What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Imperial Noob »

AIs play gazillion games vs themselves, creating an effect similar to having unlimited population competing against each other—only with a much higher upper limit of processing power.
In AoE3 the AI would micro every unit separately, including several scouting cav units. The games of prediction between these bots would be insane, based on terrain (pathing), HP of units, etc.
A field too vast for anyone to have a firm grasp of everything, since we cannot even agree on a single "perfect" analysis of a single match. I would say that humans make multi-digit number of mistakes every game.
AoE 3 is for us, humans, a type of activity where we cannot manage to have perfect information, so there is a much higher random factor. We have to rely on prediction, much smaller amounts of knowledge and of associated intuitive responses.
IQ is more important for us in improving, since we need to analyze games and run long decision trees, like chess players do. And do it fast in-game too, to even recognize what is happening. The question is, whether we can execute every move that we see fast enough.
I would say that IQ is still more important, because the game is too much of an open problem for our brains, provided mechanics are decent. Both are secondary to vast memory, however. I would compare it to composing music. IQ is the speed of analyzing possibilities, mechanics are the ability to play / hear tiniest bits of relevant information, and memory is the database of problems with already known solutions.

That being said, lag and a lack of balance screw everything up tho xD

P.S. I agree with Jerom that humans love to discover things, find a niche for themselves.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

AI has the advantage of brute forcing their way through, but humans have an amazing ability to solve strategic concepts in a very small amount of attempts. We have this inate ability to make assumptions and grasp the underlying concepts of a game pretty quickly and use those to create axioms in how to play the game which can then be used to analyse most in-game situations even if those are unlike anything we've encountered before. While there is much praise for modern artificial intelligence, it still seems to lack this ability.

The problem for AIs currently isn't the unit management - AIs can easily be made to be extremely good at the mechanical side of things. The problem is actually that the AI cannot produce a set of underlying axioms that dictate how to play a game and that makes it extremely hard for current AIs to figure out a game like aoe3. What is even more problematic is that games like aoe3 are games with imperfect information, which makes it even harder for the AI to brute force everything since they can't actually know what they are dealing with exactly on the other side. The only strategy game that current AI is reasonably good at is Dota although they are still inferior to professional humans. Compared to real RTS games however, Dota and other Mobas have strategic concepts that are much more intuitive as positioning and deciding to take a fight or not are things that are done rather intuitively even by human players. The strategic side of the game (how to level and itemize and how to spread farm across heroes) where actually things that AI was pretty bad at.

So actually currently I don't think the AI can teach us much about aoe3. We still have to rely on our own amazing brain and its capability to generalize complex problems and come up with a solutions to those without using brute force.
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Imperial Noob »

That can be solved bz AIs using superior mechanics to control scouts and gather more information. As for items or shipments... I guess another layer of decision-making is required.

I thought humans have already been beaten bloody hopeless by AI in Dota
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Garja »

Alphazero doesn't exactly use bruteforce. From what I understand, bruteforce was only used in the process that lead Alphazero to make its own set of rules. After that the machines applies its own axioms.
And the very proof of this is how Alphazero takes concepts that are well known in the chess literature and just expands them, bringing them to the next level. In a sense, the way Alphazero plays is very much human, but extremely confident in proving a point and of course extremely prepared (capable of analyzing long variants perfectly).
So I would expect the same for AOE3 if the AI would operate with reinforcement learning. Of course there is the incomplete information and the game has a more complex set of rules than Chess but it is just a matter of time. Just like in Dota where OpenAI is improving at each iteration.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

AlphaZero doesn't use bruteforce, it adapts from experience. Thing is, in chess, the amount of move is limited, thus, the AI can play millions of games and win because it sees the same pattern. You can't quite do that in aoe3 because there are so many possibilities.

Anyway, if we had a dominating AI in aoe3, I don't think it would matter because, just like in chess, the AI would play so perfectly that we couldn't copy it and we still would have to go for our human build orders and play it safe.
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Jaeger »

Sorry but I don't see how "AlphaZero is agressive in chess, therefore its best to be agressive in AOE3" is an arguent lol.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Jaeger »

It would be interesting to see an AI who has 10 000 APM, but it would also be interesting to limit it to a normal player APM and see what it spends it on.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Garja »

ovi12 wrote:Sorry but I don't see how "AlphaZero is agressive in chess, therefore its best to be agressive in AOE3" is an arguent lol.

It's not about being recklessly aggressive, it is more that tempo and space advantage is important in chess and Alphazero uses it. Tempo and space advantage is also important in AOE3 so I expect an AI to use it. It impossible to exactly think of how a game between two AIs like Alphazero would look like but it's almost certain that both would battle for the iniatitive and only backoff when it isn't not optimal (e.g. because you get trapped and lose your units). And even there you would probably see the AI losing units just to accomplish some pressure and stuff like that.
Again, impossible to tell how it would be in practice but with perfect mechanics (that's for granted) then it would be more about applying principles that work and initiative is very dominating in AOE3.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.
User avatar
Canada dansil92
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2231
Joined: Nov 3, 2018
ESO: dansil92

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by dansil92 »

The idea of a mechanically perfect ai is intriguing to me. With enough apm the ai could run 9 diferent cav around your base in different directions, frame perfect kiting, avoiding range/LOS of units, even abuse trample mode or take advantage of micro intense units with no overkills or even units like spies to wreck your explorers. I genuinely wonder if it would play like, cowhax style with TEAM cheap priests and fast industrials with perfect turtles, or lighting fast rushes with perfect macro...
Image
User avatar
Malaysia Yamato23
Musketeer
Posts: 84
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
ESO: Yamato23
Location: Kuala Lumpur

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Yamato23 »

only one legend got both IQ and Mechanic, guess who?
- only and the only @lordraphael!!

p/s: miss him so much. hope to see him next tourney
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

dansil92 wrote:The idea of a mechanically perfect ai is intriguing to me. With enough apm the ai could run 9 diferent cav around your base in different directions, frame perfect kiting, avoiding range/LOS of units, even abuse trample mode or take advantage of micro intense units with no overkills or even units like spies to wreck your explorers. I genuinely wonder if it would play like, cowhax style with TEAM cheap priests and fast industrials with perfect turtles, or lighting fast rushes with perfect macro...

Team cheap priests only works because we can't focus fire perfectly and we waste some dps on monks, an AI wouldn't gamble on his opponent being bad.
As I said, the AI would probably just boom with walls and perfect defense, and either win a late game because it's easier to outplay in late game, or win with a timing.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by deleted_user0 »

momuuu wrote:Implied cynicism aside, I think it'd be pretty cool to be an even more active contributor to strategies and playstyles. Kynesie is another person that comes to mind. This is one of the things that is really special about aoe3. It allows for relative casuals like us to actually discover the game rather than reproduce what others do.

Maybe to get back on topic a little bit, this can also be related to the actual question of IQ vs mechanics. Because you have to gather much of the knowledge about how to play aoe3 from testing things yourself and coming up with strategies yourself it's very hard to be a mechanical bot that just copies strategies from others with decent mechanics. When doing so you will still be decent. But I think ultimately you'll be a bit better if you have deeper understanding of the game and rather mediocre mechanics. Ultimately all factors matter of course, but I do think decision making and build orders are extremely important in aoe3. The beauty is also that you can't just read a guide and obtain this knowledge (while honestly, in for example sc2 you can just kinda copy a build order and use the army composition that pros use and you'll cover much of the strategy required to be good), so smart players will be better than mindless bots.


Kynesie hasnt really added any strats to the game tho... hes been doing the same thing with pretty much eveey civ he plays. Hes kinda the polar opposite of a strategically improving player. Hes just improved one thing, which he didnt think of himself, and improved it and practiced it to great effectivity. That has some merit, but it doesnt actively drive improvement of strategy. It only does passively, because people come up with strats to beat it. One reason you can do this iis because hes so predictable and does the same thing every game. Preparing a tournament vs aiz, or for example goongoon, soldier or challe is much harder, as you dont know what theyre gonna do.
User avatar
France bwinner
Howdah
Donator 01
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mar 14, 2016
ESO: bwinner

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by bwinner »

momuuu wrote:I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.

Doing the moves that make you win from experience is not bruteforce where you check if the move will lead you in a good position by exploring all the possibilities.
Btw doing the moves that make you win from expérience is exactly what human player do aswell (experimented players at least).
Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

bwinner1 wrote:
momuuu wrote:I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.

Doing the moves that make you win from experience is not bruteforce where you check if the move will lead you in a good position by exploring all the possibilities.
Btw doing the moves that make you win from expérience is exactly what human player do aswell (experimented players at least).

So from what I understood deepmind basically uploaded millions of go board states and how those matches played out. From what I understood alpha go tried to actively recreate winning board states from its database. It was a bit of a trick that can't be applied easily to other fields. Strategically I don't think the AI was great, it just combined a trick with lots of brute force trial and error.

Obviously its an impressive feat, but I think it also gives insight in how challenging it would be to make a strategically great bot for an RTS. Like I also said, the dota AI was really good at the less strategic things (like how to micro) but honestly really failed at the strategy side of things. So we shouldnt praise the AI yet. It still cant really compete with this unique human capability to solve problems without pure trial and error
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Garja »

momuuu wrote:I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.

Ye the learning process is done that way. How would a machine learn a set of complex rules from scratch by itself?
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

Garja wrote:
momuuu wrote:I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.

Ye the learning process is done that way. How would a machine learn a set of complex rules from scratch by itself?

I dont quite know what you are trying to say. My point is that AI shouldn't be praised to much because it can literally only trial and error games at the moment. For chess you can calculated everything, for Go trial and error seems like an excellent thing to do as the amount of possibilities is still limited and all information is available. But how the fuck would you literally trial and error a game like aoe3, where there are a million of options that all require different strategic decisions. Again the AI will probably learn some things, but as shown by the Dota bot the AI currently is not able to actually innovate strategically. We humans are still superior in that aspect.
User avatar
Greece BrookG
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2009
Joined: Feb 21, 2016
ESO: BrookG
Location: Thessaloniki

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by BrookG »

Garja wrote:
momuuu wrote:I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.

Ye the learning process is done that way. How would a machine learn a set of complex rules from scratch by itself?

Even if you do statistical learning, what are you going to teach the AI?
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

"mr.brookg go buy jeans and goto the club with somppuli" - Princeofkabul, July 2018
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Garja »

momuuu wrote:
Garja wrote:
momuuu wrote:I watched the entire deepmind presentation of alphago and that was still a form of brute force. No it does not calculate all possibilities, but it still has an insane amount of information and plays an insane amount of games versus itself. In that sense its still brute force; its basically solving a puzzle by trying all possibilities.

Ye the learning process is done that way. How would a machine learn a set of complex rules from scratch by itself?

I dont quite know what you are trying to say. My point is that AI shouldn't be praised to much because it can literally only trial and error games at the moment. For chess you can calculated everything, for Go trial and error seems like an excellent thing to do as the amount of possibilities is still limited and all information is available. But how the fuck would you literally trial and error a game like aoe3, where there are a million of options that all require different strategic decisions. Again the AI will probably learn some things, but as shown by the Dota bot the AI currently is not able to actually innovate strategically. We humans are still superior in that aspect.

Trial and error is not trivial. It's the same way humans learn things. The difference between deep learning and previous machine learning techniques is that now AIs are capable of learning and improving over time by themselves. Previously AI worked with just the subset of rules given by humans.
The AI that is challenging humans in Dota already won vs mid tier players. Now it is being improved to try win vs pros. Eventually they it will beat pros, it's just a matter of time.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

Garja wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Show hidden quotes

I dont quite know what you are trying to say. My point is that AI shouldn't be praised to much because it can literally only trial and error games at the moment. For chess you can calculated everything, for Go trial and error seems like an excellent thing to do as the amount of possibilities is still limited and all information is available. But how the fuck would you literally trial and error a game like aoe3, where there are a million of options that all require different strategic decisions. Again the AI will probably learn some things, but as shown by the Dota bot the AI currently is not able to actually innovate strategically. We humans are still superior in that aspect.

Trial and error is not trivial. It's the same way humans learn things. The difference between deep learning and previous machine learning techniques is that now AIs are capable of learning and improving over time by themselves. Previously AI worked with just the subset of rules given by humans.
The AI that is challenging humans in Dota already won vs mid tier players. Now it is being improved to try win vs pros. Eventually they it will beat pros, it's just a matter of time.

Of course trial and error is not trivial. But humans do not just learn through trial and error! Some of the greatest breakthrough's I've had in aoe3 where things I thought of in the shower. I won a series against sircallen because I thought of a strategy while lying on the beach. That's an unique human feature: The ability to actually truly understand the game and use that knowledge to solve problems in that game. The AI can't do this, it can only do trial and error. It's very impressive how good the AI can do trial and error, and I'm sure anything trial and error related will be a thing that AI can get better at than humans.

However, what I am pointing out is that solving strategic concepts using trial and error is still extremely hard. I'm nuancing the AI's abilities to actually solve a game like aoe3 with trial and error. Like I tried to explain, alphaGo used some neat tricks for Go that aren't necessarily machine learning related. It just gained a database of winning board states and I believe it's starting point was to build towards these winning board states and then learned how to effectively build towards those states. This is not something that can easily be applied to an RTS game, because there are no discrete board states but rather there is a continuous spectrum of states. That means the AI has nothing to gain from building towards a state in a specific recorded game by precisely positioning units in a certain way because that isn't really relevant in an RTS game. Despite that, the AI did prove to be reasonable at dota. However, it's only reasonable. I watched those games, that AI excells at anything that humans do intuitively. But it is also really bad at the strategic side of things.

If we consider this knowledge, we should conclude that the AI is quite far away from solving aoe3 strategically. Especially interesting is having a bot that has limited mechanics learn to solve a strategic game like aoe3. You can't abuse a trick like what was used for Go to lay a foundation and in aoe3 strategic understanding of the game is really important. Army movement tactics and such - things that are more intuitive and things that humans also mostly learn through trial and error - are not nearly as important in aoe3. This should mean that for an AI to excell at aoe3 it needs to do something that AI hasn't done before: actually trial and error so well to the point where it starts solving strategic concepts. But pure trial and error is a brute force technique. I don't think the current capabilities of this AI can brute force aoe3's strategy yet. Right now the human brain is more competent, because we can solve strategic concepts while lying on the beach or lying on a bed thinking about the game or by arguing about the game on a forum.
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Imperial Noob »

.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Garja »

momuuu wrote:
Garja wrote:
Show hidden quotes

Trial and error is not trivial. It's the same way humans learn things. The difference between deep learning and previous machine learning techniques is that now AIs are capable of learning and improving over time by themselves. Previously AI worked with just the subset of rules given by humans.
The AI that is challenging humans in Dota already won vs mid tier players. Now it is being improved to try win vs pros. Eventually they it will beat pros, it's just a matter of time.

Of course trial and error is not trivial. But humans do not just learn through trial and error! Some of the greatest breakthrough's I've had in aoe3 where things I thought of in the shower. I won a series against sircallen because I thought of a strategy while lying on the beach. That's an unique human feature: The ability to actually truly understand the game and use that knowledge to solve problems in that game. The AI can't do this, it can only do trial and error. It's very impressive how good the AI can do trial and error, and I'm sure anything trial and error related will be a thing that AI can get better at than humans.

However, what I am pointing out is that solving strategic concepts using trial and error is still extremely hard. I'm nuancing the AI's abilities to actually solve a game like aoe3 with trial and error. Like I tried to explain, alphaGo used some neat tricks for Go that aren't necessarily machine learning related. It just gained a database of winning board states and I believe it's starting point was to build towards these winning board states and then learned how to effectively build towards those states. This is not something that can easily be applied to an RTS game, because there are no discrete board states but rather there is a continuous spectrum of states. That means the AI has nothing to gain from building towards a state in a specific recorded game by precisely positioning units in a certain way because that isn't really relevant in an RTS game. Despite that, the AI did prove to be reasonable at dota. However, it's only reasonable. I watched those games, that AI excells at anything that humans do intuitively. But it is also really bad at the strategic side of things.

If we consider this knowledge, we should conclude that the AI is quite far away from solving aoe3 strategically. Especially interesting is having a bot that has limited mechanics learn to solve a strategic game like aoe3. You can't abuse a trick like what was used for Go to lay a foundation and in aoe3 strategic understanding of the game is really important. Army movement tactics and such - things that are more intuitive and things that humans also mostly learn through trial and error - are not nearly as important in aoe3. This should mean that for an AI to excell at aoe3 it needs to do something that AI hasn't done before: actually trial and error so well to the point where it starts solving strategic concepts. But pure trial and error is a brute force technique. I don't think the current capabilities of this AI can brute force aoe3's strategy yet. Right now the human brain is more competent, because we can solve strategic concepts while lying on the beach or lying on a bed thinking about the game or by arguing about the game on a forum.

I think you're not up to date with Deepmind's machine. I'm not sure if AlphaGo, in its final version, actually used that approach to beat the best human player, but in any caseAlphaGo was the first version, then came AlphaGo Zero (Alpha Zero) which has been used for Chess. Alpha Zero doesn't employ any "trick" such as an opening book, nor a database with recurrent endgames. All AlphaZero was given was the basic rules of Chess. Then it learned everything else by itself. And just to give you a measure of how strong it is (not sure if you knew this already, reason why I'm telling you) it simply crushed the previous best Chess AI: +155 -6 =839 (the 6 losses were from games with assigned starting position). Humans are no way close to even win (or draw possibly) a single game vs such AI. There are simply no reserves on concluding that this kind of AIs are strictly superior to humans in these type of games.

Now, you said RTS have a continuous spectrum of states. That's actually not true. Every game has a set of winning conditions and a set of discrete variables that define discrete states. It is just way more complex than in simple games like Chess or Go. Also there is the incomplete information but I don't think that's really a problem since these AIs look at results so can infer what they don't see with backward induction (just like humans do).
Dota is just a game with way more variables, possibly with a combinations of possible variants that are several digits exponentially more numerous than Chess. So basically if it took 4hrs for AlphaZero to reach a level where it is able to beat the best previous best AI (so realistically 2-3hr max to beat best humans), it would probably take a number of years before a similar AI will be able to do the same in Dota. Learning strategic concept with trial and error is not hard, it is just long. We humans use heuristics to shorten the amount of time required to make decisions. It comes natural to us because we build those heuristics on top of previous knowledge which is ultimately already built in our DNA. A machine has to build its own heuristics from scratch, or it has to be given some regarding the field that is meant to operate in.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

I give up. You don't really understand this..
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by Garja »

Come on, it's not like I dont understand this, it is just that you're not up to date to what deep learning is doing. They are even using deep learning machines in medicine to diagnose diseases...
The only thing holding back deep learning AIs from stomping human players in RTS games is the crazy amount of variables those games have.
Image Image Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

Post by momuuu »

Garja wrote:Come on, it's not like I dont understand this, it is just that you're not up to date to what deep learning is doing. They are even using deep learning machines in medicine to diagnose diseases...
The only thing holding back deep learning AIs from stomping human players in RTS games is the crazy amount of variables those games have.

And the AI's inability to solve those crazily complex games with strategic insight, yes. Thats what I'm saying..

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV