Town Center Design Sucks

[[Armag] diarouga]

It this true that not all civs have same booming options or same options in general, but that's exactly the cool thing about this game.
Also it is a matter of number of civs. Within each expansion civs ar relatively similar in available options

How is that a cool thing? It means that when you play a MU, you know your opponent has to rush you and take an advantage. How is it fine in a strategy game?
The cool thing about sc2 and aoe2 (which are said to be the 2 best RTS games) is that, regardless of your civ/race, the opponent has the opportunity to play super no eco, standard, super greedy, with like 5 different unit compostion. Also in aoe2 and sc2 you always have to make a choice between eco, army, or tech. In aoe3, you can't go eco since making villagers is a musk, and you have to send vill shipments anyway, and the only tech option you have is aging, because upgrades are totally trash.

[n0el]

It this true that not all civs have same booming options or same options in general, but that's exactly the cool thing about this game.
Also it is a matter of number of civs. Within each expansion civs ar relatively similar in available options

How is that a cool thing? It means that when you play a MU, you know your opponent has to rush you and take an advantage. How is it fine in a strategy game?
The cool thing about sc2 and aoe2 (which are said to be the 2 best RTS games) is that, regardless of your civ/race, the opponent has the opportunity to play super no eco, standard, super greedy, with like 5 different unit compostion. Also in aoe2 and sc2 you always have to make a choice between eco, army, or tech. In aoe3, you can't go eco since making villagers is a musk, and you have to send vill shipments anyway, and the only tech option you have is aging, because upgrades are totally trash.

Basically this. You could fix it within the confines of the game design somewhat as well.

[Jaeger]

Near-optimal play just seems to be too easy to figure out, but I suppose it is more due to the game being too old rather than a flawed game.

I used to think that but that's wrong. I'm pretty sure that we don't even play half of the civs correctly.

Is there any civ you think is played correctly?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Near-optimal play just seems to be too easy to figure out, but I suppose it is more due to the game being too old rather than a flawed game.

I used to think that but that's wrong. I'm pretty sure that we don't even play half of the civs correctly.

Is there any civ you think is played correctly?

Well let's list the civs:
Japan: Is most definitely not played correctly, nobody here can claim he understands Japan
India: Probably not played correctly, it's one of the only versatile civ so you can surely refine build orders, or even create new ones. Furthermore, you have to pick the right unit compositin. By the way, sepoy rush isn't the correct way imo.
China: Well this one is probably played correctly. Even though you can do different ff builds, I'm quite sure that ffing is the right way.
Iroquois: Nobody plays them, let alone correctly
Aztecs: Same. I myself don't consider I use every strengh of the civ, and I'm the only relevant aztec player
Sioux: People just play them randomly (which might actually be how they should be played haha)
Otto: I'm not sure people have figured out the best timings etc. Still, it's very likely that jan/abus or ff are the best way to play the civ, it's not really an interesting one.
Spain: Well, you have to ff fore sure imo, but what you do after the ff is a big question, and I'm not sure that we all understand how we should transition after the agressive falc push.
Dutch: Not played correctly (people don't build enough walls, and don't make enough artillery, I'm not even talking about refined build orders)
France: The civ is quite straight forward so they're probably played correctly
Germany: I'm not sure the civ is played at its full potential, I feel the transition between age 2 and age 3 could be easier with refined builds. Furthermore, I'm not sure it is played correctly in age 3.
Brits: The civ is so complicated, and nobody is even close to play them at their full potential
Ports: Nobody play Ports since the vills cost nerf, as a consequence, it's obvious nobody masters the civ
Russia: I've always wondered if the civ was just dumb, or if there were other ways to play than rushing like a noob. I couldn't say.

All in all, there are like 3-4 civs that are figured out imo. My opinion here can sound arrogant because claiming that nobody plays a civ properly feels like I'm saying people are bad and I know better, but that's really not true.
I realise that the two civs I know the best (Brits and Azzy), are far from being figured out. And that, despite all the games I've played, and all the ideas I've tried, I find new ways/mechanics to improve my strats with these civs. It might be because they are the 2 most complicated civs, but still, I'm sure that I haven't figured these civs, and actually far from that.

[Hazza54321]

a civ isnt played correctly if its not played exactly like diarouga, proven fact!

[gibson]

I dont think any civs are played properly. If this was an active game with a pro community I promise you everything would be drastically different.

[Garja]

It this true that not all civs have same booming options or same options in general, but that's exactly the cool thing about this game.
Also it is a matter of number of civs. Within each expansion civs ar relatively similar in available options

How is that a cool thing? It means that when you play a MU, you know your opponent has to rush you and take an advantage. How is it fine in a strategy game?
The cool thing about sc2 and aoe2 (which are said to be the 2 best RTS games) is that, regardless of your civ/race, the opponent has the opportunity to play super no eco, standard, super greedy, with like 5 different unit compostion. Also in aoe2 and sc2 you always have to make a choice between eco, army, or tech. In aoe3, you can't go eco since making villagers is a musk, and you have to send vill shipments anyway, and the only tech option you have is aging, because upgrades are totally trash.

Ye it means you have a civ with strong defined features and you have to drag the game to its strenghts while denying opponent's civ ones.
Again, within each expansion this is less defined. TAD civs in particular have all options basically. And while that's cool within the expansion is not cool when compared to nilla civs who had more defined pros and cons.
As for the eco, army, tech AOE3 lacks a bit on that regard but still you have options in that sense. FF and FI are tech. Max greedy is eco. Rush or timing is army. There was traditionally a bias toward army tho, because controlling resources is basically the main theme of the game.

[Aykin Haraka]

a civ isnt played correctly if its not played exactly like diarouga, proven fact!

xD

[kami_ryu]

screw greed. aggression with 5 units is the way it was meant to be played

[Vinyanyérë]

It's come to my attention that there's a preference to keep this thread to the topic of town center design and how I'm a terrible IT guy instead of the topic of walls. I'm going to move a bunch of posts here over to a different topic. Thank you for understanding.

[deleted_user]

That's so weird. Discussion naturally tangents. If someone wants to realign the discussion, say so.