Are 14 different civs too many??
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
Do you guys think it's too hard for the average player to be aware of any match up they can get in this game?
My AoE3 YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MCJimAgeofEmpiresIII
My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_
Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_
Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
You guys are acting like a player has to learn how to play a new way in order to be prepared to fight each MU. This isn't true - you can reuse the same style for numerous MU's. More often than not you just use the same 1-2 builds every game (e.g. China, Germany, Aztec, Brit)
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
[Armag] diarouga wrote:He only plays one civ which means he'll get rekt in tournaments.
Because tournament rules sux. If you think fp made this game now balanced, would ok let players play the same civ all the time if they want, then.
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
I have always thought that 14 civ is too many. I think that all we really need to have a competitive atmosphere is just the nilla civilizations. I really like playing on nilla more because I find that I have to a lot crisper and precise playing the civs, because their features are more basic, and have fewer things to fall back on (shrines and shipment spam specifically). This need for greater skill is something that interests me more than the diverse civ options. However, I also love Napoleonic era for some reason, even though all of their new civs are pretty creative.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
- thebritish
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3787
- Joined: Jul 18, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
lt colonel on nilla is like major on TAD
krichk wrote: For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge thebritish
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
thebritish wrote:lt colonel on nilla is like major on TAD
No, it's even worse.
- thebritish
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3787
- Joined: Jul 18, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
Marco1698 wrote:thebritish wrote:lt colonel on nilla is like major on TAD
No, it's even worse.
lt colonel on nilla is like captain on TAD?
krichk wrote: For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge thebritish
- britishmusketeer
- Howdah
- Posts: 1845
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
thebritish wrote:Marco1698 wrote:thebritish wrote:lt colonel on nilla is like major on TAD
No, it's even worse.
lt colonel on nilla is like captain on TAD?
2nd lieut prob
- thebritish
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3787
- Joined: Jul 18, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
britishmusketeer wrote:thebritish wrote:Show hidden quotes
lt colonel on nilla is like captain on TAD?
2nd lieut prob
and conscript on nilla is what on TAD?
krichk wrote: For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge thebritish
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
I think you have the experience to answer to this question on your own
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Aug 21, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
I went from PR 29 in nilla to PR 24 on Tad (and haven't played for a year or so). Thus no way a colonel is a 2nd lieut or have I just misunderstood the irony?
- britishmusketeer
- Howdah
- Posts: 1845
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
deuxballesman wrote:I went from PR 29 in nilla to PR 24 on Tad (and haven't played for a year or so). Thus no way a colonel is a 2nd lieut or have I just misunderstood the irony?
In the last year the nilla ranks have become more inflated as more and more good players move to TAD. Although yes, a colonel in nilla would likely be better than a 2nd lieut in TAD
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
The thing is, more civs means more variety, but also fucks up balance even more. Less civs means better balance, and more capabilities to tweak individual match ups.
Now you'd expect me to say less civs means less variety, but thats not the case imo. You can have fewer but much more unique civs. I always take sc2 as an example, where all three races are 100% unique. Very few people feel like the lack of variety (3 very distinct match ups per race) is a reason to play even more than 1 of the races. In other words, apperantly even one civ can offer plenty of variety.
I think 3 civs is a little bit on the low side of things, and 14 civs is too much. Something like 4-6 very unique civs that function very differently from eachother (so not that they all have a skirmisher, bowunit, pikemanthing, musketeer, cav dude amd ranged cav unit) would, imo, optimize balancability while keeping more variety than we even need.
Now you'd expect me to say less civs means less variety, but thats not the case imo. You can have fewer but much more unique civs. I always take sc2 as an example, where all three races are 100% unique. Very few people feel like the lack of variety (3 very distinct match ups per race) is a reason to play even more than 1 of the races. In other words, apperantly even one civ can offer plenty of variety.
I think 3 civs is a little bit on the low side of things, and 14 civs is too much. Something like 4-6 very unique civs that function very differently from eachother (so not that they all have a skirmisher, bowunit, pikemanthing, musketeer, cav dude amd ranged cav unit) would, imo, optimize balancability while keeping more variety than we even need.
- KINGofOsmane
- Pro Player
- Posts: 3096
- Joined: Feb 24, 2015
- ESO: KINGofOsmane
- Location: Walling Town
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
[Armag] diarouga wrote:look wrote:and kaiserklein nob
:O
BUM
"Losing to Callen was the worst night of my life" Gibthedurrty 2019
"If hazza can get pr42 with team i can get pr50 with 1v1" Gibthedurrty 2018
"If hazza can get pr42 with team i can get pr50 with 1v1" Gibthedurrty 2018
Tete cs:go experienceLecastete wrote: Dude i hate this game. I am bad and i also dont have luck
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
Usually people get good with one civ. There is that next level where you understand the game so well u play more Civs. Also for me I have played so long I went through cycles with each civ. Spain, suiox, Dutch, Iro, France, China, India, Japan have all been OP at different times. Also went through a port phase, Russia phase. Germans have been a thing in tournaments with civ rules so I usually practice them too.
Only Civs I havnt played a lot are Aztecs, ottoman. But that was done over a long time.
Only Civs I havnt played a lot are Aztecs, ottoman. But that was done over a long time.
- aoefan4life
- Lancer
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Mar 24, 2015
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
I think multiple civs add to the diversity and fun of AOE3. This definitely keeps me and others interested in this awesome game!
- medinos
- Lancer
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Jun 18, 2015
- ESO: AlexBoye,Daddysmurf
- Location: GRAND LINE
Re: Are 14 different civs too many??
MCJim wrote:Lately I've been thinking about this game a bit and I came to an interesting point: Does this game have too many civs for competitive play?
If you think about it, it's ridiculous. Take British; during a tourney you will face an opponent, but you don't know what civ he's gonna play. This means you have to prepare for 14 different match ups! And now I'm only talking about British. Take French, and again you have to prepare yourself for 14 different match ups. How much time do you actually have to spend to know what to do in every match up? Isn't this too hard for people overall?
Do you think the game was better if it didn't have 14 different civs? What civ should be "deleted" in your opinion?
Discuss!
I think that is the best thing about aoe 3
I wish for a new aoe game with the style of aoe 3 something remastared with new civs from Europe...
New units mannn
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests