annoys you, I think that's a fair complaint.

I dont think you understand how the base dynamic shifts if you are forced to defend specific points while another player can pack up and leave or their landmarks are themselves buffed castles.

You are in the minority view, and yes 90% of games are decided by landmarks, half of games are ENDED by landmarks. players resign because they can no longer defend their landmarks, which is a stupid victory condition. Landmarks are unpopular, they are a step backward, they are something like a niche game mode that shouldnt be the default option.

Maybe you should spend more time playing Aoe3 or 2 or 1. Landmarks were absolutely a step in the wrong direction.

[Cacomistle]

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

Publicado originalmente por Cacomistle:

You gave a specific number, 90%. 90% of games are not decided in any way by the landmark system. I'm going to assume that was just an exaggeration that you didn't really mean, since the number has now dropped down to half.

Half the games don't come down to elastic defense in other aoe games either. I watch other aoe games. Lets just define it in a simple way, an elastic defense is where a player loses their main town center, and the game isn't functionally over.

I've seen maybe like 5 games of aoe3 out of like 100 I've watched where someone loses their main town center and the game isn't over. Its more common in aoe2 than aoe3, but its still well under 50% of games. Hell it only happens frequently in 2 types of games, either when 1 player castle drops, or when someone does an early castle mangonel push, and neither of those are really a thing in aoe4.

Aoe4 is more like aoe3, you just do a push with regular units and run your opponent over. Plus, the main town center in aoe4 is far tankier, and you've got 2-4 landmarks, so you've got far more time to react than in aoe2. Extra TCs in aoe4 are also, much like aoe3, fragile and expensive, whereas in aoe2 they're cheaper and harder to take out.

I guess technically with the definition I used, its not too uncommon in aom, but that's only cause of god powers. And if someone loses their main town center to a tornado and then promptly replaces it, I don't think that counts as an elastic defense. If they lose it and fail to take it back, they've probably lost the game since tc's give pop.


Criticize the landmark system if you want. Just don't tell me it decides 90% of games. And to be clear, I hate the thing people do where they say "this thing is a minor issue so why are you complaining". If it affects even 1% of your games, and that annoys you, I think that's a fair complaint.

I dont think you understand how the base dynamic shifts if you are forced to defend specific points while another player can pack up and leave or their landmarks are themselves buffed castles.

You are in the minority view, and yes 90% of games are decided by landmarks, half of games are ENDED by landmarks. players resign because they can no longer defend their landmarks, which is a stupid victory condition. Landmarks are unpopular, they are a step backward, they are something like a niche game mode that shouldnt be the default option.

Maybe you should spend more time playing Aoe3 or 2 or 1. Landmarks were absolutely a step in the wrong direction.

Ok, go find me 1 pro game that was decided by landmarks. What's 1 example where a pro could have won the game by giving up their main town center, but chose not to. If this happens in 90% of games, then you should be able to click 2 random games and there's a 99% chance that you will find me an example.

If you want, I can find you a game that wasn't decided by landmarks. Its pretty much all of them, so honestly I'll just link you one at random. There's like a 1% chance I look stupid and that's actually the 1 game where someone went for a landmark snipe, but I'll take those chances.

Edit: I literally just did that. I decided to look for the first game in the elite classic finals. Well, other than the highlights at the start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVW-QQUPSxA&ab_channel=EliteGamingChannel
Game starts at 31 minutes, ends at 42 minutes. Loue has not even so much as touched Beasty's landmarks when Beasty resigns. Explain to me, how would that game have been any different if landmarks were not a wind condition?

How about game 2, Beasty sets up trade, defends his trade, and then pushes back to wipe Loue's army and Loue resigns. Again, never touched landmarks, didn't even really go near them. Is it a coincidence and I just came across a 1% chance, or were these games where landmarks were never even so much as touched decided because of the landmark win condition?

Seriously though, I would like an answer to this.

I know how people play at low levels too. When Joe the bronze player sends 10 workers to the corner of the map while his opponent rams down his main TC, the game was not decided by landmarks. And honestly, a lot of low level players just leave under the first sign of pressure, resigning to a few longbow has nothing to do with their (in)ability to destroy landmarks.

Plus a lot players play team games. Team games aren't decided by landmarks. If you're playing a 4v4 and all 4 players on your team lost their base, you're losing that game whether its conquest or landmark. You're already wrong by default just by the mere fact that 1v1s aren't 90% of games.


I could see this argument aoe2. But are you seriously gonna tell me that games where a player loses their main tc, but comes back to win are common in aoe3? This is 10% of games, if even that. Players aren't forced to defend their main base in aoe3, so why do they consistently choose to do so?

It turns out that losing your main base is heavily correlated with losing the game, so nobody is making the decision to let that happen even without the landmark win condition.

Oh and landmarks aren't unpopular. The average player doesn't care.

[El Jeffe Epstein]

Publicado originalmente por Cacomistle:

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

I dont think you understand how the base dynamic shifts if you are forced to defend specific points while another player can pack up and leave or their landmarks are themselves buffed castles.

You are in the minority view, and yes 90% of games are decided by landmarks, half of games are ENDED by landmarks. players resign because they can no longer defend their landmarks, which is a stupid victory condition. Landmarks are unpopular, they are a step backward, they are something like a niche game mode that shouldnt be the default option.

Maybe you should spend more time playing Aoe3 or 2 or 1. Landmarks were absolutely a step in the wrong direction.

Ok, go find me 1 pro game that was decided by landmarks. What's 1 example where a pro could have won the game by giving up their main town center, but chose not to. If this happens in 90% of games, then you should be able to click 2 random games and there's a 99% chance that you will find me an example.

If you want, I can find you a game that wasn't decided by landmarks. Its pretty much all of them, so honestly I'll just link you one at random. There's like a 1% chance I look stupid and that's actually the 1 game where someone went for a landmark snipe, but I'll take those chances.

Edit: I literally just did that. I decided to look for the first game in the elite classic finals. Well, other than the highlights at the start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVW-QQUPSxA&ab_channel=EliteGamingChannel
Game starts at 31 minutes, ends at 42 minutes. Loue has not even so much as touched Beasty's landmarks when Beasty resigns. Explain to me, how would that game have been any different if landmarks were not a wind condition?

How about game 2, Beasty sets up trade, defends his trade, and then pushes back to wipe Loue's army and Loue resigns. Again, never touched landmarks, didn't even really go near them. Is it a coincidence and I just came across a 1% chance, or were these games where landmarks were never even so much as touched decided because of the landmark win condition?

Seriously though, I would like an answer to this.

I know how people play at low levels too. When Joe the bronze player sends 10 workers to the corner of the map while his opponent rams down his main TC, the game was not decided by landmarks. And honestly, a lot of low level players just leave under the first sign of pressure, resigning to a few longbow has nothing to do with their (in)ability to destroy landmarks.

Plus a lot players play team games. Team games aren't decided by landmarks. If you're playing a 4v4 and all 4 players on your team lost their base, you're losing that game whether its conquest or landmark. You're already wrong by default just by the mere fact that 1v1s aren't 90% of games.


I could see this argument aoe2. But are you seriously gonna tell me that games where a player loses their main tc, but comes back to win are common in aoe3? This is 10% of games, if even that. Players aren't forced to defend their main base in aoe3, so why do they consistently choose to do so?

It turns out that losing your main base is heavily correlated with losing the game, so nobody is making the decision to let that happen even without the landmark win condition.

Oh and landmarks aren't unpopular. The average player doesn't care.

Why are you so invested in defending this fruitless position? Landmarks were uneeded and unwanted. they add nothing and only detract by removing various defensive options.
pro players shouldnt be balancing a game around pro-level play, this thread is about beginners getting into the game, not people with 10,000 hours going against people with 10,000 hours.

[Subtle Butt ( >ω<)っ ♡]

Landmarks are fine. Most people lose because you're just in a losing position. There aren't very many games where landmark sniping actually decides the game. i.e. I won from a losing position because the enemy did not defend their landmarks. Realistically, if the enemy is in a position to kill your landmarks, you would not be able to defend anyways. And in team games, its shared between your whole team.

[Subtle Butt ( >ω<)っ ♡]

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

Why are you so invested in defending this fruitless position? Landmarks were uneeded and unwanted. they add nothing and only detract by removing various defensive options.
pro players shouldnt be balancing a game around pro-level play, this thread is about beginners getting into the game, not people with 10,000 hours going against people with 10,000 hours.

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

I dont think you understand how the base dynamic shifts if you are forced to defend specific points while another player can pack up and leave or their landmarks are themselves buffed castles.

You are in the minority view, and yes 90% of games are decided by landmarks, half of games are ENDED by landmarks. players resign because they can no longer defend their landmarks, which is a stupid victory condition. Landmarks are unpopular, they are a step backward, they are something like a niche game mode that shouldnt be the default option.

Maybe you should spend more time playing Aoe3 or 2 or 1. Landmarks were absolutely a step in the wrong direction.

Publicado originalmente por Arthur Morgan:

not really, and I dont even mean sniping, games being based around landmarks is stupid because it creates unnecessary defense points and weakens certain civs. Some civs have mobile landmarks where landmarks are not a problem, some civs have landmarks which can defend themselves, other civs have very few landmarks, in every edition of AoE about half the games come to an elastic defense where you can lose some of your base in order to inflict losses on your opponent or hit them somewhere in their base, AoE4 totally remove this as landmarks are necessary to survive, ruins the long term dynamic. AoE4 isnt a bad game in totality, but its a terrible version of AoE.

I really don't understand your point here. You're saying unnecessary defense points, but in my eyes, if the enemy is in the position to kill your landmarks, you would have lost anyways. Plus landmarks aren't even the priority, its often vills and economy that is attacked first. Very rare that I have to destroy all the landmarks to actually win, most people just resign from an unwinnable position. You're talking about long term dynamics like late game. It is very rare for AoE 2, 3, 4 that games reach Imperial (or Industrial for AoE 3) at least for 1v1s. If I play say a China vs Delhi game in Prairie, the Delhi player wont just let Chinese go Song, 2 TC into whatever. The Delhi player will most likely go for Ghazi Raider opener and force the Chinese to hide in their base, while Delhi goes for a big feudal push with archer/rams. China will lose not because of landmarks, but because they were contained, forcing early farm transition while Delhi is massing units no problem and have the sacred sites under control.

You're saying mongols have an advantage because they can move their landmarks. This really isn't a problem because you can just go kill the mongol villagers, especially if they packed up the town center. And its even harder for mongols to defend against raids due to lack of walls. Infact, its funny you bring up AoE 3 or AoE 2. AoE 3 had the largest amount of rushing. I know since I played alot of Russians and Iroquois. You don't even have to wait for the enemy to siege down your TC. You just know when you're beaten, when you've lost vills, and you're now hiding in your town center, completely idled or you cant get out of your base and collect more wood/food/gold.