Simple, standard aoe2 build orders?

[momuuu]

It's just shit in that regard, and the gameplay is pretty slow, but it's more strategical in ways. The counter system is way more interesting to me. If you compare that to aoe3, the interesting part is somewhere between minute 5 and minute 10, the first 5 minutes are useless and after that it becomes really boring; You just spam the unit composition you are supposed to spam (skirm goon or pure musks in colonial war) and then micro your way to victory. There's not much strategy, other than moving your army so that you protect your villagers. There's one simple win condition: Winning a fight so that you can force your opponent off of hunts and mines which is instantly gg. I feel like aoe2 has much more strategy going on in this department.

Although I am not sure if it can touch the amazing strategy that happens between minute 5 and minute 10 in aoe3. Shipments and the overal array of possibilities really allow for an amazing variety of things you can do in aoe3, especially if you take the civ variety into account.

If only aoe2 and aoe3 would have a lovechild combining these factors (the good ones :p).

[Method_man714]

best civ is the huns, but i like to just make hussars and cavalry archers as mongols and raid everyone.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[momuuu]

I think it's the other way around. AoC is more about mechanics and APM than AoE3 and AoE3 is more about the right strategy and unit composition than it is about mechanics, macro and APM.

I think that'd be the oneliner summary of it but not completely accurate I think.

AoE3 offers a great strategic aspect through the shipments and build orders. Somehow I have never played a game like that, I don't really know what makes it so great. This strategy is represented in the first 3 or 4 shipments and the generic build order you do alongside those shipments. This is what happens in about 5 minutes of gametime. After that, AoE3 honestly gets boring as fuck strategically speaking. You just make your standard army (for example just skirm goon, pure musk or whatever the match up requires) and continue doing that until you win or lose one fight so decisively that one player is forced off of hunts and thus instantly loses. The build up to this stage is amazing, but the stage itself is mostly very limited.

It's made slightly more interesting because aoe3 micro is pretty amazing. It's very simple in its essence: Ranged and melee units just attacking shit. The strong counter system gives you a reason to try to make units fight what they counter, and creates strategy in battles. The fact that units can overkill allow for the possibility to do drag box micro. These simple things make the simple micro still very interesting, which is a beautiful design. Easy to learn, hard to master at its finest.

On the other hand, I feel like AoE2 offers more interesting strategic mechanics in the grand scheme of things. The fact that you don't need mapcontrol as badly makes the game instantly more interesting. In aoe3, losing map control means it's over, while in AoE2 you have quite a few resources in base that are still relatively available and I feel like there is still plenty of room for a comeback, which instantly makes the game more interesting in that aspect. The mechanic of your gold and stone running out at some point in time gives another strategic element of trying to manage this sparce resource. And then of course there is the counter system, which is way more interesting than your standard triple army composition. There's many choices to be made with the units you choose to make, and many different army compositions that are situationally or always viable I feel.

Although I guess my opinion on aoe2 is just based on some high level games I saw and my general feeling of the game, I feel like most of it is pretty accurate in terms of design. I'd like to have these aspect combined into one great aoe game. That'd be epic.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[momuuu]

Well to be honest, the strategic decisions become extremely limited to me. The sheer beauty of the first minutes, where you can get control of the game by simply switching two shipments out or adding a TP or something like that, are followed up by endless skirm goon battles where you just mindlessly make a decision on what shipment would probably be better to send. The decision to ship 8 skirms, 5 goons or 3 cuirs is not as interesting imo.

And honestly, in aoe3 the win condition is being on hunts and mines while your opponent is not. Its literally all the game is about, apart from timings that can straight up kill a greedy opponent (which is applicable to some match ups), but the entire gameplan revolves around being the last one on natural resources. There's not much diversity in units: You have musks, ranged cav, hand cav and skirms, and musks aren't even really viable. Theres not much teching possibility: the arsenal upgrades are too expensive/nonimpactful, and aging up doesn't add anything to what you are doing already. Your just making your shit from your barracks and stable all game long. It'd be so much more interesting if say arsenal upgrades would be an impactful thing and a core element to your build order, if there were more than 3 viable units that all functioned differently in a more complex counter system, if map control wouldn't be so vital to stay in the game, if you could tech up (age up) to get units that change the flow of the game. Those are elements of my perfect RTS that are really missing in aoe3. It nails the core of an RTS: the controls are pleasant, the strategy in terms of build orders is great, and the micro is fun and challenging. But it misses that final bit that'd make it the perfect game.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[pecelot]

I think it's the other way around. AoC is more about mechanics and APM than AoE3 and AoE3 is more about the right strategy and unit composition than it is about mechanics, macro and APM.

I think that'd be the oneliner summary of it but not completely accurate I think.

AoE3 offers a great strategic aspect through the shipments and build orders. Somehow I have never played a game like that, I don't really know what makes it so great. This strategy is represented in the first 3 or 4 shipments and the generic build order you do alongside those shipments. This is what happens in about 5 minutes of gametime. After that, AoE3 honestly gets boring as fuck strategically speaking. You just make your standard army (for example just skirm goon, pure musk or whatever the match up requires) and continue doing that until you win or lose one fight so decisively that one player is forced off of hunts and thus instantly loses. The build up to this stage is amazing, but the stage itself is mostly very limited.

It's made slightly more interesting because aoe3 micro is pretty amazing. It's very simple in its essence: Ranged and melee units just attacking shit. The strong counter system gives you a reason to try to make units fight what they counter, and creates strategy in battles. The fact that units can overkill allow for the possibility to do drag box micro. These simple things make the simple micro still very interesting, which is a beautiful design. Easy to learn, hard to master at its finest.

On the other hand, I feel like AoE2 offers more interesting strategic mechanics in the grand scheme of things. The fact that you don't need mapcontrol as badly makes the game instantly more interesting. In aoe3, losing map control means it's over, while in AoE2 you have quite a few resources in base that are still relatively available and I feel like there is still plenty of room for a comeback, which instantly makes the game more interesting in that aspect. The mechanic of your gold and stone running out at some point in time gives another strategic element of trying to manage this sparce resource. And then of course there is the counter system, which is way more interesting than your standard triple army composition. There's many choices to be made with the units you choose to make, and many different army compositions that are situationally or always viable I feel.

Although I guess my opinion on aoe2 is just based on some high level games I saw and my general feeling of the game, I feel like most of it is pretty accurate in terms of design. I'd like to have these aspect combined into one great aoe game. That'd be epic.

I think it's a big simplification what you wrote. Although I agree that at a competetive level (tournament from RO64 I guess?) strategies for each civ remain the same, you have to consider plenty of other options. Water maps, for example. I'm sure we have all watched a ton of Aizamk gameplay and are able to realise that strategically this game has a lot to offer. One shipment can actually be a huge deal: Virginia Company, early skirms, Suvorov reforms and so on. Also, in AoC top level gameplay is pretty similar. Drush FC into 3 AR CA and then just micro...

... which is tricky there as well. Archer battles are attention-consuming, same goes with Mangonels. Bare in mind not every shot hits the target, especially when you don't have balistics upgrade. Cliffs and hills often play a huge role as well. Monks require tons of APM, too.

I feel like micro in AoE3 is also interesting. Take China as an example, add cover mode options. Later on culverins and so on.

When talking about game diversity, bare in mind 14 unique civs. It's not always skirm+goons battles. Some civs are recommended to attack early to win ASAP because later on they lose due to weaker shipments for example (Spain?), whereas other tend to play more deffensively to obtain tech and eco advantage (Ports?). And these are only Euro nations, which are indeed pretty similar in terms of civ diversity in AoE3.

About the game speed, AoC is definitely more stable. You can't win in the Feudal Age, you almost always have to advance to the Castle Age since walling is easier and buildings in general are much more stronger. In AoE3 you sometimes lose your FB vills at the 4th minute and it's GG. What's more, age 3 comboes crush age 2 in AoC, while you can still play colonial when your opponent is in the Fortress Age.

Map control is pretty significant as well in AoC, because from Castle Age you are reliant heavily on gold, which you run out of quickly if you have access to only two starting mines. If your opponent TCs or castles the mine in the middle of the map and you can't punish him, there's nothing much you can do.

[Goodspeed]

I think it's the other way around. AoC is more about mechanics and APM than AoE3 and AoE3 is more about the right strategy and unit composition than it is about mechanics, macro and APM.

I think that'd be the oneliner summary of it but not completely accurate I think.

AoE3 offers a great strategic aspect through the shipments and build orders. Somehow I have never played a game like that, I don't really know what makes it so great. This strategy is represented in the first 3 or 4 shipments and the generic build order you do alongside those shipments. This is what happens in about 5 minutes of gametime. After that, AoE3 honestly gets boring as fuck strategically speaking. You just make your standard army (for example just skirm goon, pure musk or whatever the match up requires) and continue doing that until you win or lose one fight so decisively that one player is forced off of hunts and thus instantly loses. The build up to this stage is amazing, but the stage itself is mostly very limited.

Not entirely accurate. Yes that's what people are doing because the meta is only evolved up to a certain game time. At a certain point people just start winging it, but the strategy is still there. Choices between shipments and unit comps and economic/tech investments remain throughout the game, it's just that most players go on autopilot after a while.

The variety of build orders is definitely greater in AoE3, and something else I like about it over AoC is the micro. Multiple-unit compositions are much more common and the counter system works in a way that makes positioning and small-scale micro important.

AoC is a very macro-oriented game where the player with the highest APM usually comes out on top.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Thank you, necro.