What's aoe2 like?

[Jaeger]

Does everybody just fast castle and wall like I've heard? Is it always long and campy games?

[momuuu]

I always felt like aoe2 was ultra slow in general.. like it took ages just to get going. But somehow people really like it.

[Jaeger]

I always felt like aoe2 was ultra slow in general.. like it took ages just to get going. But somehow people really like it.

dont ppl drush?

[momuuu]

I don't really play aoe2, I'm mostly talking about my experience in switching from aoe2 to aoe3.. I used to play with the aegis cheat on aoe2 a lot because it was soooooo sloooow, but found that to be way too fast for aoe3. And after playing some single player stuff recently, it still feels really slow. Games probably take ages to get anywhere near exciting.

[evilcheadar]

Very poor graphics/physics

[datmessycat]

I always felt like aoe2 was ultra slow in general.. like it took ages just to get going. But somehow people really like it.

dont ppl drush?

Yes, you can do Dark age rush, but very few civs can do it. As jerom says it is slower than Ao3. Resources are gathered slower and you are forced to gather every resource. Wood still a slow resource to gather and you are forced to use 1/3 of your economy on it. The games most of the time are resolved in imperial (IV) but castle age(III) is where most of the time you will start fighting. From a competitive standpoint you dont want to wall your city because gathering stone for that is a waste, you just better use it for TC and all that. Late game is super boring because the maps run out of gold and you are left with 2 trash units.The metagame is kinda diverse but there are some civs that stand the most. Mayans are a super eco civ with fast archers and fast eagle runners, they raid you while going imperial. Aztecs are the ones tha do drushes the most and have a strong Imperial age because their infantry is really strong, plus their villagers gather more resources, 15 instead of 10 before droping off. Vikings are the go to civ on water maps. Mongols have the fastest age up time as long they have hunts(you usually just have like 8 animals) they are a cabalry archer civ that tends to rush. And Huns are supposed to be the most competitive, they are just like Siux same mechanics, good cavarly archer and you mass better cavalry no houses. IMO is not as fun as Ao3 because it lacks unit diversity and game mechanics, the buildings never die (it takes ages to destroy them) and off all the civs that they have just like 5 are really competitive, yes it happens the same in Ao3 but we have half the civs that they have. Also every competitive player is going to make Heavy cavalry because that is the lamest thing in the game.

[Kaiserklein]

I think a competitive age 2 time is like 11 min rofl

[jacksonpollock]

I've only played around with it a little but I felt it wasn't as good as 3. It does have a bigger player base though, which is nice.

[evilcheadar]

I know two people who played aoe2 only for a long while, and they are only playing treaty in aoe3 if that says anything about the pacing between the two games.

[aoefan4life]

I always felt like aoe2 was ultra slow in general.. like it took ages just to get going. But somehow people really like it.

dont ppl drush?

People drush but you cant depend on a drush to win but to simply disrupt your opponents eco. AOE2 can go by faster if you castle rush in black forest lol

[Mr. Pecksniff]

I always felt like aoe2 was ultra slow in general.. like it took ages just to get going. But somehow people really like it.

dont ppl drush?

Yes. The game is slower but it doesnt feel that way with all the stuff youre constantly having to do. Trying to play the game competently just feels... draining.

[bobabu]

I know two people who played aoe2 only for a long while, and they are only playing treaty in aoe3 if that says anything about the pacing between the two games.

I don''t think you can compare Age of Empires 2 which is very micro and macro intense to a Age of Empires 3 treaty game which is only micro intense and easie

easier overall. Even Age of Empires 3 supermacy is much easier overall. Where the macro is more important.

[evilcheadar]

I know two people who played aoe2 only for a long while, and they are only playing treaty in aoe3 if that says anything about the pacing between the two games.

I dont think you can compare Age of Empires 2 which is very micro and macro intense to a Age of Empires 3 treaty game which is only micro intense and easie

easier overall. Even Age of Empires 3 supermacy is much easier overall. Where the macro is more important.

You missed the point entirely.

[fitosone]

Does everybody just fast castle and wall like I''ve heard? Is it always long and campy games?

you have to castle to win, its more slow paced game than aoe3 the rushes usually involve placing towers near enemy base to stop gold mining

[SaDe]

Depends on the map selected. Black forest games always are long games because everyone walls the gaps. Arabia, island etc all can be quick games with trush, drush, Krush etc. The custom map scene is also very large. At any given time 2k to 6k people are actively playing between cs, rm and dm.

[Omkar_Satapathy]

Very poor graphics/physics

Maybe this can make your game look better than before: https://www.moddb.com/members/omkarsata ... of-empires

[chronojj]

Aoe2 is a really good game and time has been very kind to it. However, althoughtI see it as the best Age game by quite a bit, I don't play it much simply because it takes alot of work to be decent. It's not an easy game; relaxing not allowed. Also, it is a bit slower than AoE3, but not as slow as it appears, because the in-game clock is 1.5x real time.

[[Armag] diarouga]

@Jaeger
No, it really depends on the map. On Arena for example (your based is walled at the start of the game), fast castling is obviously the only option. Still, on most maps (for example Arabia), I used to start in colonial and harass with cav/skirmishers, and then age if my opponent walled.
The thing is that if you play age2, harass a bit, research the gathering upgrades, and age when you see that your opponent is fully walled, you're going to be ahead on eco, so fast castling isn't really the best option on maps like Arabia.
Furthermore, you can get tower rushed, in which case you have to defend it even if you want to fastle castle.
I've reached 1900 elos on steam (which is like captain I would say) playing only age 2, and pro players like TheViper start in age 2 most of the time so I wouldn't say that ff is the only option.

Anyway, AOE2 is a great game, much better than AOE3 design wise, unfortunately it has big quality of life issues, no attack move, you can't really group your production buildings etc.

As for the design, I'd say that it's better for the following reasons:
1) The macro is much more interesting. It's actually very very hard to macro because herding is really hard, also you have to make decisions about when to add mills/farms etc. In addition, there are a lot more eco upgrades than in age of empires 3 (about one per age+TC upgrades which are available in age2/3).
2) There's no stale meta. You can really do whatever you want, from age 1 rush (because there are age 1 units) to faste castle into 3 TC boom. I'd add that every upgrade and every unit in the game is useful in some situations.
3) The eco is very interesting. The reason why we can't balance AOE3 and we're in a stale meta is actually because you don't have economic options in AOE3. With most civs you can just send vill shipments, research market upgrades and that's it. In addition, since the game is very defensive (buildings are actually super hard to kill, almost impossible without siege units such as rams), you're going to play a late game unless you got a big advantage in early game, so you'll often have to build a 2nd and a 3rd TC a boom. Furthermore, the water is really interesting, it's a nice eco boost while not being broken, which is great.
4) The micro is really unique. In AOE3 the macro is going to decide an equal fight, that's it. In AOE2 you can actually dodge shots, which means that you can win a fight without losing a single unit in some situations. Also the use of the map is much more interesting because you get and advantage if your units are higher than your opponent's (like on a hill or something).

So AOE2 is definitely not a nr30 game. First, the in game time is like x1.5, so 12min age2 isn't 12 min in real time. In addition, while it's true that top players' games last very long because they can't manage to end it in early game, most of your games as a beginner/mid tier player aren't going to last more than 20 min (at least for me). And even if you can't end the game in age 2 because you have no siege, you can take a big advantage (eco wise) and snowball in age 3 with rams.

[jgals]

@Jaeger
No, it really depends on the map. On Arena for example (your based is walled at the start of the game), fast castling is obviously the only option. Still, on most maps (for example Arabia), I used to start in colonial and harass with cav/skirmishers, and then age if my opponent walled.
The thing is that if you play age2, harass a bit, research the gathering upgrades, and age when you see that your opponent is fully walled, you're going to be ahead on eco, so fast castling isn't really the best option on maps like Arabia.
Furthermore, you can get tower rushed, in which case you have to defend it even if you want to fastle castle.
I've reached 1900 elos on steam (which is like captain I would say) playing only age 2, and pro players like TheViper start in age 2 most of the time so I wouldn't say that ff is the only option.

Anyway, AOE2 is a great game, much better than AOE3 design wise, unfortunately it has big quality of life issues, no attack move, you can't really group your production buildings etc.

As for the design, I'd say that it's better for the following reasons:
1) The macro is much more interesting. It's actually very very hard to macro because herding is really hard, also you have to make decisions about when to add mills/farms etc. In addition, there are a lot more eco upgrades than in age of empires 3 (about one per age+TC upgrades which are available in age2/3).
2) There's no stale meta. You can really do whatever you want, from age 1 rush (because there are age 1 units) to faste castle into 3 TC boom. I'd add that every upgrade and every unit in the game is useful in some situations.
3) The eco is very interesting. The reason why we can't balance AOE3 and we're in a stale meta is actually because you don't have economic options in AOE3. With most civs you can just send vill shipments, research market upgrades and that's it. In addition, since the game is very defensive (buildings are actually super hard to kill, almost impossible without siege units such as rams), you're going to play a late game unless you got a big advantage in early game, so you'll often have to build a 2nd and a 3rd TC a boom. Furthermore, the water is really interesting, it's a nice eco boost while not being broken, which is great.
4) The micro is really unique. In AOE3 the macro is going to decide an equal fight, that's it. In AOE2 you can actually dodge shots, which means that you can win a fight without losing a single unit in some situations. Also the use of the map is much more interesting because you get and advantage if your units are higher than your opponent's (like on a hill or something).

So AOE2 is definitely not a nr30 game. First, the in game time is like x1.5, so 12min age2 isn't 12 min in real time. In addition, while it's true that top players' games last very long because they can't manage to end it in early game, most of your games as a beginner/mid tier player aren't going to last more than 20 min (at least for me). And even if you can't end the game in age 2 because you have no siege, you can take a big advantage (eco wise) and snowball in age 3 with rams.

well when you think about it the meta being stale in a line infantry based strategy game is kind of a given. Considering that this game is based on the most boring period of warfare at least from a tactical perspective I think they made it pretty damn exciting. (at least a boring period of european warfare, line up stand and shoot, advance shoot retreat shoot, some canons here and there and the occaasional cavalry charge)

[jgals]

speaking of the "quality of life" issues that @Diarouga addresses why didn't they improve on that in HD/definitive? Seems like the first thing they should have done

[Jaeger]

speaking of the "quality of life" issues that @Diarouga addresses why didn't they improve on that in HD/definitive? Seems like the first thing they should have done

I would guess some of the hardcore fans would be upset at it? Maybe one reason they are good is that they have the APM to manange all that stuff; maybe they feel like it would water down the game.

[jgals]

speaking of the "quality of life" issues that @Diarouga addresses why didn't they improve on that in HD/definitive? Seems like the first thing they should have done

I would guess some of the hardcore fans would be upset at it? Maybe one reason they are good is that they have the APM to manange all that stuff; maybe they feel like it would water down the game.

I mean I guess if u think that skill and accomplishment are APM. Personally I am much more into the strategy aspect of all of this.

[Jaeger]

speaking of the "quality of life" issues that @Diarouga addresses why didn't they improve on that in HD/definitive? Seems like the first thing they should have done

I would guess some of the hardcore fans would be upset at it? Maybe one reason they are good is that they have the APM to manange all that stuff; maybe they feel like it would water down the game.

I mean I guess if u think that skill and accomplishment are APM. Personally I am much more into the strategy aspect of all of this.

Hmm youre right, I was thinking of Runescape when I wrote that. That game is basically all about just grinding many hours, so when they introduced some quality of life improvements the hardcore fans weren't happy, because they put in the hours to level up the hard way.

[P i k i l i c]

AoE2 is great but slow and civs are not as different as they are in AoE3

[EAGLEMUT]

speaking of the "quality of life" issues that @Diarouga addresses why didn't they improve on that in HD/definitive? Seems like the first thing they should have done

How do you know it won't be improved in AoE2:DE?