is there no strategy other than archer rush and snowballing?

[Endoskeleton_Jim]

i came for strategy and yet this game is severely lacking. the build orders are straightforward and linear and its either you out micro or you die

[Dayve]

Endoskeleton_Jim a écrit :

i came for strategy and yet this game is severely lacking. the build orders are straightforward and linear and its either you out micro or you die

At the higher ELO levels yes, every game is pretty much the same, using whatever flavour of the season strategies are the most powerful before they get nerfed.

If you go lower though you actually get people trying all kinds of different things.

[Kasbfaäfad]

Dayve a écrit :

Endoskeleton_Jim a écrit :

i came for strategy and yet this game is severely lacking. the build orders are straightforward and linear and its either you out micro or you die

At the higher ELO levels yes, every game is pretty much the same, using whatever flavour of the season strategies are the most powerful before they get nerfed.

If you go lower though you actually get people trying all kinds of different things.

This is so completely wrong. Just watch NAC4 my friend

[KingKickAss]

Dayve a écrit :

Endoskeleton_Jim a écrit :

i came for strategy and yet this game is severely lacking. the build orders are straightforward and linear and its either you out micro or you die

At the higher ELO levels yes, every game is pretty much the same, using whatever flavour of the season strategies are the most powerful before they get nerfed.

If you go lower though you actually get people trying all kinds of different things.

I feel like people who talk about strategies being flavor of the month are just outing themselves.

[Dayve]

KingKickAss a écrit :

Dayve a écrit :

At the higher ELO levels yes, every game is pretty much the same, using whatever flavour of the season strategies are the most powerful before they get nerfed.

If you go lower though you actually get people trying all kinds of different things.

I feel like people who talk about strategies being flavor of the month are just outing themselves.

As what?

Civs get buffed and nerfed, and every time they do something new becomes the "meta." Same with every RTS. Does everybody do it? No.

[KingKickAss]

Dayve a écrit :

KingKickAss a écrit :

I feel like people who talk about strategies being flavor of the month are just outing themselves.

As what?

Civs get buffed and nerfed, and every time they do something new becomes the "meta." Same with every RTS. Does everybody do it? No.

The "Meta" strategies have been the same for as long as I can remember. Civs might get balance tweaks but the strategies don't vanish unless its something like an entire tech getting removed which is far from often.

[Moist Butt]

Dayve a écrit :

KingKickAss a écrit :

I feel like people who talk about strategies being flavor of the month are just outing themselves.

As what?

Civs get buffed and nerfed, and every time they do something new becomes the "meta." Same with every RTS. Does everybody do it? No.

Its the same for every competitive game. There's always a meta of some sort and generally ppl are going to follow it cuz the main goal for most ppl is to win. There's actually a decent amount of stuff you can do in aoe2, its just that you probably won't win doing it.

[Quintem]

Vonklyce a écrit :

Quintem a écrit :

And you would know this from just playing the game for 15 hours?

Is he wrong tho?

No, but it's one of those things that you could think of as a bit of a hot take for a newbie. Yes the meta is archer/cavalry centric.


I think we could see a rise in infantry play especially with strong infantry civs. Easier than ever to get infantry going. I'm hopeful that gambesons pushes more diversity. Long swords may be viable now instead of knights. Teuton long swords are mini knights with 4/4 armour with full upgrades. Teuton knights are slower with the lack of husbandry so the gap in moblity is smaller than some civs, that's just one example.

[Moist Butt]

Quintem a écrit :

Vonklyce a écrit :

Is he wrong tho?

No, but it's one of those things that you could think of as a bit of a hot take for a newbie. Yes the meta is archer/cavalry centric.


I think we could see a rise in infantry play especially with strong infantry civs. Easier than ever to get infantry going. I'm hopeful that gambesons pushes more diversity. Long swords may be viable now instead of knights. Teuton long swords are mini knights with 4/4 armour with full upgrades. Teuton knights are slower with the lack of husbandry so the gap in moblity is smaller than some civs, that's just one example.

I don't think the +1 pierce armor for militia line is enough to make infantry competitive honestly. Don't get me wrong, militia line is a lot better in imperial now, but they still suffer a lot of problems in castle age. The changes don't do anything to infantry in feudal age and players still need to research upgrades for long sword + gamb upgrade. Conversely, knights is available the moment you reach castle age. Long sword still lose to knights and can't engage like knights do against crossbow. Point being, the changes only make infantry more viable in imp or late castle age imo.

[Quintem]

Moist Butt a écrit :

I don't think the +1 pierce armor for militia line is enough to make infantry competitive honestly. Don't get me wrong, militia line is a lot better in imperial now, but they still suffer a lot of problems in castle age. The changes don't do anything to infantry in feudal age and players still need to research upgrades for long sword + gamb upgrade. Conversely, knights is available the moment you reach castle age. Longsword still lose to knights and can't engage like knights do against crossbow. Point being, the changes only make infantry more viable in imp or late castle age imo.

Single swordsman loses to a knight but two will win. This is exaggerated further by civ bonuses. 72hp Viking taking two more hits. Japanese dealing damage much faster.

I think it's a very much wait and see scenario but they've made supplies cheaper that is was originally, Gambesons is not that pricey. They buffed the stats of longswordsmen not that long ago with +1 armour, at some point +5hp. Going have to see experiments with them more. Infantry do a lot of bonus damage to buildings. They can tear through things, you can't defend with a few archers or skirmishers shooting over the wall. Got to commit to crossbow or knights or hell even scorpions they tried buffing the heavy version by making the upgrade cheaper lol. (Not sure what more they can do without really tipping them over the edge into overpowered. Cheaper to mass than knights, tougher to kill with archers)

I'm probably too optimistic.

[Percussigant]

OP could always simply ban Arabia and go for whacky strategies and openings on maps that work a bit differently and for which there are almost no build orders.

[Moist Butt]

Quintem a écrit :

Moist Butt a écrit :

I don't think the +1 pierce armor for militia line is enough to make infantry competitive honestly. Don't get me wrong, militia line is a lot better in imperial now, but they still suffer a lot of problems in castle age. The changes don't do anything to infantry in feudal age and players still need to research upgrades for long sword + gamb upgrade. Conversely, knights is available the moment you reach castle age. Longsword still lose to knights and can't engage like knights do against crossbow. Point being, the changes only make infantry more viable in imp or late castle age imo.

Single swordsman loses to a knight but two will win. This is exaggerated further by civ bonuses. 72hp Viking taking two more hits. Japanese dealing damage much faster.

I think it's a very much weight and see scenario but they've made supplies cheaper that is was originally, Gambesons is not that pricey. They buffed the stats of longswordsmen not that long ago with +1 armour, at some point +5hp. Going have to see experiments with them more. Infantry do a lot of bonus damage to buildings. They can tear through things, you can't defend with a few archers or skirmishers shooting over the wall. Got to commit to crossbow or knights or hell even scorpions they tried buffing the heavy version by making the upgrade cheaper lol. (Not sure what more they can do without really tipping them over the edge into overpowered. Cheaper to mass than knights, tougher to kill with archers)

I'm probably too optimistic.

well if you are going to factor in civ bonus for infantry, then you have to factor in civ bonus for knights as well. For example, frank knights having more hp or lith knights getting bonus att in castle age with relics otherwise its not a fair comparison.

Maybe they will become viable like u said, but I am skeptical. Malians already have a bonus that is way better than gambeson and we don't really see this civ go infantry in feudal or early/mid castle. Remember they get +2 pierce armor for barrack units in castle age for free. If malians with a much better bonus than gambeson aren't always going infantry in castle age, what makes u think a weaker tech will change the landscape?

I don't even recall the last time I saw a pro that went MAA line in fedual/early-mid castle when playing as the malians. Its usually champion in imp against archer civ and its justify by the extra + 3 pierce armor they get in imp. In theory, gamebson will buff infantry similar to the bonus of malians. Its mainly an imp buff imo and it won't really make inf viable in castle.

[Vemonia]

FloosWorld a écrit :

Vemonia a écrit :

- If someone has double your eAPM, you'll probably lose the game in aoe2 just like in any RTS. Because this is exactly what RTS games atr about: half speed, half planning.

I'd say in AoE 2 it's 60 % decision making/planning and 40 % speed. You can compensate your lack of speed by making the right choices at the right time.

I'm fine with these numbers, but I'll still call it a half half, since the difference isnt that big.

Moist Butt a écrit :

well if you are going to factor in civ bonus for infantry, then you have to factor in civ bonus for knights as well. For example, frank knights having more hp or lith knights getting bonus att in castle age with relics otherwise its not a fair comparison.

Well, you have the lituanians relic bonus, the Berbers&Portuguese&Poles discounts, and that's it, no ? Franks got no hp bonus besides free BL (it is 120 hp, not more).

And you do not have to factor them if you arent playing against them. If we see LS in the meta, it will probably be Vikings/Celts LS against a civ that dont want to go knights. Otherwise you make pikes.

Moist Butt a écrit :

Maybe they will become viable like u said, but I am skeptical. Malians already have a bonus that is way better than gambeson and we don't really see this civ go infantry in feudal or early/mid castle. Remember they get +2 pierce armor for barrack units in castle age for free. If malians with a much better bonus than gambeson aren't always going infantry in castle age, what makes u think a weaker tech will change the landscape?

I think we might see changes in imperial due to the smoother transitoion to Champions. In castle age maybe against eagle civs, as you will more easily dive TC instead of running behind eagles.

Malians eco is underwheming, and they only have the PA, which doesnt help vs knights. Maybe we will see something late castle age with Vikings thanks to a better eco ? or Celts who want to go infantry + siege anyways ?

I agree though that in early castle age you rather want to go xbows or knight by design (higher power spike, less food intensive). And at higher level, you probably don't want to go LS before a boom, as infantry requires a mass to be more effective, and high level players do not want to build up an army without using it to pressure their opponent (using cavalry mobility, or by throwing away a couple of xbows behind a woodline).

[jonoliveira12]

FloosWorld a écrit :

Vemonia a écrit :

- If someone has double your eAPM, you'll probably lose the game in aoe2 just like in any RTS. Because this is exactly what RTS games atr about: half speed, half planning.

I'd say in AoE 2 it's 60 % decision making/planning and 40 % speed. You can compensate your lack of speed by making the right choices at the right time.

Defenses in AoE2 and counter units are so strong, that it compensates for lack of speed.
It does not matter if you can dodge one Mangonel shot, when the other guy has 3 Mangos, your ball is taking GUARANTEED damage, no matter what.
Towers with Walls, or Castles, can also hold off entire armies until the VERY SLOW and expensive Siege units break through them.

Unless the other guy is faster than you in literal orders of magnitude, you are unlikely to truly lose an AoE2 match just due to APM.

[Quintem]

jonoliveira12 a écrit :

FloosWorld a écrit :

I'd say in AoE 2 it's 60 % decision making/planning and 40 % speed. You can compensate your lack of speed by making the right choices at the right time.

Defenses in AoE2 and counter units are so strong, that it compensates for lack of speed.
It does not matter if you can dodge one Mangonel shot, when the other guy has 3 Mangos, your ball is taking GUARANTEED damage, no matter what.
Towers with Walls, or Castles, can also hold off entire armies until the VERY SLOW and expensive Siege units break through them.

Unless the other guy is faster than you in literal orders of magnitude, you are unlikely to truly lose an AoE2 match just due to APM.

Can confirm, I'm "low" APM player, anecdotal of course but. My APM in Starcraft 2 was "low" 60-90 range. I had higher peaks when I started microing like a fiend and I'd have some low, lows. I've said on these forums before I was pretty decent at that game. In this game I'm also rocking that kind of speed though my peak performance in Age of Empires 2 is around 1100 ELO, not sat down to truly grind (that's going change now I've got a new PC that's hopefully stable with the game). I'm not sure how high I'd get? Maybe 1400? I could see that.

I'd out micro people will double my APM in Starcraft, I've certainly seen from replays some going much faster than me and I've kept up in AoE2.

People that say APM is king in RTS, are bad at strategy, builds orders and unit control. Most importantly decision making. Too many times do I see people stick way too hard to a strategy or plan. You are throwing the literal counter unit into them they're losing at a cost ratio of 2 to 1 but still continue thinking "ah yes my <insert pro player> build is superior to this person doing unorthodox plays".

Now I'm having my own little rant about APM and such...

[Moist Butt]

Vemonia a écrit :

Well, you have the lituanians relic bonus, the Berbers&Portuguese&Poles discounts, and that's it, no ? Franks got no hp bonus besides free BL (it is 120 hp, not more).

And you do not have to factor them if you arent playing against them. If we see LS in the meta, it will probably be Vikings/Celts LS against a civ that dont want to go knights. Otherwise you make pikes.

You are missing some like cuman with more speed and burgundians with cheaper upgrade. That's beside the point tho; goal isn't to list out all civ. I was talking about the frank knight line. Yes, knight don't get any bonus, but its respective upgrade cavalier and paladin gains more hp.

Vemonia a écrit :

Malians eco is underwheming, and they only have the PA, which doesnt help vs knights. Maybe we will see something late castle age with Vikings thanks to a better eco ? or Celts who want to go infantry + siege anyways ?

I agree though that in early castle age you rather want to go xbows or knight by design (higher power spike, less food intensive). And at higher level, you probably don't want to go LS before a boom, as infantry requires a mass to be more effective, and high level players do not want to build up an army without using it to pressure their opponent (using cavalry mobility, or by throwing away a couple of xbows behind a woodline).

Malian eco being "underwhelming" has nothing to do with what I said. Everything I said about them having more PA still holds. In games where malians are played, we don't see players going for LS and gamebson is literally a worse version of malian's bonus. https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Gambesons_(Age_of_Empires_II)

The point was ppl don't go LS with malian bonus so I doubt it would change with gamebson. Malian bonus isn't just better, but way better. Sure Malians only have bonus PA, but arguably that's what important. If knight was the main issue for infantry, then we would see teutonic knights being use a lot more. Arguably PA is more important or just as important as other inf bonus like more hp.

If LS does become a thing it will probably be lower elo. I just don't see it competitive in higher elo. I think you summarize a lot of the problems of LS being an option in higher elo. I think ppl are overhyping the +1 PA. They are still slow and are less effective at raiding than a knight or crossbow.