Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Which is more difficult?

Rush
106
65%
Treaty
9
6%
Both are different can't be compared
36
22%
Both need equal work although the area is different
12
7%
 
Total votes: 163

No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624
Joined: Mar 1, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by musketjr »

i did have a short phase of playing tr 20, the main problem is simply balance. late game supremacy turns into civs each having their own broken mechanic that is designed to end stalemates, so in tr you are kinda all throwing random broken mechanics at eachother, and in that sense, civ choice and MU is even more influential.

tr players also play on andes for the instant training everything which makes games worse, but in fairness i remember that the high rank tr guys (like dicktator and black thought) do have very refined tr 20 builds, you couldn't just improv your macro and have it be as good as theirs.

also cows are OP!
United States of America evilcheadar
Gendarme
Posts: 5786
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by evilcheadar »

mvp wrote:
evilcheadar wrote:People with higher iq numbers tend to play treaty. My brother is an engineer and he only plays treaty LAN games-- the smartest gametype.
dumbest shit ive ever read on this site


And youve failed the sarcasm test.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
No Flag mvp
Crossbow
Posts: 17
Joined: Jun 14, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by mvp »

evilcheadar wrote:
mvp wrote:dumbest shit ive ever read on this site
And youve failed the sarcasm test.
[img]http://astro.temple.edu/~tud07455/images/Classic_S3.jpg[/img]

yes sure how should i get it when you have no sarcasm sign? (facepalm)
United States of America evilcheadar
Gendarme
Posts: 5786
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by evilcheadar »

mvp wrote:
evilcheadar wrote:And youve failed the sarcasm test.
[img]http://astro.temple.edu/~tud07455/images/Classic_S3.jpg[/img]

yes sure how should i get it when you have no sarcasm sign?? (facepalm)


Lol...
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
No Flag aoefan4life
Lancer
Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 24, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by aoefan4life »

SUP players can play treaty while most treaty players can't play sup beyond PR 12 level.
United States of America evilcheadar
Gendarme
Posts: 5786
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by evilcheadar »

aoefan4life wrote:SUP players can play treaty while most treaty players can''t play sup beyond PR 12 level.


Hey I''m on sup 18 level.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Malaysia Aizamk
Pro Player
ESOC WarChiefs Classic 2017
Posts: 1459
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
Location: ded

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by Aizamk »

[url=http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&'f=1,39137,,60]The conclusion as foretold by the Oracle[/url]
oranges.
No Flag 360noob
Crossbow
Posts: 48
Joined: Mar 18, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by 360noob »

A Sup player can jump in and pick up treaty easily while a treaty player has a more difficult time playing Sup. Imo Sup is more challenging as it is more fast pace you have to react more quickly and make on the spot decisions while treaty you just boom up, wall up and spam units until one side runs out of resource.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by momuuu »

360noob wrote:A Sup player can jump in and pick up treaty easily while a treaty player has a more difficult time playing Sup. Imo Sup is more challenging as it is more fast pace you have to react more quickly and make on the spot decisions while treaty you just boom up, wall up and spam units until one side runs out of resource.

so you knew top treaty players that also played sup? Because I know dicktator is pretty good at both and the only other guy I know that played some sup got to captaim easily.

Look, if you dont know anythimg about treaty and the community, you shouldnt say things about it.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by gibson »

I dont understand why this is still an issue for some people. From an objective standpoint, sup rush is just harder then NR. I mean there's not really anything else to it.....
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by gibson »

jerom wrote:
360noob wrote:A Sup player can jump in and pick up treaty easily while a treaty player has a more difficult time playing Sup. Imo Sup is more challenging as it is more fast pace you have to react more quickly and make on the spot decisions while treaty you just boom up, wall up and spam units until one side runs out of resource.
so you knew top treaty players that also played sup? Because I know dicktator is pretty good at both and the only other guy I know that played some sup got to captaim easily.

Look, if you dont know anythimg about treaty and the community, you shouldnt say things about it.

StormComing is worse then I am at sup
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by momuuu »

gibson wrote:
jerom wrote:so you knew top treaty players that also played sup? Because I know dicktator is pretty good at both and the only other guy I know that played some sup got to captaim easily.

Look, if you dont know anythimg about treaty and the community, you shouldnt say things about it.
StormComing is worse then I am at sup

he never actually tried to play sup as far as I know. I was talking about milky, he became pretty good at sup pretty quickly.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by gibson »

jerom wrote:
gibson wrote: StormComing is worse then I am at sup
he never actually tried to play sup as far as I know. I was talking about milky, he became pretty good at sup pretty quickly.

Thats exactly the point. Looking at his accounts he seems to have played about 500 rush games. Let any top tier rush player play 500 tr games and they will be top tier if not not 5. I also wonder if part of the skill difference might just be actual experience. Rush players can play 5-8 games in the same amount of time it takes it takes a tr player ti play one game. As a result, most rush players have played 5 or ten times as many games as tr players have.
No Flag adderbrain5
Lancer
Posts: 874
Joined: Mar 20, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by adderbrain5 »

evilcheadar wrote:People with higher iq numbers tend to play treaty. My brother is an engineer and he only plays treaty LAN games-- the smartest gametype.


mvp wrote:
evilcheadar wrote:People with higher iq numbers tend to play treaty. My brother is an engineer and he only plays treaty LAN games-- the smartest gametype.
dumbest shit ive ever read on this site


evilcheadar wrote:
mvp wrote:dumbest shit ive ever read on this site
And youve failed the sarcasm test.


mvp wrote:
evilcheadar wrote:And youve failed the sarcasm test.
[img]http://astro.temple.edu/~tud07455/images/Classic_S3.jpg[/img]

yes sure how should i get it when you have no sarcasm sign?? (facepalm)

actually you are right though,,, there is a lot more intelligence at high level treaty than sup. you can tell just by talking to the players. Not that there arent insanely bright top players in sup but generally smarter people are playing treaty. And its far more gentlemanly at a lower level as well.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by gibson »

adderbrain5 wrote:
evilcheadar wrote:People with higher iq numbers tend to play treaty. My brother is an engineer and he only plays treaty LAN games-- the smartest gametype.
mvp wrote:dumbest shit ive ever read on this site
evilcheadar wrote:And youve failed the sarcasm test.
mvp wrote:[img]http://astro.temple.edu/~tud07455/images/Classic_S3.jpg[/img]

yes sure how should i get it when you have no sarcasm sign?? (facepalm)
actually you are right though,,, there is a lot more intelligence at high level treaty than sup. you can tell just by talking to the players. Not that there arent insanely bright top players in sup but generally smarter people are playing treaty. And its far more gentlemanly at a lower level as well.

lol saying that there is more intelligence In tr then rush is just flat out retard. You have nothing to base that statement on besides "you can tell by talking to them". Which proves absolutely nothing about intelligence. Also, I would assume they are nicer because their community so so small they can afford being dicks to everyone or they will have no one to play with.
No Flag adderbrain5
Lancer
Posts: 874
Joined: Mar 20, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by adderbrain5 »

Who really cares. Both are great... Imo everyone should play both and could learn more about one from the other. Sometimes I prefer treaty sometimes rush info back and forth personally
No Flag adderbrain5
Lancer
Posts: 874
Joined: Mar 20, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by adderbrain5 »

gibson wrote:
adderbrain5 wrote: actually you are right though,,, there is a lot more intelligence at high level treaty than sup. you can tell just by talking to the players. Not that there arent insanely bright top players in sup but generally smarter people are playing treaty. And its far more gentlemanly at a lower level as well.
lol saying that there is more intelligence In tr then rush is just flat out retard. You have nothing to base that statement on besides "you can tell by talking to them". Which proves absolutely nothing about intelligence. Also, I would assume they are nicer because their community so so small they can afford being dicks to everyone or they will have no one to play with.

well its a good thing Im not trying to prove a scientific thesis. Because in that case you might have me. But basically yea treaty requires MUCH MORE management and multitasking. When in rush do you ever have a hundred bar axes, have to be constantly walking the whole map while microing fire pit constantly or wonders , and at the same time microing 2-3 50 unit control groups in order to win fights effectively, base forward over and over and fortify gained positions while Doing all this? Plus vil killing macro distribution still matters too. Seems like a no brainier question to me.Oh so you have to micro a few herds while creeping some treasure and shift clicking some wagons to help u explore, then younger even get in a brief scuffle with a guys explorer... So taxing... Get real

What is more difficult in my opinion about Rush is scouting reading your opponent and choosing the correct building order thats something that doesnt matter as much in tree because most civilizations have one or two viable decks only and have many options from there after getting all their cards

Another thing about treaty that I think that most rush players couldnt really handle is when it gets into a real war of attrition that requires a lot of focus concentration and perseverance. This happens especially in 55 and plain and simple most people dont have The mental focus to deal with that for more than 45 minutes and sometimes it can last for hours. At upper level I would put it more at a test of focus and willpower which is one thing that makes it cool. Its not like youre just getting bored first and then you leave its like your mind is so overwhelmed you cant concentrate anymore and your hand is cramping up and you really need to take a pissbut you fight through and win...or if people really need to take a piss sometimes an agreement pause for five minutes
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1303
Joined: Feb 28, 2015
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by yurashic »

anonymous123 wrote:
yurashic wrote:How to learn to play treaty?

- Watch a video how to boom properly.
- Wait for the timer to expire.
- Spam units everywhere and build military buildings everywhere.

How to learn to play supremacy?

- Learn all standard build orders for all 14 civs and how to counter them.
- Learn how to adapt to unexpected strategies.
- Learn to raid.
- Learn to scout.
- Learn to play water and against it.
- Learn to manage natural resources.
- Learn positioning and micro.

Difference is obvious.
booms are different for different civ.
you need to adapt to running, higher pop splits doubling etc.
scouting is important in tr as well.
managing natural resources is important in tr as well for perfect booming.?
positioning and micro is as important in tr
its not just spam you need to make proper units and counters.?




Booms are different but you do not need to know how your enemy does that, you can learn a boom for only 1 civ and it will not affect your gameplay that you do not know other booms. In sup you need to know all standard builds and how to counter them.

To adapt to running all you have to do is to build military buildings everywhere.

What are you going to scout for? For walls? You already know what your enemy is doing...

Managing res in sup - "I cant build more than 10 manors and I should push not later than at 10 min because that is all my res allow me". "My enemy is running low on gold mines so I need to control those".

Managing res in tr - "I have to build a mill when my hunt runs out".

Obviously you need to make proper units, but in sup you scout what your enemy is making and making wrong units is GG, while in treaty you just have to build stuff against what comes at you. Units train fast and losing them is not game-changing.
No Flag 360noob
Crossbow
Posts: 48
Joined: Mar 18, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by 360noob »

jerom wrote:
360noob wrote:A Sup player can jump in and pick up treaty easily while a treaty player has a more difficult time playing Sup. Imo Sup is more challenging as it is more fast pace you have to react more quickly and make on the spot decisions while treaty you just boom up, wall up and spam units until one side runs out of resource.
so you knew top treaty players that also played sup? Because I know dicktator is pretty good at both and the only other guy I know that played some sup got to captaim easily.

Look, if you dont know anythimg about treaty and the community, you shouldnt say things about it.



Youre talking about the minority here. Lets be clear Sup is more difficult to play, im just stating the obvious
No Flag alejandrote
Musketeer
Posts: 52
Joined: Feb 18, 2015

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by alejandrote »

Only treaty players call 'rush' supremacy games, it pisses me off.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by momuuu »

Sup is not obviously more difficult. I think treaty is pretty clearly mechanically more taxing at its max (if you disregard the lagg), and sup is clearly strategically harder.

The treaty community is much smaller and historywise filled with more noobs, so the average and top is weaker. Thats common sense.

So if you take the community into account its probably harder, but otherwise I think its a really close call.
United States of America evilcheadar
Gendarme
Posts: 5786
Joined: Aug 20, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by evilcheadar »

On the whole it has been proven treaty takes more iq than rush does. Ask an aoe expert like me and I'll verify it.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by momuuu »

Maybe the fact that sup players do better in treaty than vice versa can also be explained by the differences between the gametypes. Treaty is very mechanical, and not that strategical, and the strategy that is present in treaty is there to a lesser extend in sup, so the skills of a top sup player easily transfer to treaty. The treaty skills on the other hand, clearly do not cover the strategic aspect of sup.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by gibson »

[quote author="@adderbrain5" source="/post/43605/thread" timestamp="1440443761"][quote author="@gibson" timestamp="1440443445" source="/post/43604/thread"]lol saying that there is more intelligence In tr then rush is just flat out retard. You have nothing to base that statement on besides "you can tell by talking to them". Which proves absolutely nothing about intelligence. Also, I would assume they are nicer because their community so so small they can afford being dicks to everyone or they will have no one to play with. [/quote]well it's a good thing I'm not trying to prove a scientific thesis. Because in that case you might have me. But basically yea treaty requires MUCH MORE management and multitasking. When in rush do you ever have a hundred bar axes, have to be constantly walking the whole map while microing fire pit constantly or wonders , and at the same time microing 2-3 50 unit control groups in order to win fights effectively, base forward over and over and fortify gained positions while Doing all this? Plus vil killing macro distribution still matters too. Seems like a no brainier question to me.Oh so you have to micro a few herds while creeping some treasure and shift clicking some wagons to help u explore, then younger even get in a brief scuffle with a guys explorer... So taxing... Get real

What is more difficult in my opinion about Rush is scouting reading your opponent and choosing the correct building order that's something that doesn't matter as much in tree because most civilizations have one or two viable decks only and have many options from there after getting all their cards

Another thing about treaty that I think that most rush players couldn't really handle is when it gets into a real war of attrition that requires a lot of focus concentration and perseverance. This happens especially in 55 and plain and simple most people don't have The mental focus to deal with that for more than 45 minutes and sometimes it can last for hours. At upper level I would put it more at a test of focus and willpower which is one thing that makes it cool. It's not like you're just getting bored first and then you leave it's like your mind is so overwhelmed you can't concentrate anymore and your hand is cramping up and you really need to take a pissbut you fight through and win...or if people really need to take a piss sometimes an agreement pause for five minutes[/quote]
have you even played age of Empires? Obviously you are controlling more units in treaty but those units are infinitesimally less important then your units in sup. In treaty, you could accidently delete your entire army and no one would know the difference, you can replace it in 5 seconds lol, however, in sup, loosing a mere five units is the difference between winning and loosing.

Also, if you have ever watched a high level treaty game, you would realize that you have exaggerated everything. That microing of fire pit and wonders you speak of? No one plays again civs but India and "microing the winders" is literally just clicking a large button. Same with fireplace micro. It literally is pressing to keys on your key board. Also, that "microing 2-3 batches of 50 units" doesn't exist because the average life of a unit is probably about 10 seconds outside of artillery so doing any major micro is counter productive as the units your microing will be dead in five seconds anyway, artillery being an obvious exception.

I think I know why your not very good at this game, because you down play this that are vitally important. In a mirror, literally one misclick and loosing two of your guys is the difference in the game. The margin for error is so much smaller in rush than in tr that everything needs to be taken super serouisly.

It's kind of like the difference between someone who is answering the help line for a big computer corporation and the person who is answering the phone when you call 911. If you fall asleep and someone doesn't get their software correctly updated, not a big deal. Call them back, get thing s sorted out, and your golden. That is tr. Rush is like answering 911 calls. Fall asleep and someone dies. Call them back and it's too late, their dead and there's nothing you can do.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

Post by momuuu »

In treaty, the macro is actually pretty hard. And then (again, considering no lagg) you can micro your units just about as much as in sup. Also, map awareness is equally important if not more important. Ive lost in treaty due to not noticing an fb near my base more often than I have due to not noticing a raid. Its a lot tougher mechanically to do things perfectly, where you reach that cap pretty quickly when it comes to sup.

I find it fascinating that people here somehow think that treaty is just spamming units into eachother and that there is no micro involved. The reason micro doesnt happen as much is because its actually insanely hard to keep up with the macro and generic army control and micro at the same time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 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