Why is NR so popular in aoe3?

[evilcheadar]

It's not called supremacy, it is rush

What if you don't rush in a „rush" game?

There will more than likely be some sort of combat before 40min making it rush

[pecelot]

so nr30 is still rush?

[evilcheadar]

so nr30 is still rush?

1

[fightinfrenchman]

so nr30 is still rush?

No one plays that

[momuuu]

I think part of it is that aoe3 kinda excells in feeling epic. I think it's a common case where players play single player first, walk around with their epic armies, with all upgrades, survive the AI flood and then steamroll the AI with their large army marching in perfect formation towards the enemy. When then going online, part of that aoe experience is lost. Instead of large armies marching around, its small and early attacks, games that dont last longer than 30 minutes. I personally needed some time adjusting to the rushiness of online play, and played my first 50 games or so as nr10. No rush games have always been frequent in any game mode, but I believe this may be the reason that it was a bit more popular on aoe3, to the point that the developers decided to add an official treaty mode to the game. With that mode, its popularity compared to other RTS games, where this tends to not exist, is easily explained.

[jesus3]

Yeah I guess it was just the fact that aoe3 has infinite sources of 2/3 of its resources (food/coin) which other RTS games don't really have afaik. It might've been the players too. I remember reading one of Stormcoming's port boom guides back in 2011 and seeing how enthusiastic he was about the game type made me want to try it.

2011 Kreygasm, that were good days for treaty. so many good players, no fckin fanpatch issues and stuff, just played high level games and coped with some imbalances you also could adjust to

[Papist]

What about aoe3 makes NR so popular compared to other rts games? I know aoe2 Sort of has NR games in the form of black forest but I've never really seen anything else like rd in any other rts. What makes aoe3 so popular for NR games?

NR has a ton of lategame stuff that you don't really get to explore if you play supremacy.

[dicktator_]

Yeah I guess it was just the fact that aoe3 has infinite sources of 2/3 of its resources (food/coin) which other RTS games don't really have afaik. It might've been the players too. I remember reading one of Stormcoming's port boom guides back in 2011 and seeing how enthusiastic he was about the game type made me want to try it.

2011 Kreygasm, that were good days for treaty. so many good players, no fckin fanpatch issues and stuff, just played high level games and coped with some imbalances you also could adjust to

No way to "cope" or "adjust" as Aztec VS Port or Otto VS Brit on RE, although I agree 2011 was a better time for treaty simply cause of sheer number of good players.

[jesus3]

In 1v1 maybe not, but in teamgames just dont get stuck with 2x 1v1 in 2v2 or especially 3x 1v1 in 3v3 ,every treaty game I saw nowadays is stubborn 1v1s on different fronts. Azzy can be great as complementary civ and otto can easily switch his front. those standing fights kill off so much of the dynamic treaty can have

edit: its like the playstyle has reverted, the times of "fuckin runner" or "fuckin map walling noob" were already overcome, decent players paid attention to it and built their bases accordingly. Now it seems kinda backwards.

[HeatitUP_]

cuz people can't handle raids so they make it NR

a Pro tip is to get 6 vills to British base and start killing cows or any other civ that cows booms and then kill the cows and once all kills start gathering from it.

You also wanna start herding away hunts while otw to kill cows so if you succeed in killing cows then they will have berries and just have to get food from mills.

Make sure you kill the cows fast cuz tc fire is good vs vills

[fightinfrenchman]

In 1v1 maybe not, but in teamgames just dont get stuck with 2x 1v1 in 2v2 or especially 3x 1v1 in 3v3 ,every treaty game I saw nowadays is stubborn 1v1s on different fronts. Azzy can be great as complementary civ and otto can easily switch his front. those standing fights kill off so much of the dynamic treaty can have

edit: its like the playstyle has reverted, the times of "fuckin runner" or "fuckin map walling noob" were already overcome, decent players paid attention to it and built their bases accordingly. Now it seems kinda backwards.

Yesh many treaty players make team games into multiple 1v1s which is a mistake. In the great epic basement game (4 hours game time) we worked together to achieve our goals and the game was more successful because of it.

[jesus3]

@fightinfrenchman

notification

exactly, i remember so many long time games which were very fun because of the sheer mass of tactics and possible comebacks, playing hours on 1200-1400 scores and refusing to resign until it was inevitable, making every single culv worth their money. planning the next unexpected timing of your teammates reincforcments. thats what made treaty fun to me.

[dicktator_]

That's a good point about how too many games are multiple 1v1s now and too many players whine about running/doubling (I'm a little guilty of this myself sometimes, although I try not to be). However, we do occasionally have some nice teamfight games that are not just 3 straight up 1v1s (it doesn't happen very often and it happens more in 3v3 than 2v2, which is almost always just 2 1v1s). Also on RE even in team fights civs like Aztec and otto will find themselves crippled. The only good units Aztec can provide are ERK and AK, the team with Aztec will lose hard VS a skirm mass. Ottos also have a difficult time in team fights due to a sub-par eco and Abus being pop inefficient. Otto running is also easy to stop with walls/map awareness/apm. Jans train slowly so a skirm/goon/huss/mortar compostion should easily hold any otto run. Some of these civs could work back in 2011 but, with a few exceptions, only when in the hands of players who were good back then (stormcoming/milky/uofa/etc) against worse players. I completely agree that 2011 games were more interesting to watch/play because treaty games were a lot less static, however that is a separate issue from civ balance IMO. Civs that are weak in 1v1 situations are for the most part weak in team situations too. Whenever King_Ownage2nd fought me with a weak civ (back in 2013 when he was really good at treaty, I think one of the reasons treaty games are so static these days is because King left) he would exhaust every single option he had, running/doubling and not just fighting a static 1v1 fight. He would still lose almost every game to me with those civs, because aztec/india just can't compete with brit/port/german/etc, regardless of 1v1 fight or team fight.

That said, 1v1 fights can be fun/close/exciting too (some of my recent games against Sabusa had us both in the 1200s), but I agree that every team game should not just consist of 2 or 3 static 1v1 fights.

[jesus3]

Didnt expect such a constructive discussion after only being nostalgic :

Well, where no plain weaknesses were you knew tendencies of players, also a well atuned team could win over individual skills. i recall beating the o-so-great guys (sanderson, uofa, milky and such) a lot teamed up with Phinchen or Dewinner despite unfavorable MU or losing to a better attuned team in same manner.
Also Aztec wont get rekt that easy if not left alone, if you constantly complement units (and maybe also eco) e.g. your mate can neglect anticav in favor of more horse artillery/mortars and arrowknights were supportive in overall cannon fights. Actually "Dewinner" was the one who showed some nice strategies with aztec which suprised me, too back then- making me even lose 1v1 with ports. (There were a lot of records on 9Aces Forum but i think it doesnt exist anymore).
if you got an unfavorable matchup as e.g. otto you focused on holding and could succeed with strikes against the attention of others, mostly simple doubling and coming back as soon as your designated opponent reacts could win you a good spot. All those little things that maybe came up BECAUSE of the imbalances made the game better overall. best strats come out where they are needed.

Back to 1v1s: Becasue Andes was/is the dominant map i didnt like playing 1v1 that much, you were instantly restricted to civs where nats were favorable to you,i'd say it paved the way for German and Spain as dominant civs, also it made some civs like otto playable in 1v1 on the other hand. Dont get me wrong: aztec really ARE shit in 1v1 against a civ with good skirm, but actually there are chances to win it early on against any other civ (maybe not dutch whith 150 skirm plus church units to block paths).
To summarize it: there were many more factors than the civs themselves, mostly deviation from standard tactics will win it.

[howlingwolfpaw]

aztec need some help for sure. they are almost there... just need better cyote runners. to counter skirms. make them more like cossaks

[InsectPoison]

cuz people can't handle raids so they make it NR

a Pro tip is to get 6 vills to British base and start killing cows or any other civ that cows booms and then kill the cows and once all kills start gathering from it.

You also wanna start herding away hunts while otw to kill cows so if you succeed in killing cows then they will have berries and just have to get food from mills.

Make sure you kill the cows fast cuz tc fire is good vs vills

This is why we have the "half map" rule enforced. it means before 40 teams can only gather res on their own side of the map. Also what you said is a good way to get pested by most of the treaty community.

[BigThunderMan]

cuz people can't handle raids so they make it NR

a Pro tip is to get 6 vills to British base and start killing cows or any other civ that cows booms and then kill the cows and once all kills start gathering from it.

You also wanna start herding away hunts while otw to kill cows so if you succeed in killing cows then they will have berries and just have to get food from mills.

Make sure you kill the cows fast cuz tc fire is good vs vills

This is why we have the "half map" rule enforced. it means before 40 teams can only gather res on their own side of the map. Also what you said is a good way to get pested by most of the treaty community.

I kinda hate treaty players who bitch about half map. If you can boom to 3 faster, you should be able to steal the mines/herds/etc?

And I like Nr40 because it makes a pure boom sort of a game as well.

[HeatitUP_]

It's just a rehearsed boom which takes no skill after you've done it like 3 times. If you interrupt their rehearsed boom and force them to adapt then they get pissed off and pest because the cba to adapt.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Please stop feeding the trolls guys.

[InsectPoison]

cuz people can't handle raids so they make it NR

a Pro tip is to get 6 vills to British base and start killing cows or any other civ that cows booms and then kill the cows and once all kills start gathering from it.

You also wanna start herding away hunts while otw to kill cows so if you succeed in killing cows then they will have berries and just have to get food from mills.

Make sure you kill the cows fast cuz tc fire is good vs vills

This is why we have the "half map" rule enforced. it means before 40 teams can only gather res on their own side of the map. Also what you said is a good way to get pested by most of the treaty community.

I kinda hate treaty players who bitch about half map. If you can boom to 3 faster, you should be able to steal the mines/herds/etc?

And I like Nr40 because it makes a pure boom sort of a game as well.

if you are allowed to steal opponents hunts its just unfair due to unbalanced resources. e.g someone can have an insanely fast imperial time thus a much better boom than someone who has no resources and has to rely on mills (which are slow), this will slow his imperial time and he will have a much worse boom. Also, some civs naturally have a later age III age time than others. What you are saying makes no sense.

[adderbrain5]

its epic, the zen of a BO before fight, it requires one to devote all effort to tactics for the most part after fighting, gives you a truer test of skill all things being equal because it allows two players to really feel each other out through actual fights before one figures the other out and the other is broken most of the time(in high level at least). it tests the true strength of a civilizations full power. It is a war between two great empires and armies rather than two stupid little scouting parties. chance to use cool cards not worth sending in rush. just to name a few things.

[Cometk]

This is why we have the "half map" rule enforced. it means before 40 teams can only gather res on their own side of the map. Also what you said is a good way to get pested by most of the treaty community.

I kinda hate treaty players who bitch about half map. If you can boom to 3 faster, you should be able to steal the mines/herds/etc?

And I like Nr40 because it makes a pure boom sort of a game as well.

don't know if you're trolling, but because the second part of your post seems like a genuine statement i'll take the whole post as if it's serious.

treaty isn't just about winning. it's about having a good fight. think about it; if you steal your opponents hunts and force him onto mills early, he'll boom 100 points lower. then when you're having the fight, both of you close to drained on resources, he'll run out of steam while you have 10k resources left in the bank. did you win because you played better than him? no, you won because your civ booms fundamentally differently and you stole his resources at 12 minutes into the game. you didn't outplay him. you bullshitted him. why spend an 60 minutes to play a treaty game if you're going to effectively end it at 12?

[howlingwolfpaw]

yeah the whole purpose of TR is to level out the playing field to create a fair matchup late game. I know a player who steals hunts and then uses german high vil pop to clear all the trees. Its not fun to play with him at all.

[momuuu]

Isnt half map an important rule because otherwise part of the optimal way to play is to send villagers out on the map pretty early on trying to deplete and herd away your opponent's hunts? I can imagine treaty becoming pretty gay that way. Same with an opri box waiting in your base because there was that one part you couldnt wall off, or because he made some opris in industrial just to fuck over your game or something.

Half map seems like a rule designed to ensure the gameplay doesnt get ridiculously cheesy.

[Papist]

yeah the whole purpose of TR is to level out the playing field to create a fair matchup late game. I know a player who steals hunts and then uses german high vil pop to clear all the trees. Its not fun to play with him at all.

FFA is a fundamentally different game mode than standard treaty. In FFA, seizing space and resources in order to be the last man standing is the name of the game. It is less about fighting a fair fight, and more about winning.