is there any "bad" or "noob" or "wrong"strategy?

[fei123456]

i totally disagree with you guys saying "china should ff always" "japan shrine boom is the only right way to play japan" or "india 10/10 is noob bo". there's no useless strategy.
even if h2o says that.

vishnu_india, an chinese player who always play iro and india. he reached eli 2600+ before. a stantard lamer. he ALWAYS do no eco rush with india. 5 sepoy 4 sowar 600g 10 tiger claws. always.
a noob play style, isn't it? i will say "yes". but he did reached that pr and even became top 1 on elo ladder 2 or 3 years ago. he is a lamer for sure, but he is not a noob.

btg_devil, also a top chinese player, took part in wcg 2007 asian games and lost to grunt in semi final. he played china after that and he ALWAYS did a semi ff. yes semiff, not straight ff.
i'm not saying china semiff is better than ff, but at least it's available. devil reached 2600+ easily too.
and he is not good at micro i think.

and black_xii_t, also known as spider_xiande, is also from china. he seldom do a shrine boom with japan. send 300w or mountain warrior, and raid raid raid: that's his play style. and he usually do a bow club rush with sioux too. what a strange man.
and does anyone remember milk_tea? that's a japanese player i think. he even didn't put heavenly kami in any of his deck! but he reached colonel too.

the variance of BOs is also part of the strength of a civ. you seldom get countered by your opponent, but which time you have more ways to counter him. and every BO can be countered, even if it's strong or lame. piroshiki spain ff is lame too, but everyone knows how to counter him nowadays.
japan boom op. china ff good. india eco play awesome. but if you always do yhem and never try any change you will get countered too. h2o had lost to piroshiki with china ff in his twitch streaming too. japan boom lost to japan rush sometimes.
i'm not saying japan rush is better than boom, or china semiff is the right way to play china. but at least they are not "wrong". no strategy is "wrong".

and at last, i'll say some low pr players has some noober BOs, such as building a consulate and alliance with port in age 1 but sending daimyo as soon as he reaches age 2, hind him in a corner of the map, send military shipments and attack. if you didn't find his daimyo you'll easily type gg soon.
yeah this is really a noob player. but he sometimes beats you. c dont cry baby.

[Aizamk]

I think you should ask for tenkokugen's opinion. Truly his wisdom knows no bounds. I am sure he will give you the answers you seek.

[Jaeger]

Yeah I mean the standard BO for any civ is primarily based on the standard BO's for almost every other civ. For example, with germany it's standard to uhlan semi ff vs Japan because Japan likes to shrine boom. But if Japan does not play standard shrine boom and you play standard uhlan semi ff you will loose.

[lemmings121]

I guess a lot o players (myself included) just take "the standard" playstyle for granted as best, which in fact is true most times, BUT, it also is the style that people are used to play against and counter, making it weaker (crazy meta?)

I'm pretty sure that non-standard crazy shit is just better in games sub pr 30 (where I am, cant say above this, but i believe that stops beeing true for higher lvls)
And I say that because we (lower lvls) aren't used to deal with a random stuff, so we respond poorly and lose, while a better player would just say "ah, hes doing this suboptimal crap? let me just adapt this and crush him..."

[iNcog]

I think mechanics and good decision making are very important to being a good player. Almost more so than which build you end up using.

I've had more success at my level doing a "sharp" Torii rush than doing standard play "ok".

[Mimsy for President]

I guess a lot o players (myself included) just take "the standard" playstyle for granted as best, which in fact is true most times, BUT, it also is the style that people are used to play against and counter, making it weaker (crazy meta?)

Im pretty sure that non-standard crazy shit is just better in games sub pr 30 (where I am, cant say above this, but i believe that stops beeing true for higher lvls)
And I say that because we (lower lvls) arent used to deal with a random stuff, so we respond poorly and lose, while a better player would just say "ah, hes doing this suboptimal crap? let me just adapt this and crush him..."

This is true to a certain point. Same can be said in chess. If you dont recognize a weird opening it can play into the opponents favor. Yet you can still often win with solid fundamentals and game knowledge, in chess and aoe. Also scouting. Holy shit is scouting important to not getting surprised.

why are you banned ? ???

[_DB_]

Try to match Boneng's thoughts with GoodSpeed's guide. You'll find things getting funny.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well, skill does much.
For example, aiz do troll builds and win vs good players because there is an idea behind his BO.
If you double cav vs sioux, you'll likely loose, it is a bad strat.

I think that a BO is good as long as you have an idea (timing, raids...) behind it.

[forgrin]

How to explain this...
OK so the game has been around for a long time now, and people generally have figured out ways with each civ to optimize the number of units out while still having a good economy. They're capitalising on the civilization's strengths while covering some of its weaknesses, and doing so in the most efficient way possible-this is standard play. For example, "always FF with China." This is said because FF is simply the most efficient way to play them by allowing you to capitalise on their fortress shipments ASAP while covering for their relatively weak colonial play.

Now, you can do alternative builds that you (or someone else) has designed to specifically catch the other player off-guard and exploit a weakness of their civ. A prime example of this is Aizamk's Ports. However, in no way is this the BEST thing ports can do, and is only good because it is capitalising on weakness in your opponent rather than building on your civ's strengths.

If you only do these alternative strategies, generally people catch on and can beat them by simply playing to their civ's strengths more than you do. The reason they work when they do is because they force your opponent to play their "weak hand" so to speak, therefore you have an advantage as you're more prepared to play weak vs weak. Of course then people just adapt to play more into their strong hand than you, so hence it becomes outdated quickly.

[fei123456]

How to explain this...
OK so the game has been around for a long time now, and people generally have figured out ways with each civ to optimize the number of units out while still having a good economy. They''re capitalising on the civilization''s strengths while covering some of its weaknesses, and doing so in the most efficient way possible-this is standard play. For example, "always FF with China." This is said because FF is simply the most efficient way to play them by allowing you to capitalise on their fortress shipments ASAP while covering for their relatively weak colonial play.

Now, you can do alternative builds that you (or someone else) has designed to specifically catch the other player off-guard and exploit a weakness of their civ. A prime example of this is Aizamk''s Ports. However, in no way is this the BEST thing ports can do, and is only good because it is capitalising on weakness in your opponent rather than building on your civ''s strengths.

If you only do these alternative strategies, generally people catch on and can beat them by simply playing to their civ''s strengths more than you do. The reason they work when they do is because they force your opponent to play their "weak hand" so to speak, therefore you have an advantage as you''re more prepared to play weak vs weak. Of course then people just adapt to play more into their strong hand than you, so hence it becomes outdated quickly.

so what''s the BEST thing? china ff or japan boom or something else? they''re the best BO on any map/ against any civ any strategy? lol
aoe3 is rts game. it''s not chess game or poker. if "semiff counters ff" is right, then china must be the worst civ? cause it can only ff?

[wookl]

Try to match Boneng''s thoughts with GoodSpeed''s guide. You''ll find things getting funny.

couprider is a goodspeed super fans,he had been translated goodspeed''s guide v3.0 into chinese.so goodspeed is famous strategy expert by many chinese were known.

[fei123456]

Try to match Bonengs thoughts with GoodSpeeds guide. Youll find things getting funny.

couprider is a goodspeed super fans,he had been translated goodspeeds guide v3.0 into chinese.so goodspeed is famous strategy expert by many chinese were known.

nonono tenkokugen is the guiding star in my heart

[forgrin]

How to explain this...
OK so the game has been around for a long time now, and people generally have figured out ways with each civ to optimize the number of units out while still having a good economy. Theyre capitalising on the civilizations strengths while covering some of its weaknesses, and doing so in the most efficient way possible-this is standard play. For example, "always FF with China." This is said because FF is simply the most efficient way to play them by allowing you to capitalise on their fortress shipments ASAP while covering for their relatively weak colonial play.

Now, you can do alternative builds that you (or someone else) has designed to specifically catch the other player off-guard and exploit a weakness of their civ. A prime example of this is Aizamks Ports. However, in no way is this the BEST thing ports can do, and is only good because it is capitalising on weakness in your opponent rather than building on your civs strengths.

If you only do these alternative strategies, generally people catch on and can beat them by simply playing to their civs strengths more than you do. The reason they work when they do is because they force your opponent to play their "weak hand" so to speak, therefore you have an advantage as youre more prepared to play weak vs weak. Of course then people just adapt to play more into their strong hand than you, so hence it becomes outdated quickly.

so whats the BEST thing? china ff or japan boom or something else? theyre the best BO on any map/ against any civ any strategy? lol
aoe3 is rts game. its not chess game or poker. if "semiff counters ff" is right, then china must be the worst civ? cause it can only ff?

Thats not at all what I said...

Anyways,
What I was saying is that "Standard" is simply the most efficient way to play a civ' not the best necessarily in every scenario if youre considering a civ like China which has only one standard BO. Thats one of the reasons why China isnt great and France, for example, is versatile, because France has many different standard strategies while China only has one. If you did anything but the FF as China in that matchup, and the French guy played full efficiency standard semi-ff lets say, you would theoretically be behind UNLESS whatever different build you did managed to break his standard play and forced him to do something non-standard, like shipping 8xbow etc etc.

Things like "semi-ff beats FF" are really dependant on how well the semi FF player plays it. Hes got like a 2ish min window when he has military and you dont, and he has to do damage to you in order to justify his later age. Deny that, and suddenly its alot easier for China to do stuff. Hell also likely be a little ahead in infrastructure and eco, but the idea of the FF is that the efficiency of fortress shipments kinda makes up for that. Now that doesnt always happen in practice, which is why semi>FF especially when the FF player loses vills.

[Garja]

Simply put, if the game was a perfect rock-paper-scissor then ye no strategy would be the best (they would counter each other).
But since the game isn't such and also isn't a static game but rather a dynamic one players pick one best strategy and adapt from it.
The lack of information (missing scouting or simply players' analitical flaws) is what leads to "weak strategies"winning.

[momuuu]

There's strategies that are probably not optimal, but not terrible either I suppose. In a way there has to be an optimal strategy in most match ups, so you could consider all the other strategies wrong.

[musketjr]

i will wait to see what Tenkokugen thinks before replying

[[Armag] diarouga]

i will wait to see what Tenkokugen thinks before replying

+1

[wookl]

i will wait to see what Tenkokugen thinks before replying

+1

[_H2O]

In a high level game the 10 10 is always bad. You can do the same thing without deleting 3 Vils. It's super easy to scout and adapt to as well.

Piroshki ff is also always bad. You can be up within 15-30 seconds of his time with 7 more Vils. It's just a bad build.

IMO the only way you win with bad builds is by playing vs people who don't understand the game enough to recognize how to beat them every game.

[fei123456]

In a high level game the 10 10 is always bad. You can do the same thing without deleting 3 Vils. It''s super easy to scout and adapt to as well.

Piroshki ff is also always bad. You can be up within 15-30 seconds of his time with 7 more Vils. It''s just a bad build.

IMO the only way you win with bad builds is by playing vs people who don''t understand the game enough to recognize how to beat them every game.

disagree
yes 10 10 dels 3 vils myself, but the 12 sepoy reaches his base 1 more min earlier or even more. 12 sepoy at 6:00 can be defended by 5 musk 6 mm and tc fire. but 12 sepoy at 5:00?garrison all the vills to tc and wait, that''s all what you can do. 6 mm are useless too.
and if you age up some late (due to bad hunt or something else) your rax won''t be finished. a free lose.

[fei123456]

In a high level game the 10 10 is always bad. You can do the same thing without deleting 3 Vils. Its super easy to scout and adapt to as well.

Piroshki ff is also always bad. You can be up within 15-30 seconds of his time with 7 more Vils. Its just a bad build.

IMO the only way you win with bad builds is by playing vs people who dont understand the game enough to recognize how to beat them every game.

disagree
yes 10 10 dels 3 vils myself, but the 12 sepoy reaches his base 1 more min earlier or even more. 12 sepoy at 6:00 can be defended by 5 musk 6 mm and tc fire. but 12 sepoy at 5:00?garrison all the vills to tc and wait, thats all what you can do. 6 mm are useless too.
and if you age up some late (due to bad hunt or something else) your rax wont be finished. a free lose.

time is money. when i play sioux on yukon and get some food and xp treasure, my 4 axe riders will be in his base at 4:10. what can he do except gg?

[[Armag] diarouga]

disagree
yes 10 10 dels 3 vils myself, but the 12 sepoy reaches his base 1 more min earlier or even more. 12 sepoy at 6:00 can be defended by 5 musk 6 mm and tc fire. but 12 sepoy at 5:00?garrison all the vills to tc and wait, thats all what you can do. 6 mm are useless too.
and if you age up some late (due to bad hunt or something else) your rax wont be finished. a free lose.

time is money. when i play sioux on yukon and get some food and xp treasure, my 4 axe riders will be in his base at 4:10. what can he do except gg?

MM? Fast age up to age 2 sucks as sioux.

[blackstarop]

Lol couprider,h2o is right these strats are horrible and work against bad players only.U probably dont understand, cause u saw bad players winning with them against even worse players.Thats the truth bro sorry to ruin ur thoughts.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Lol couprider,h2o is right these strats are horrible and work against bad players only.U probably dont understand, cause u saw bad players winning with them against even worse players.Thats the truth bro sorry to ruin ur thoughts.

+1
Btw, I wouldn''t expect you to say "H2O is right" :O