France turtle strategy??

[TNT333]

France is op lategame, yet most France players dont turtle-boom much unlike Japan players who wall up and just stay in base until they hit age 4. Is there a reason why the Turtle style doesnt favor France much?? I'd say it's pretty viable if one just walls up and spends time on maxing couriers then hitting late game and winning.

[Shikari]

Because you need hunts and map control unlike japan as france.

[Black_Duck]

For one thing because france doesnt get its res under the tc like Japan.

[TNT333]

Because you need hunts and map control unlike japan as france.

Could milling work?? Just send all eco upgrades

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah you need hunts and mines because mills / plants are garbage and too expensive. You can't send all eco upgrades because again it's extremely expensive, and even with all upgrades you don't gather faster than natural resources.
Besides the french boom is slow. You have to get to age 3 and then spam vils out of 3 tcs, super expensive too. You don't have a very fast way to boom like Japan does.

In short, you'll die in middle game if you try to reach late game like that.

[Shikari]

Because you need hunts and map control unlike japan as france.

Could milling work?? Just send all eco upgrades

Basically what kaiser said

[TNT333]

Yeah you need hunts and mines because mills / plants are garbage and too expensive. You can't send all eco upgrades because again it's extremely expensive, and even with all upgrades you don't gather faster than natural resources.
Besides the french boom is slow. You have to get to age 3 and then spam vils out of 3 tcs, super expensive too. You don't have a very fast way to boom like Japan does.

In short, you'll die in middle game if you try to reach late game like that.

Ok i see. Thanks. By the way, vs A Japan, does France get enough time to boom to age 4?? Since the Japan player might also be turtling/booming. So france gets enough map control and hunts to get lategame and from then its france favored??? I saw some recs of France vs Japan so

[Squamiger]

going age 4 as france can be quite viable, but i dont know if it's that good vs. japan. you can't give japan that long to boom.

[Kaiserklein]

Well if you boom and go industrial, and he does the same, you usually just lose because his boom is stronger and his units are stronger. So unless you also manage to secure a stagecoach or burn a lot of his shrines or something, while going industrial, it shouldn't work.
In fact you may be able to FI, but surely not the turtle, tc boom kind of FI. Rather a quick guard musks + 2 heavies + 4 culvs kind of push. But I don't think it should really work vs Japan either way

[Jaeger]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

[blackout]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

Could as well just play treaty then

[dansil92]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

Dont tempt me

[Jaeger]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

Dont tempt me

Plzplzplz I am the girl in my picture I will give you a kiss

[Jaeger]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

Could as well just play treaty then

Lategame sup (and the first 15 minutes leading up to it) are very different from treaty.

[deleted_user]

"Late game" sup isn't really balanced, all things considered equal. That's why the EP focuses on age 2, age 3, and very early age 4 balance. And why Treaty Patch exists, and barrier ridge isn't an EP map, and team is less balanced than 1v1.

We're actually seeing more FIs than ever (and with france) on the current patch, with maps that don't have res to go V in base.

Maps impact inter-civ balance a lot, and there's a reason why there aren't maps that would guarantee the game goes into post-industrial -- they have resource distributions that favors general map control to stay on natural resources longer than your opponent because that's an important part of balance.

Of course Japan just throws a giant wrench in this sort of model, and RE kynesie port + walls. Contrary to popular belief, these play styles were nerfed(?) not because of some administrative bias, but because they just circumvent basic RTS strategy and principle -- it's why warships were nerfed with respect to land units (culverins), why jinites were nerfed, why shogunate was nerfed. These are good changes. And don't let your desires cloud what is good RTS balance.

[blackout]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

Could as well just play treaty then

Lategame sup (and the first 15 minutes leading up to it) are very different from treaty.

Sounds horrible tho

[Mitoe]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

FI is plenty viable with lots of civs right now; don’t think we need more resources to make it worthwhile.

[Peachrocks]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

FI is plenty viable with lots of civs right now; don’t think we need more resources to make it worthwhile.

FI is not quite the same or what they might mean. Not exactly. I think what they might mean is games going beyond the same predictable mark when one player loses a fight, some map control and can’t contest efficient resources anymore so basically loses by default.

Whatever the reason a lot of aoe3 games end at very similar times for this reason, which in the eyes of some makes the game stale. Aoe2 for example doesn’t have this problem because hunts are scarce by default and both/all players resort to farming early. Gold control can be an issue but it’s not as prominent and there’s always trash units in aoe2.

Though I guess it’s true that semi late game supremacy is a balance nightmare so thus gets swept under the carpet.

Hell because I played suboptimal strategies so games would actually go beyond this time frame some players got salty with me, even if they ended up winning because they were so used to the game ending at a given timing.

Just my opinion.

[deleted_user]

Like Goodspeed said, I do wish there was a map with ultra high resources (like 4 mines and 5 hunts in base) so that we may see industrial more often, for variety.

FI is plenty viable with lots of civs right now; don’t think we need more resources to make it worthwhile.

FI is not quite the same or what they might mean. Not exactly. I think what they might mean is games going beyond the same predictable mark when one player loses a fight, some map control and can’t contest efficient resources anymore so basically loses by default.

Whatever the reason a lot of aoe3 games end at very similar times for this reason, which in the eyes of some makes the game stale. Aoe2 for example doesn’t have this problem because hunts are scarce by default and both/all players resort to farming early. Gold control can be an issue but it’s not as prominent and there’s always trash units in aoe2.

Though I guess it’s true that semi late game supremacy is a balance nightmare so thus gets swept under the carpet.

Hell because I played suboptimal strategies so games would actually go beyond this time frame some players got salty with me, even if they ended up winning because they were so used to the game ending at a given timing.

Just my opinion.

Play and watch a different RTS then. AoE3 is interesting and good and the game lengths and types and strategies aren't as homogeneous as you think. It seems to me these posts serve more to accredit OP's individual frustrations than they are a critique on the tournament meta. So many aspects of AoE3 can be "analogized" with chess.

[amiggo1999]

FI builds are being seen more and more, and even civs like france (which benefit amongst the least) can pull it off effectively in some MU's imo.

[Squamiger]

FI is not quite the same or what they might mean. Not exactly. I think what they might mean is games going beyond the same predictable mark when one player loses a fight, some map control and can’t contest efficient resources anymore so basically loses by default.

i feel like this is just what people who play aoe3 and wish it was actually aoe2 with better graphics want. a long game of attrition, where both players build up a huge base and stream units at each other. which is basically just treaty

[Peachrocks]

@Squamiger Nah not me but fair comment. I have my own grievances with aoe2. I just used it as an example as to why the game length varies because it’s something we’ve all played.

Let’s just say @deleted_user4 comment about playing something else isn’t the first time I’ve heard it... for numerous games across numerous genres. Fact is many players across many games are totally okay with games ignoring significant amounts of the content, even if a lot of the games play out in incredibly similar ways despite having the potential for more. It’s just taste and I accept that, but it gets a bit old being alienated.

I mean I do play something else at this point and drift around a lot and only came back here because of Mitoe wanting to boost natives and other underused units which is an area I know a significant amount about I guess. It got irritating for both taking ages to find a game at my rusty level and then when I did getting flamed for having the audacity to not play meta. Even if I lost horribly.

But this is way way off topic. Just felt I needed to explain.

[deleted_user]

I'm reading a lot of pro-zoi rhetoric on the forums lately which just makes me sad he's gone

[Peachrocks]

I'm reading a lot of pro-zoi rhetoric on the forums lately which just makes me sad he's gone

Again it’s just taste and Zoi had a taste that a lot of others didn’t share. It’s not wrong or right, just preferences.

[Astaroth]

FI is not quite the same or what they might mean. Not exactly. I think what they might mean is games going beyond the same predictable mark when one player loses a fight, some map control and can’t contest efficient resources anymore so basically loses by default.

i feel like this is just what people who play aoe3 and wish it was actually aoe2 with better graphics want. a long game of attrition, where both players build up a huge base and stream units at each other. which is basically just treaty

That's not really true, though. Aoe2 is more about getting an incremental advantage over time via military, map control and economy until eventually (sometimes) a huge war of attrition. Treaty however is literally just booming and base-building for 20-40 mins.