When to 2tc?

[MariMari]

Anyone willing to chat about the game. I'm a gold player almost.
Nothing fancy just chat.
Looking to improve.

[VII Spiritual]

It depends on the match-up, what your opponent is doing, and what you're capable of.
English has a solid 2 TC build. You open with Abbey and use your king to harass the enemy while you gather stone and wood for your second TC.

[NoobusMaximus]

When you're Abbasid. Otherwise in Gold you're much better doing 1TC, because defending is much harder than attacking. Going 2TC means you have to defend for a while, until your economy kicks in, and most people will be playing aggressive. Once your economy kicks in, you'll also have to be making use of it. If you have 4k unspent resources your 2TC is pointless and just puts you at a disadvantage for no reason. So my suggestion is to master 1TC first.

[MariMari]

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

When you're Abbasid. Otherwise in Gold you're much better doing 1TC, because defending is much harder than attacking. Going 2TC means you have to defend for a while, until your economy kicks in, and most people will be playing aggressive. Once your economy kicks in, you'll also have to be making use of it. If you have 4k unspent resources your 2TC is pointless and just puts you at a disadvantage for no reason. So my suggestion is to master 1TC first.

Been trying the different civilisations haven't still played with all of them.
Defending via towers etc can you elaborate a bit?

[MariMari]

Originally posted by VII Spiritual:

It depends on the match-up, what your opponent is doing, and what you're capable of.
English has a solid 2 TC build. You open with Abbey and use your king to harass the enemy while you gather stone and wood for your second TC.

Can you elaborate further please?

[MariMari]

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

When you're Abbasid. Otherwise in Gold you're much better doing 1TC, because defending is much harder than attacking. Going 2TC means you have to defend for a while, until your economy kicks in, and most people will be playing aggressive. Once your economy kicks in, you'll also have to be making use of it. If you have 4k unspent resources your 2TC is pointless and just puts you at a disadvantage for no reason. So my suggestion is to master 1TC first.

Too strict of an answer, don't you think?

[NoobusMaximus]

Originally posted by IMJUSTACYPRIOT:

Originally posted by NoobusMaximus:

When you're Abbasid. Otherwise in Gold you're much better doing 1TC, because defending is much harder than attacking. Going 2TC means you have to defend for a while, until your economy kicks in, and most people will be playing aggressive. Once your economy kicks in, you'll also have to be making use of it. If you have 4k unspent resources your 2TC is pointless and just puts you at a disadvantage for no reason. So my suggestion is to master 1TC first.

Been trying the different civilisations haven't still played with all of them.
Defending via towers etc can you elaborate a bit?

What do you want me to elaborate on specifically?

[erb]

2tc at the start of game, so you started building at 5:25 because you gathered just enough resources to age up and put everything else onto wood and stone, is done as a greedy eco opener and is a counter to fast castle (on paper) and is countered by early aggression.

If you lose 5+ villagers within 2 minutes of building 2tc the advantage you gained is completely negated.

Because early aggression is easier to manage, people typically suggest to focus on that first... but you should practice every strategy as a person who wants to continue growing, the training wheels eventually have to come off.

If you do early aggression and pin your opponent in their base then you should build a second tc to secure an eco lead. That way when you have the next fight you can take worse trades and still build a military.

No matter what, you need a second tc at some point. One tc pure aggression play is all or nothing. One bad fight, a few bad trades, or the opponent counter raiding you can tip the balance out of your favor. Sticking with only that strategy leaves a player weak and inflexible.

[NoobusMaximus]

Sticking to a simpler strategy allows someone to improve aspects that allow them to more easily take advantage of harder strategies, such as 2TC. Basically a stepping stone, because you need to be able to make Villagers constantly and spend your resources well for 2TC to make sense, and you also need to micro decently to survive aggression. If you go 1TC you can practice all this without putting yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage by not producing Villagers out of it or not spending the extra resources.

I think it's better for OP to go 1TC until he notices he has the reflex to add Villagers no matter what (fighting, defending, getting raided, raiding etc.). When it feels like something you spam out of habit, and resources don't pile up then 2TC follows naturally.

Obviously when we're talking about a 2TC strat, we're talking about a 2nd TC added asap and not at the 16 minute mark.

The fact 2TC beats FC is debatable and might confuse OP more than help him. You can beat FC with 1TC as well, by rushing or denying Gold and thus delaying it. And you might not want to go 2TC against HRE rushing relics.

Another important piece of information is that certain civs are better suited for certain strategies. If you play Abbasid for instance, your TCs and Vills are cheaper, so if you're not going 2TC then why pick Abbasid?

Originally posted by erb:

If you lose 5+ villagers within 2 minutes of building 2tc the advantage you gained is completely negated.

I am curious what this is based on. You're not gaining any advantage 2 minutes after building your 2nd TC. It takes several minutes for 2nd TC to start paying for itself. And losing a random amount of Vills will just make this take longer, not completely negate it. You're still training 2 Villagers at a time.

Originally posted by erb:

If you do early aggression and pin your opponent in their base then you should build a second tc to secure an eco lead. That way when you have the next fight you can take worse trades and still build a military.

This might be situational, but I don't think I'd ever go 2nd TC to capitalize on this situation. Going 2nd TC seems like an easy way to fall behind temporarily, and allow opponent to break out and regain map control. On the other hand, staying on 1TC allows you to slowly get ahead of your starved opponent, and just kill him outright, because there is no way for him to close the distance. I would even generalize and say it's never a good idea to make a 2nd TC when ahead. It's the best way to allow your opponent to get back into the game by giving him a timing window.

[VII Spiritual]

Noobus makes some valid points. Ultimately, practice is always beneficial. If you want to incorporate a 2 Town Center build and experiment with it, feel free to do so. Just keep in mind the advice from previous posters. You'll be on the defense, and losing villagers will negate your advantage. Once your strategy is up and running, you need to effectively utilize the extra resources. If you're serious about learning, send me your Discord, and we can set up a time for me to show you a Town Center build using either the English, Byzantine, or Holy Roman Empire civilizations.
For Reference, I'm a Conq lvl player in both solos and Teams.

[erb]

To clarify a few points for those confused:

A town center takes about 5 minutes to pay itself off.

https://imgur.com/a/town-center-breakeven-times-aoe4-ELdVWjn

Losing 5 villagers means that the payoff time is closer to 7 or 8 minutes. This is very simple mathematics. It costs food to make a villager, and they take time to recoup their cost.

2tc beats FC on paper because it takes someone until 6:30 to get into FC, you could've built and finished your second tc before that time and transitioned immediately into full aggression.

FC means nothing if they have no access to resources. If you use your larger army you can keep them pinned in their base, especially if they spent resources on outposts and stuff. It can be difficult to pull this off... which is why I said "on paper"

Finally, being scared of learning new things because it's more efficient to perfect a single strategy is a great way to slow the learning process. The best way to break through gold tier is to learn how to be flexible. Scouting your opponent and thinking two steps ahead is very hard when you have a limited set of responses.

[MariMari]

Originally posted by erb:

2tc at the start of game, so you started building at 5:25 because you gathered just enough resources to age up and put everything else onto wood and stone, is done as a greedy eco opener and is a counter to fast castle (on paper) and is countered by early aggression.

If you lose 5+ villagers within 2 minutes of building 2tc the advantage you gained is completely negated.

Because early aggression is easier to manage, people typically suggest to focus on that first... but you should practice every strategy as a person who wants to continue growing, the training wheels eventually have to come off.

If you do early aggression and pin your opponent in their base then you should build a second tc to secure an eco lead. That way when you have the next fight you can take worse trades and still build a military.

No matter what, you need a second tc at some point. One tc pure aggression play is all or nothing. One bad fight, a few bad trades, or the opponent counter raiding you can tip the balance out of your favor. Sticking with only that strategy leaves a player weak and inflexible.

So how do you pick a strategy?
Is it based on what my opponent is doing? What i want to do and accomplish? Or what the match-up is like?? For example if the opponent is English and I'm Rus then it would make sense to go FC to get the tankier MAA.

[NoobusMaximus]

Originally posted by erb:

To clarify a few points for those confused:

A town center takes about 5 minutes to pay itself off.

https://imgur.com/a/town-center-breakeven-times-aoe4-ELdVWjn

Losing 5 villagers means that the payoff time is closer to 7 or 8 minutes. This is very simple mathematics. It costs food to make a villager, and they take time to recoup their cost.

2tc beats FC on paper because it takes someone until 6:30 to get into FC, you could've built and finished your second tc before that time and transitioned immediately into full aggression.

FC means nothing if they have no access to resources. If you use your larger army you can keep them pinned in their base, especially if they spent resources on outposts and stuff. It can be difficult to pull this off... which is why I said "on paper"

So saying that "losing 5+ Villagers completely negates 2TC" was linked to FC. I hand't realized that, as the claim had its own paragraph.

In this case, doesn't losing 5+ Villagers imply opponent wasn't going FC to begin with? Or do you mean opponent is killing the Vills AFTER going FC. In which case, 2TC beating FC is not that set in stone anymore.

I don't think the reason 2TC is good against FC is because you can transition immediately into full aggression. As you correctly stated, 2nd TC takes about 5 minutes to begin paying off. So going immediately into aggression would be much weaker than going immediately into aggression on 1TC. With 2TC, you can go into 1TC-equivalent-aggression starting at 11 minutes. By that time, the FC player already has all the Relics and a tech advantage. This is why I said this catch-all-phrase of 2TC beats FC is not good advice and not necessarily true. Imagine giving this advice against HRE.

2TC is better against FC than it is against 1TC not because of going immediate aggression (as said above 1TC is much better at this), but because you gain a stronger economy IN THE LONG TERM, that can compensate for the opponent's tech advantage, and because the opponent lacks the ability to attack you while 2nd TC hasn't yet paid for itself. When opponent is FC and has all the Relics he is still in a good position. His position starts to fall off with time, when he starts needing to add his own TC in order to keep up economically.

I can give you other examples of 2TC not necessarily beating FC. Say you're English and you go 2TC, and opponent is Rus and goes FC into MAA spam. Who do you think wins this? Keep in mind Castle Age MAA are near impenetrable to arrows.

So in conclusion, losing 5+ Villagers doesn't negate your 2TC, because going into immediate aggression was never your win condition. If anything, losing 5+ Villagers is much more devastating on 1TC.

[erb]

Originally posted by IMJUSTACYPRIOT:

So how do you pick a strategy?
Is it based on what my opponent is doing? On what I want to do?or what ?

Based on your preferred civ, the map, and your opponents civ.

I know that's vague, but it's actually a complicated question.

I think it's best to start the game with a strategy in mind, could be feudal aggression or 2tc or fast castle. Most strategies start off the same: 7-8 on food 2-3 on gold.

The first 2 minutes of the game is gathering sheep around the map and initial scouting. Age ups tend to start around 2:00 to 2:30 so you want to look into your opponents base by then. That's when people will shift their villagers to their strategy.

At that point it's up to you to make a decision. FC and 2tc are timing builds, they are vulnerable for a period of time and very powerful if they are not disturbed. If you feel confident in being able to attack them while they are more vulnerable you will likely win, but if you are not confident you could play more conservatively.

By responding to a FC with your own FC you could take relics off the map, or respond to knight/MAA spam with crossbows.

Same thing with 2tc, if you see them moving to stone and wood at 2-3 minutes you could just match them with your own tc. That way they don't really gain an eco lead over you, and it can be difficult to punish their TC if it's in a safe spot. Some maps make it nearly impossible to attack, such as hill and dale.

At the end of the day the best play you can make is the one you are most comfortable with. At gold/platinum it's more about making as few mistakes as possible. So, maybe it's best to just stick with the strategy you planned at the start if you find it difficult to change your plan suddenly.

TLDR: pick a strategy based off of what you're comfortable with for now, or if you want to figure out new stuff just stick with it. Understanding what strategy works best against whatever you can tell your opponent is doing takes intuition gained through experience. At gold your best bet is to keep on playing and gaining that experience.

I think it's worthwhile to take the above person up on their offer to show you the ropes. I'm diamond tier and am still learning these concepts, taking advice from conq level players, or getting a chance to do one on one, is what helped me get out of platinum.

[MariMari]

Originally posted by erb:

Originally posted by IMJUSTACYPRIOT:

So how do you pick a strategy?
Is it based on what my opponent is doing? On what I want to do?or what ?

Based on your preferred civ, the map, and your opponents civ.

I think it's best to start the game with a strategy in mind, could be feudal aggression or 2tc or fast castle. Most strategies start off the same: 7-8 on food 2-3 on gold.

The first 2 minutes of the game is gathering sheep around the map and initial scouting. Age ups tend to start around 2:00 to 2:30 so you want to look into your opponents base by then. That's when people will shift their villagers to their strategy.

At that point it's up to you to make a decision. FC and 2tc are timing builds, they are vulnerable for a period of time and very powerful if they are not disturbed. If you feel confident in being able to attack them while they are more vulnerable you will likely win, but if you are not confident you could play more conservatively.

By responding to a FC with your own FC you could take relics off the map, or respond to knight/MAA spam with crossbows.

Same thing with 2tc, if you see them moving to stone and wood at 2-3 minutes you could just match them with your own tc. That way they don't really gain an eco lead over you, and it can be difficult to punish their TC if it's in a safe spot. Some maps make it nearly impossible to attack, such as hill and dale.

At the end of the day the best play you can make is the one you are most comfortable with. At gold/platinum it's more about making as few mistakes as possible. So, maybe it's best to just stick with the strategy you planned at the start if you find it difficult to change your plan suddenly.

I think it's worthwhile to take the above person up on their offer to show you the ropes. I'm diamond tier and am still learning these concepts, taking advice from conq level players, or getting a chance to do one on one, is what helped me get out of platinum.

Thank you all for your answers I really appreciate it that you answered.

[MariMari]

Originally posted by VII Spiritual:

Noobus makes some valid points. Ultimately, practice is always beneficial. If you want to incorporate a 2 Town Center build and experiment with it, feel free to do so. Just keep in mind the advice from previous posters. You'll be on the defense, and losing villagers will negate your advantage. Once your strategy is up and running, you need to effectively utilize the extra resources. If you're serious about learning, send me your Discord, and we can set up a time for me to show you a Town Center build using either the English, Byzantine, or Holy Roman Empire civilizations.
For Reference, I'm a Conq lvl player in both solos and Teams.

I've already send you a friend request.