Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Oceanus because Bite of the Shark and Caladria (though Caladria got a nerf, but they're still flying healers and debuffers). Murmillos are a decent starting unit, might as well make them better to hold out until Heroic.
Theia 'cause I think Contarius might just be overstatted, and the combo of Lance of Stone and Poseidon's Secret is kinda nuts -- extra 10% speed, plus they slow targets hit? They're raiders, they're frontline fighters, they're anti-myth, they're whatever you want them to be. However, Rheia is getting a buff this patch, Orichalcum Mail isn't for Arcus and Turma anymore, but for infantry, so... if you like Murmillos and want to stick with them, might not be bad.
Atlas because Implode is dummy strong. Literally don't look at anything else, just find where the big Implode is going to destroy their entire army and win you the game.
Theia vs Rheia is a choice between an anti myth unit and vill raiding bird or a siege myth unit. Hesperides are a very nice way of making your army more powerful since the dryads take no pop space while traitors is a great way to turn battles that are even into your favor by taking some high value myth units. The new patch lets Rheia get fanatics early, which can be amazing vs factions that are heavy in infantry and cavalry but not as good vs myth units and archers. Theia gives you some amazing cavalry buffs for if you want to raid better and deal with archers better.
Late game usually goes to Atlas since implode is devastating to wipe an enemy army, their production buildings in an area, and then move in with your army to get a large advantage, and the upgrades to destroyer pierce armor and fanatic damage output are both very big. That said, hekate can be a good option if you're still getting good value out of myth units in late game and pairs well with automatons + dryads from the prior minor gods.
That is indeed an old strategy that was pretty effective in the past.....the strategy success rate has dropped as a brick to almost zero since Retold. Same as all other Gaia strategies.
All Gaia strategies that worked in the past are made obsolete because they buffed all the others civs or they crippled the way Gaia worked.
I remember the old days where the bird was effective vs Norse....so they buffed Norse..and made the bird so weak.
Gaia was good in rushing Egyptians so they buffed Egyptian so rushing becomes almost impossible.
The combo Behemoth archers was very good vs Greek so they buffed Greek.
Destroyers where strong units now they are totally worthless...
And i can continue like that all day.
Gaia has become a total joke. I don't say see can't win....if you are an expert you might occasionally win a game vs a noob that had to to to the toilet....
Theia to buff cavalry and make a Dryad army.
Atlas to buff Fanatics and Destroyers and the God Power is also great.
Don't listen to the doomsayers, Gaia is great and the best Atlantean Major God.
Sure that is why Gaia has now the lowest win rate....because Gaia is so extreme OP.....
I suggest we nerve Gaia a bit more since Gaia has a whopping 28% win rate vs Loki.....we can't allow that.
I'm not saying she's "extreme OP", I'm saying that she's great. If anything, people complained about (and still complain) that she's OP.
As for the Norse, they are the OP ones and the worst matchup for Atlanteans as a whole, so I don't think you should base Gaia being terrible on that.
Besides, there's more to this game than 1v1 battles.
If the problem was with Gaia and she was really weak, nobody would play her on tournaments. But what a surprise, many pros make such great games with her. Why? Because they are not whining, they are f***ing playing and getting better
Oddly enough, on aomstats that records winrates, she did take a huge dive in the last patch despite being relatively buffed given the rheia changes and cheiroballista buffs. That said. For the heck of it I did look at some other posts from this guy since I noticed a trend of bad takes everywhere. Dude was calling implode useless and too weak, says in comparison to extended edition caladria are nerfed despite being massively buffed, same with favor creation being massively buffed but calling it a nerf, and behemoths too got stronger in retold but was somehow considered a nerf. Also still on the idea of automatons being useless, can't turma raid, can't take out egyptian monuments, thinks wadjets are OP, thinks gaia is defenseless despite being one of the defensive gods.
Kinda just boiled down to being low level, fighting a high level loki, getting washed, and then going on about how Gaia is trash instead of learning from the defeat and figuring out the matchup.
Loki and Gaia are two of my most played gods, and the matchup between them in particular I run through very often with my friend to really get to the bottom of the matchup. It's very interesting but does require an open mind and adaptions from both sides.
Anyway I completely agree with you. This game is about skill and adaptation, like pretty much every decent rts, you can't just say this god is bad because you constantly lose as him
Yeah, the new changes are somewhat trickier than they first seem. People are rushing heroic to get fanatics out early, but with heavy inf upgrade being weaker it's not as big of a power spike, and the reality is that fanatics are worse than murmillo in a good chunk of situations in the mid game. For example, given they're about a 2:3 ratio of fanatic to murmillo in costs, you end up with less health and less damage than if you went murmillo. We must consider that a single murmillo has a base 8.75 dps vs fanatic's 8 dps. The fanatic is only of value in situations where it can run into infantry and cavalry and is still a less tanky front line. So what happens is they're very easily countered by things like massed automatons or other myth units, are slower to take out ranged units, go a little slower, and take more to heroize than murmillo for less health again and have slightly lower DPS vs myth units with 2 fanatic hero vs 3 murmillo hero.
One should also consider that in heroic age if we're focused on countering infantry and cav we have katapeltes, which do 25% more DPS than fanatics vs cav per unit while being cheaper and faster. Arcus, while having lower DPS are a wood rather than food unit and have great range to make up for it, and provide a great backing to take out enemy archers and infantry. Destroyers also work as a supremely tanky frontline that also have high pushing power and counter pierce damage, being less useful vs norse but stronger vs others. For fighting norse I've found murmillo + arcus tends to be the combo I really wanna have going unless there's a heavy focus on raiding cav.
How does is work the match up? What civ is stronger/weaker against others?
Some civs have an easier or harder time than others in different matchups due to their army compositions and economies.
If we look at norse, they're good vs atlanteans in classical age since atlantean counter infantry, the cheiroballista, is somewhat hard to use and due to Hersir spam capability atlanteans cannot dump prometheans and automatons into the early game fight to round themselves out, instead needing to rely heavily on a murmillo + turma comp and focus on defending themselves to get into heroic age to push.
In comparison, norse is somewhat bad against egypt due to axemen countering the entire longhouse and half of the great hall, a few spearmen tossed in are both good at raiding and deal with raiding cav and can be used to help counter the raids due to their speed. Going onto egypt again, atlanteans seem to have a decent run against egyptians early game due to the ability to mass myth units which egyptians would need priests to counter, though the priests still take awhile to take the myth units down and are more costly to bring out while also being extremely bad against things that aren't myth units. Turma also counter slingers cost for cost handily, leaving egypt in a tough spot and going heroic still has issues since the entire midgol gets countered by katapeltes and the turma sitting around trade well into chariot archers.
A lot of people find that particularly the Gaia vs Loki matchup is one of the harder ones since Gaia is generally focused on defensive play and economy over time while Loki is generally heavily focused on attacking in early game where Gaia is at her weakest. Though people deeper into the matchup have adapted a lot, we've seen Gaia able to defend early game into booms, we've seen Loki players use the threat of early game aggression to 2TC then boom, some even going heimdall for rigsthula in some cases, though hirdmen + hall of thanes allows them to outrun turma, though this isn't required given raiding cav are an option and rigsthula allows norse to keep up with the Gaia economy, which is advantaged early on due to the early upgrades, but ends up weaker late game due to lack of theft of fire which the other atlanteans have. Gaia generally wants to make great use of the atlantean heroic age power spike to push, and pull off a timing attack, either with implode to wipe the enemy army and some useful buildings, such as a farm wipe during farm transition or a wipe of military production to secure army advantage, or a tartarian gate in the back while attacking to deal heavy eco damage or force the enemy army to retreat while harassed. Loki in this case wants to try to gain advantage in classical, and hit with a hard timing attack with flaming weapons in heroic, ideally breaking through at that point, if that doesn't succeed they have to move into defending vs a potential implode while moving into late game.
While I've been on both sides of the matchup and won on each, I have been feeling that it is still Loki favored given how much of a snowball you can get started with flaming weapons on a hersir spam army given the rate of myth unit spawns with the bonus damage going. I still need to reconsider cheiroballista with their recent buff and how Rheia's 15% extra hack armor buff to all infantry along with cheaper armory upgrades influences the matchup.
https://www.aom.gg/stats/matchups
or here (scroll the page down)
https://aomstats.io/?leaderboard=1&patches=18.7603
Every civ has other civs which it is strong against, and others it is weak against. But even if your civ got a bad matchup, it doesn't mean you will automatically lose, you still have a chance to win, it depends on your overall skill, game knowledge and your opponent performance. Your opponent can pick the wrong minor gods, which are just bad in your game, or build the wrong units, thus giving you an advantage. In short about matchups, for instance a certain god specializes on cavalry, so typically a god with technologies for anti cavalry units will be a good counter pick (bad matchup) for him, but again, it's not set in stone