How many civ should you play.

No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

Ah the aoe3 civ gene theory, popular among scientists around the globe!
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Amsel_ »

umeu wrote:Ah the aoe3 civ gene theory, popular among scientists around the globe!

?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

Amsel_ wrote:
umeu wrote:Ah the aoe3 civ gene theory, popular among scientists around the globe!

?


What else would explain that people are "just naturally good at two civs."
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Amsel_ »

umeu wrote:
Amsel_ wrote:
umeu wrote:Ah the aoe3 civ gene theory, popular among scientists around the globe!

?


What else would explain that people are "just naturally good at two civs."

Do I really need to cite peer-reviewed journals just to recognize common behavior? Do you even disagree with what I'm saying?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

Amsel_ wrote:
umeu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


What else would explain that people are "just naturally good at two civs."

Do I really need to cite peer-reviewed journals just to recognize common behavior? Do you even disagree with what I'm saying?


Yes, obviously. What is the evolutionary advantage of being good at exactly 2 aoe3 civs?
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Amsel_ »

umeu wrote:
Amsel_ wrote:
Show hidden quotes

Do I really need to cite peer-reviewed journals just to recognize common behavior? Do you even disagree with what I'm saying?


Yes, obviously. What is the evolutionary advantage of being good at exactly 2 aoe3 civs?

Would you like to say what you believe and why you think it's better than what I believe? That might be a better way to garner the credence your highly esteemed views deserve.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

Amsel_ wrote:
umeu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Yes, obviously. What is the evolutionary advantage of being good at exactly 2 aoe3 civs?

Would you like to say what you believe and why you think it's better than what I believe? That might be a better way to garner the credence your highly esteemed views deserve.


who is talking about better or worse? I do think you are possibly wrong. But perhaps you haven't properly made clear what you mean. So I'm asking :) No need to get your self esteem in a twist about it!

Just explain how exactly all people are naturally good at two aoe3 civs. (I bolded the keywords for you.) Why are they good at just 2? Is it always exactly 2? Or is it a percentage of the available options? What about sc2? Are people good at 2 civs there two, or is it 2/14th there as well?

Because as far as I know, most people who play aoe3 aren't good at any civs... And if they're better at one rather than another, I fail to see why that's naturally hardcoded in them. Usually people pick their civs based on trivial things, such as which country they were born in, or what era in history they like.

But maybe you meant something else... like maybe you mean that (most) people don't have the cognitive ability to fully focus on more than 1 or 2 civs at a time in a meaningful way. In which case you are probably right, but you chose an ambiguous way to say it.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: How many civ should you play.

  • Quote

Post by Amsel_ »

umeu wrote:Just explain how exactly all people


I did not say "all." Re-read what I said. I said "most."

Amsel_ wrote:I wouldn't consider this a rule someone should try to consciously abide by. I think most people are just naturally good at two civs, so those civs tend to be the "tip of the spear" whenever a player is improving.


I even said later on that I was just observing "common behavior," a trend.

Amsel_ wrote:Do I really need to cite peer-reviewed journals just to recognize common behavior?


I don't believe I implied universality, ever, in this thread.

umeu wrote:are naturally good at

Naturally just means that it's not artificial. It's not being forced, not being consciously imposed, and instead arising out of basic human behavior. I can see why you might infer something gene related from this, but most people probably wouldn't misinterpret this part. If you're ESL then that might explain the confusion over fairly normal words. I remember Dolan and I were arguing one time, because I thought the word "government" encompassed the entire state; meanwhile, he thought it was a section of the state, like how governments are "formed" by parliaments.

umeu wrote: two aoe3 civs. (I bolded the keywords for you.) Why are they good at just 2? Is it always exactly 2? Or is it a percentage of the available options? What about sc2? Are people good at 2 civs there two, or is it 2/14th there as well?

Because as far as I know, most people who play aoe3 aren't good at any civs... And if they're better at one rather than another, I fail to see why that's naturally hardcoded in them. Usually people pick their civs based on trivial things, such as which country they were born in, or what era in history they like.

But maybe you meant something else... like maybe you mean that (most) people don't have the cognitive ability to fully focus on more than 1 or 2 civs at a time in a meaningful way. In which case you are probably right.

What's funny about this is that I had actually considered multiple ways to write my post. I thought about saying "one or two," "two or three," "a handful," "about two." But then I thought it was so exceedingly obvious what I meant that I was just being paranoid about people knit-picking my post, and went with what I thought read the best. Regardless, I was simply pointing out what can be considered an outright fact that most (not all) people have a couple of civs that they're really good (relative to their skill with other civs) or comfortable (relative to their comfort with playing other civs) with. You see this a lot in tournaments where players might save a civ they're good with for later. I don't think this is a controversial statement.

I'll try and rephrase my message.

It was suggested that lower-skilled players should focus on two civs. That way they could get really good at those, and then incorporate other civs into their repertoire. I was concerned that lower-skilled players would take this extremely seriously, and that it might stunt them or put them into a false dilemma of playing what they want or playing what will make them a better player. So I pointed out that most (not all) people typically have a handful of civs, about 1 to 3, which they're more proficient with. My reasoning was that, because people are already trending towards about 2 civs for "serious" play, that playing 2 shouldn't be taken too seriously as a "rule" i.e. that it was fine to not play exactly 2 civs. I closed by saying that, because the player is at their best with those about 2 civs, they're making most of their improvements with those civs.

There is very little, if any, contradiction with Kaiser's suggestion. And I think that it is useful advice, in case a player gets it into their mind that they need to get good at every civ all at once. My concern was that people tend to already follow this advice, so someone might come and read this as if it were gospel, and end up frustrating and restricting himself for no reason. All I sought to do was ensure that this was advice and not some legalistic rule.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

I understand the meaning of the word natural, the connotation with genes was made because of some replies you've made in other threads, if that's not what you implied, than I misunderstood your meaning. Nonetheless I disagree, though I now think your assessment is more understandable and reasonable.

I don't think people are just naturally good with two civs or any number around that, though I do agree that it's hard to learn and remember all the subtleties of the game if you play too many civs. For example, I played a lot of russia for a while, and I got quite good with the civ. Then I dropped it and played some other civs and didn't play much russia after that. Now I suck with russia, and I'm good at whatever civs I'm playing frequently. So the civs you're good at will most likely be the civs that you play or have played the most. And this is something that can change. For example, my best civs used to be France, Otto and Spain, because I played those civs a lot. Now I'd say my best civs are china and sioux, because those are the civs I play the most currently. The way you wrote the post it seemed is as if the civs you are good at are predisposed, and unchanging. Which is why I disagreed and replied to it. Maybe that's not what you meant.

Which civs you like and usually you therefore play, can be the result of unconscious or conscious decisions. But I think you get good at a civ because you like it and therefore play it, rather than that you are good at at a civ and therefore like and play it. It seemed to me that you were implying the former rather than the latter, which is again, why I disagreed. But maybe you meant something else.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Kawapasaka »

I think people usually start off with an affinity towards a certain civ then are also "naturally" good at the one or two that play out similarly. So someone who starts out with Russia probably wouldn't be much good at Dutch. And someone who starts out with Otto wouldn't be much good at anything :chinese:
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

Kawapasaka wrote:I think people usually start off with an affinity towards a certain civ then are also "naturally" good at the one or two that play out similarly. So someone who starts out with Russia probably wouldn't be much good at Dutch. And someone who starts out with Otto wouldn't be much good at anything :chinese:


i guess you're joking a bit :P but for example lord raphs best civs are imo dutch russia and germany. mitoe and bsop also come to mind with a similar civ set. And plenty of people who are for example good at france aren't good at iro. I think the aoe civs are too similar for it to matter.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Kawapasaka »

umeu wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:I think people usually start off with an affinity towards a certain civ then are also "naturally" good at the one or two that play out similarly. So someone who starts out with Russia probably wouldn't be much good at Dutch. And someone who starts out with Otto wouldn't be much good at anything :chinese:


i guess you're joking a bit :P but for example lord raphs best civs are imo dutch russia and germany. mitoe and bsop also come to mind with a similar civ set. And plenty of people who are for example good at france aren't good at iro. I think the aoe civs are too similar for it to matter.


Well I'm talking more about newcomers, not long-established players who've tried every civ and shaped their best/favourite over the course of thousands of games.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by gamevideo113 »

umeu wrote:I don't think people are just naturally good with two civs or any number around that, though I do agree that it's hard to learn and remember all the subtleties of the game if you play too many civs. For example, I played a lot of russia for a while, and I got quite good with the civ. Then I dropped it and played some other civs and didn't play much russia after that. Now I suck with russia, and I'm good at whatever civs I'm playing frequently. So the civs you're good at will most likely be the civs that you play or have played the most. And this is something that can change. For example, my best civs used to be France, Otto and Spain, because I played those civs a lot. Now I'd say my best civs are china and sioux, because those are the civs I play the most currently. The way you wrote the post it seemed is as if the civs you are good at are predisposed, and unchanging. Which is why I disagreed and replied to it. Maybe that's not what you meant.


With the premise that nitpicking words is not what we're interested in here, i'll give my 2 cents on this. I feel like, if AoE3 isn't your first game ever, you must have a natural/acquired predisposition at playing with some civs rather than others. For example: i don't particularly like the dutch or find the civ very interesting gameplay wise, and i haven't even played it a lot (just under 30 games), but somehow i feel like i do better than average when i play with them. My explaination for this is that the civs resonates with the playstyle i am most comfortable with. I think i am not very good at making the most out of my initial 10-15 units, but i am definitely better at handling a mid-late game situation where you have a bunch of stuff to do all over the map and where macro matters a bit more than micro. Obviously this doesn't imply that i can only be good with the dutch because it is my predisposition, but it probably means that i would have an easier time learning the civ compared to other civs that play in a completely different way.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Kawapasaka »

gamevideo113 wrote: For example: i don't particularly like the dutch or find the civ very interesting gameplay wise, and i haven't even played it a lot (just under 30 games), but somehow i feel like i do better than average when i play with them


Exact same for me but with Japan. I don't really like them at all, to the point where winning often feels hollow and unearned - but some days they seem like the only civ I can win with.
I only started playing Japan because I hate India and Japan feels like the one civ that can out-lame them, and to that end, it does have its moments :mrgreen:
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by gamevideo113 »

deleted_user wrote:The only reason to "main" one civ is to practice good macro and executing tight build orders, and become familiar with the philosophy of timings by keeping one variable static. The principles of the game don't change between civs.

So much of aoe is just macro and executing a game plan well of timings based on the MU and information gained through scouting. It's hard to execute tight builds without repitition, repitition, repitition. And you can't be good without good builds. Use it lose it!

True. Keeping a variable (arguably a lot of variables) static helps a lot in improving the other aspects of your gameplay. Identifying what you did wrong becomes a lot easier, on top of that. The main principles of the game are unchanged from one civ to another, but the way you apply them is different - the skillset you need can vary quite a bit between different civs, imo.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Georgia Qosashvili93
Dragoon
Posts: 219
Joined: Nov 8, 2018
ESO: Qosashvili93

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Qosashvili93 »

Kawapasaka wrote:
gamevideo113 wrote: For example: i don't particularly like the dutch or find the civ very interesting gameplay wise, and i haven't even played it a lot (just under 30 games), but somehow i feel like i do better than average when i play with them


Exact same for me but with Japan. I don't really like them at all, to the point where winning often feels hollow and unearned - but some days they seem like the only civ I can win with.
I only started playing Japan because I hate India and Japan feels like the one civ that can out-lame them, and to that end, it does have its moments :mrgreen:


Why its undeserved, I think u can say that win is undeserved with every civ but not with japan and spain :d
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Kawapasaka »

Qosashvili93 wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:
gamevideo113 wrote: For example: i don't particularly like the dutch or find the civ very interesting gameplay wise, and i haven't even played it a lot (just under 30 games), but somehow i feel like i do better than average when i play with them


Exact same for me but with Japan. I don't really like them at all, to the point where winning often feels hollow and unearned - but some days they seem like the only civ I can win with.
I only started playing Japan because I hate India and Japan feels like the one civ that can out-lame them, and to that end, it does have its moments :mrgreen:


Why its undeserved, I think u can say that win is undeserved with every civ but not with japan and spain :d


Well whenever I win with Japan I usually feel like it's mainly due to my opponent misplaying rather than me doing anything particularly well. I just don't find it satisfying (apart from the macro sometimes, feels nice successfully juggling an overflowing bank). It's just a personal thing, I don't actually think Japan is broken and everyone who wins with the civ is just exploiting it or anything like that.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by princeofcarthage »

Agree with skirmisher here, playing japan doesn't feel satisfying.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
Netherlands Mr_Bramboy
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 8219
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: [VOC] Bram
Location: Amsterdam

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Mr_Bramboy »

Amsel_ wrote:
umeu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


What else would explain that people are "just naturally good at two civs."

Do I really need to cite peer-reviewed journals just to recognize common behavior? Do you even disagree with what I'm saying?

Umeu is a Radical Leftist. I wouldn't engage with him if I were you.

User received a 1-day timeout for this post.
User avatar
Italy gamevideo113
Howdah
Posts: 1899
Joined: Apr 26, 2017
ESO: gamevideo113

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by gamevideo113 »

Kawapasaka wrote:
Qosashvili93 wrote:
Show hidden quotes


Why its undeserved, I think u can say that win is undeserved with every civ but not with japan and spain :d


Well whenever I win with Japan I usually feel like it's mainly due to my opponent misplaying rather than me doing anything particularly well. I just don't find it satisfying (apart from the macro sometimes, feels nice successfully juggling an overflowing bank). It's just a personal thing, I don't actually think Japan is broken and everyone who wins with the civ is just exploiting it or anything like that.

Japan deserves the win it gets most of the times. What i find satisfying about japan is that it has a relatively hard macro, therefore, if i manage to avoid stacking unnecessary resources i feel like i am doing a good job. It's a lot harder than, say, france, where you just ship wood for houses and focus on food and gold only. It's also hard to evaluate how much actual income are your shrines giving you. I think as japan you have to keep track of a lot more things compared to most euro civs and even if sometimes it might seem like you're just mindlessly spamming batches of ashis from 2 barracks, that's because your opponent allowed you to do that and you were able to get to that point without dying.
And yes, japan is a nice civ against india because the typical contain that every india player will do at our level won't work as effectively, since you have some eco on the rest of the map too. Also yumi are a reasonable answer to sepoy (while most other civs don't really have a reasonable answer against them).
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019 Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by deleted_user0 »

when do we get the option to pest staff members @edeholland
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by edeholland »

umeu wrote:when do we get the option to pest staff members @edeholland
I issued a ban instead, that okay too?
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by edeholland »

umeu wrote:when do we get the option to pest staff members @edeholland
But I can look into whether we can arrange that.
User avatar
Tokelau jesus3
Jaeger
Posts: 2353
Joined: Aug 5, 2016

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by jesus3 »

do I need to post pictures of turtles again to end this shitfest? Turtles are soothing, there's some deeper truth in turtles I swear!

@Kawapasaka The only way Jap gets remotely fun is if you're club rushing successfully, but it rarely succeeds on levels people actually scout

BTT: I think this topic was discussed enough already, you can read basically all pros and cons for playing only a few civs at first
Image
No Flag Astaroth
Howdah
Posts: 1037
Joined: Jul 21, 2019

Re: How many civ should you play.

Post by Astaroth »

gamevideo113 wrote:And yes, japan is a nice civ against india because the typical contain that every india player will do at our level won't work as effectively, since you have some eco on the rest of the map too. Also yumi are a reasonable answer to sepoy (while most other civs don't really have a reasonable answer against them).

You think? I feel like India either goes 10/10, idles your eco a lot, kills all your early army (Japan ages relatively late/with a weak eco, leaves, masses and timing push kills you and/or goes consulate rush with a bit later ageup but +6redcoats+4 sowars. If the timing pushes don't kill you, India goes age3, has agra map control and vet. ghurka/urumi (+mansabdar) do really well vs age2 Japan. Also note that India will probably have a better eco because of the idle/rush and because you have to ship defensive stuff.

I feel Japan only wins if either he times everything perfectly against a later rush (MM right on top of sowars etc) or he full walls. Just a couple of walls here and there don't seem enough, India players will just not care, walk around and push right on top of your yumi.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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