安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I already said that they are about equal on closed maps like BF/michi, and that that mayas are better on water maps. On arena/fortress maps mayas rule with their much better castle drop and on open maps where the game only starts in castle age (lombardia) they preform the same as in the pocket position on maps as arabia and on river maps (highlands,...) the mayas outprefrom britons because of their better early naval capacties.
On any open map ever (except perhaps in some cases arena/fortress), Mayans are by far the stronger civ. But on closed maps (like BF and Michi), Mayans are far inferior (actually they're probably one of the worst, if not the absolute worst civ on closed maps - even Vikings at least get Siege Engineers for their Onagers and Huns can make a good push with Paladins). Closed maps generally come down to fully-boomed post-Imperial armies duking it out in tight spaces, and the toys that Britons have to play with in those situations are just way better than anything Mayans can come up with.
They're definetly not the worst. Huns have no unit killing siege to speak of, have worse walls and can't even cut with onagers in forgotten they are by far the worst closed map civ (treb cutting even in forgotten is way too time consuming). Vikings don't have single 'power' unit resulting in being easily crushed by pretty much any civ (the only thing mayas have to do is rush their siege with eagles (even if it means losing them) and then the entire viking army gets recked by plumes. Also because the mayan units are cheap and because they have the 20% extra resources bonus they can produce strong units much longer then any other civ meaning they can easily turn the tide if the enemy gets gold problems (very effective tactic vs turks). ♥♥♥♥ with treb micro are probably better. Goths are a bit of weird one in pocket psotion on a closed map the endless infantry stream can be deadly and they destroy mayas. but the lack of walls makes them the only civ on closed maps that is vunerable for early agression (especially on a flank or when the map generates a relatively 'open' closed map). and numbers don't matter as much in trench vs siege and gunpowder.
Incas suffer from the same problem as the vikings but unlike them they get eagles (even if they are the worst eagles of the game), IMO i prefer the tankier/cheaper mayan units and their eco over the siege engineers tech of the incas. I think most other civs are indeed far stronger then mayas.
And then theres still britons maybe they are better then mayas if they re up against each other. But I still firmly believe that the Britons are siege target practice in the lategame even with lag, they are essentially 1 siege onager shot away from a crushing defeat. I played alot on closed maps in this game and time and time again no matter the opponent,the Elo or the situation the britons got crushed by better lategame civs (and sometimes siege wasn't even needed!!!).
PS: Might edit this later on for better info.
Vikings are indeed quite lousy on closed maps, but even they at least get Siege Engineers for their Onagers whereas Mayans must do without. Both will be using Siege Rams to soak Arb and Plume arrows, respectively, but Heavy Scorps and Champs can still deal with Eagles. Because they are outranged here, Mayans will be forced to micro more, which is hard on a map like Black Forest where they have very little space to do so.
Japanese also beat Mayans on closed maps as Mayans have lots of trouble with the Cannoneer-Onager combo (and Japanese get Siege Engineers so Mayans have trouble countering this with Onagers of their own). Japanese trebs > Mayan trebs.
Goths are indeed vulnerable to early aggression on BF but multiple layers of palisade in the middle can deny any Feudal aggression and they can mine early stone to go for a castle drop upon hitting Castle Age, which with proper support should be enough to hold the wall in the middle until Imperial when they get more heavy units. If the enemy opens their wall to go for Castle Age aggression, they always run the risk of inviting your counter-aggression as well.
Incas have lousy Eagles but their Onager-Slinger combo is very difficult for Mayans to deal with on closed maps (though Incas will still get crushed on closed maps by most civs).
Britons are by no means a top-tier civ on closed maps, but being able to stall to Imperial on closed maps and pump out hordes of 12-range Elite Longbows can give many civs plenty of headaches. Microing Longbows is far easier than microing Onagers, so in all but the most laggy conditions they have an edge there. Longbowmen may be vulnerable to Onager shots, but a) the Onagers have to arrive and b) teching into and producing Longbows is quicker and far less expensive than doing the same for Siege Onagers. Briton trebs get Siege Engineers and do blast damage. All of this is very scary to deal with in the tight spaces characteristic of closed maps. Britons are also not very gold-dependent, which can be quite nice in a 1v1. They will however struggle on closed maps against civs like Teutons (Paladins and Siege Onagers), Koreans (War Wagons and Siege Onagers with bonus range), and Celts (faster firing siege with extra HP).
If you were able to play as Mayans and beat a Briton player on a closed map, there are a couple possible explanations. Perhaps the Briton player was not as good as you. Perhaps their unit micro or eco management wasn't up to par. Perhaps they invested in the wrong units. Perhaps they didn't build outposts near the treeline and thus didn't see your Onagers cutting a side path into the back of your base to flood EEW into their eco before it was too late. In a matchup in AoF between players of equal skill, though, Britons should have an edge over Mayans on closed maps.
I still pick the cheapness, tankyness and raiding capabilties of the mayans (and add their 20% extra resources bonus also to the pile) over the bigger fire power and range of the Incas and Vikings.
Only thing I can add to Goths is that you not necessarily have to open yourself up when trying to attack them early since you can always built a stone gate (unlike Goths :p).
♥♥♥♥ are indeed better then Mayas. But I mostly fear the for their infantry bonus (eagles die very fast to their Champs and trash war with those halbs is a nightmare) and their trebs when microed can deal with siege they can even hold their ground against 'the stronger civs' with them.They are also good at raiding with their cav archers wich a lot of people seem to forget. HC I don't fear as much since they die too easy to siege and plumes. Only other thing I want to add is that they don't have siege rams unlike mayas so they are a worse of when pushing (but capped rams will do just fine aufcourse). But like you said they do get siege engineers on top of it all.
(work in progress, going to do this in parts after accidentially deleting my first comment near the end)
My rant about the Britons was actually more about the Briton lategame in general then just against Mayas (needed to get it of my chest since so many people seem to believe lategame Britons are a powerhouse and not just newbies). Most actual Maya vs Briton fights on closed maps I saw where actually stalemates the pushes where usually made on the other side of the map by other players. Cutting with siege and going in with a strong raid army is my main tactic with the mayas on BF. I'm usually in before they can react properly or I make a distraction if they have outposts. It works like a charm most of the time. Another tactic I use is let them advance a bit into my territory or base (they usually get overconfident in the process) And as soon as they are in a more open spot I use the manouvrability of my eagles and plumes to destroy them (Briton units are too slow to react properly to not get killed). I quickly start a counter attack when their army is destroyed wich usually finishes them or cripples them enough to give me a clear advantage. The best thing about this strategy is that you can repeat it if you want since they have to push at some point to win.
In my experience even if the Briton is good at microing their longbows, makes the right army, knows all the counters and have a good and well defended eco they still die to stronger civs without too much trouble (and this was sometimes in a situation where the Briton was 100/200 Elo higher then the other player). Strong cav, siege, and some UU's and bonusses are just too much for them too handle.
Never really played with or against britons on a closed map in a 1vs 1 setting since there are better options and people almost never use those setting, but their trash is good indeed.
This however is on closed maps like BF and michi. on more open maps they are usually a second tier civ for me since they are decent rushers and they are pretty decent on arena like maps too with an ok castle drop, good early imperial and a good boom.
But although the Briton archers have poor rate of fire and accuracy (due to the lack of thumb ring), the longbowmen has two more attack compared to the elite plumed archer. This makes them deal 4 damage against fully upgraded paladins, which is two more than plumed archers, so they are more potent against heavy cavalry, but not that much stronger considering the rate of fire, -30% cost, survivability and accuracy.
The Mayan elite eagle warrior is an amazing unit indeed. They even beat fully upgraded paladins cost-effectively, and in my opinion it is very underused by people at aoe2 HD. They are so cheap to swarm and upgrade and can destroy the enemies economy in less than a minute.