l dont get why ppl dont heal units

[Brotherscompany]

Like you save resources and if you are playing on the defense you have the time to sit down and heal or even on siege while you are waiting to your siege weapons hit the buildings and you are just waiting there heal them.

The only argument l can really think off is if you are on the move and monks are slower and easy to pick

[Hezekieh]

Most people play 300 pop games with huge armies of trash & 5-6 TC's so few players bother with micro.

[NIKFS]

because monks cost gold, while the troops do so as well the healing is too slow to get much done and the extra troops you could get for the money usually work better, a few civs can pull off some effective monk strategies but most of the time they aint worth it

[Hezekieh]

300 pop is already cancer, I don't know how anyone enjoys those endless games of spamming from 20 barracks.

[Sids]

I usually have a couple of monks at the back of my pushes just for that (though usually only if I have a monastery built for other reasons anyway). They can always b garrisoned in a castle until needed. I figure if they only heal 3 knights between them, then they pay themselves off. They usually heal a lot more, and any conversions are a bonus.

But, that is because I play very defensively, and have a base of operations to retreat to. Many good players have their armies moving around constantly, without any between time. It's not as effective in that case.

[letslearnaoc]

Originally posted by Rasputin666:

300 pop is already cancer, I don't know how anyone enjoys those endless games of spamming from 20 barracks.

+1. Not to mention more units = more lag. gg

[Brotherscompany]

Originally posted by Rasputin666:

300 pop is already cancer, I don't know how anyone enjoys those endless games of spamming from 20 barracks.

Ohhhh yhea defenilly, l played the AoC back in the day and now lm just waiting for a sale and l cant see me playing with that much pop, it just turns out to spam war

[Dutchgamer1982]

monks cost a whopping 100 gold, and can heal about 15HP per second, but have a cooldown between healing the next unit of about 3 seconds.

monks also are slow, meaning they are not capable to move with the army to where the action is.. (fast resonce matter more than losses, since slower responce means valueble villagers or buildings will be gone)

so monks work best in situations where you have a single high HP unit attack, pull it back, and nurse it back to health, or for defending stationary armies.

but in multiplayer that does not happen : you don't have time to pull any part of your army back from the front and if you do there is a better solution : castles.
-inside the castle MULTIPLE units can heal at once, far faster than monks can heal.
-also they are protected inside the castle
-if archer they can be attacking on the frontline from within the castle, while being healed.

monks do have other uses in combat :
they are the only legit counter against war elephants and sometimes a good counter against paladins.
and than there is the relic victory..

but for healing, nope only in singleplayer

[Dutchgamer1982]

ps regarding that 5-6 towncenters why did they remove the towncenter cap (you could have 3, no more in the orginal game)

[Hezekieh]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

ps regarding that 5-6 towncenters why did they remove the towncenter cap (you could have 3, no more in the orginal game)

Really?? That would hugely improve multiplayer tbh.
Micromanagement and tactics often count almost counts for nothing if a match passes the 40 minute mark if another player defeats an initial push and booms nonstop. Then an endless flood of units whilst he turtles up and bides his time massing trebuchets.

[Sids]

When people are saying why AoE2 is better than AoM and AoE3, one of the main reasons I hear is that the latter 2 both artificially limit how much of certain units and buildings you can have, while AoE2 gives the freedom to play whatever way you like. I wonder how such a limit would go down.

[Dutchgamer1982]

Originally posted by Rasputin666:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

ps regarding that 5-6 towncenters why did they remove the towncenter cap (you could have 3, no more in the orginal game)

Really?? That would hugely improve multiplayer tbh.
Micromanagement and tactics often count almost counts for nothing if a match passes the 40 minute mark if another player defeats an initial push and booms nonstop. Then an endless flood of units whilst he turtles up and bides his time massing trebuchets.

original age of empires 2 + expantion was quite populair, and yes.
-unit limit max 200. (with steps of 25, and a minimum of 75, if memory serves, but it may have been 50)
-town center was capped at maximum of 3.
-also the number of towers per player was capped (at 12 I believe, might have been 20)
-one more thing I remember more advanced units tended to be more expensive, and not the same price as the are now.
(so a man at arms was slighly more expensive than a militia etc..)
as such building units when they were weak and THAN advancing was a much used tactic.

yes you could still build as many barracks, stables etc as you'd liked.
but with unit limit your most important resource, you simply would not spam units, 5-8 or each usually were all you ever used.

and castles could still be build unlimited (but their high stone cost, prohibited to much spamming of those, but stone was the most important resource for this reason)

Most multiplayer games I played back in those days were played with 125 units, that seemed to be the sweet spot, it allowed for 50-60 villagers, and a nice 50-60 unit army, while keeping things small enough, that it actually matterd how you allocated your unit count.

and with such unit numbers, micro with walls, castles and towers become more an option, and killing a couple villagers even in late game did hurt your gameplay more.

generally age of empires 2 hd feels more like : who can click the fastest and pump out hundreds of units the fastest, where the original was more like a game of chess, slower paced and more mindfull.

[TriRem]

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

-town center was capped at maximum of 3.
-also the number of towers per player was capped (at 12 I believe, might have been 20)
-one more thing I remember more advanced units tended to be more expensive, and not the same price as the are now.
(so a man at arms was slighly more expensive than a militia etc..)
as such building units when they were weak and THAN advancing was a much used tactic.

yes you could still build as many barracks, stables etc as you'd liked.
but with unit limit your most important resource, you simply would not spam units, 5-8 or each usually were all you ever used.

I don't know what game you were playing mate but that's certainly not Age of Empires 2.

[NIKFS]

Originally posted by TriRem:

Originally posted by Dutchgamer1982:

-town center was capped at maximum of 3.
-also the number of towers per player was capped (at 12 I believe, might have been 20)
-one more thing I remember more advanced units tended to be more expensive, and not the same price as the are now.
(so a man at arms was slighly more expensive than a militia etc..)
as such building units when they were weak and THAN advancing was a much used tactic.

yes you could still build as many barracks, stables etc as you'd liked.
but with unit limit your most important resource, you simply would not spam units, 5-8 or each usually were all you ever used.

I don't know what game you were playing mate but that's certainly not Age of Empires 2.

Might be empire earth, played that and it kinda sounds like my memories of that game

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

Originally posted by letslearnaoc:

Originally posted by Rasputin666:

300 pop is already cancer, I don't know how anyone enjoys those endless games of spamming from 20 barracks.

+1. Not to mention more units = more lag. gg

300 pop is pushing the upper limit of micromanagement. It's doable in small quantities with a modded game to make things more micro-friendly (top example: nerf Halbs).

I find 100-250 to be quite fine, although at 250 there isn't much micro and it's basically a slow slugfest slowly pushing forward. 200's very nice, probably one of the best, although 150 means that your economy simply can't handle pumping trash units.

[Hezekieh]

Remember everything in this game was designed for 75 pop.