Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
I have watched several pros from other games (Such as Daut and TheViper), and I noticed a common theme. They all seem to make a lot of light infantry (skirms), and push with very little or no anticav. Inevitably, they get smashed by cav. Why do they do this game after game? Is cav in AOE3 much better than it is in AOE2 or other games? Here are several reasons I can think of:
1) They aren't used to snare. But is this a valid reason? Even without snare a group of cav can smash light inf before you have the chance to train anticav
2) They aren't used to enemy massing cav quickly via shipments
3) They aren't used to the hard counter system. But in light inf vs cav, is the counter system that hard? Cav don't have multipliers.
1) They aren't used to snare. But is this a valid reason? Even without snare a group of cav can smash light inf before you have the chance to train anticav
2) They aren't used to enemy massing cav quickly via shipments
3) They aren't used to the hard counter system. But in light inf vs cav, is the counter system that hard? Cav don't have multipliers.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
TAD has:
- snare
- hard counter system (RI has neg multiplier vs cav)
- you win a battle you win the game so not much room for losing ur army and making just anticav to comeback
On nilla you could get away more without anticav
- snare
- hard counter system (RI has neg multiplier vs cav)
- you win a battle you win the game so not much room for losing ur army and making just anticav to comeback
On nilla you could get away more without anticav
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
- musketeer925
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
- ESO: musketeer925
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Maybe I'm taking bait, but how does this have anything to do with Treaty vs Supremacy?deleted_user wrote:In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
There's a dumb meme that TR players are vastly more intelligent than Sup players which is funny because TR is 95% mechanics. I made the joke that only 200 IQ TR players can understand such a complex system like rock, papers, scissors, and that they graciously offer up this intellectual bread to us intellectually anemic supremacy peasants. I completely made up the aoe2 stuff for the sake of the joke. It's probably a little yikes, hung up on this idea of absolute superiority derived from "intelligence." But that's such a silly, simplified concept that I think it aids the presentation.
- musketeer925
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
- ESO: musketeer925
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Thanks for explaining the joke to a 15 IQ sup player like medeleted_user wrote:There's a dumb meme that TR players are vastly more intelligent than Sup players which is funny because TR is 95% mechanics. I made the joke that only 200 IQ TR players can understand the complex rock, papers, scissors counter system, and that they graciously offer up this intellectual bread to us feeble peasants. I completely made up the aoe2 stuff for the sake of the joke. It's probably a little yikes, hung up on superiority from intelligence. But that's such a silly concept that I think it aids the joke.
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Do you think Newton or Leibniz played treaty or sup?deleted_user wrote:In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
I don't get the idea, a good supremacy will always be good a treaty, but the opposite doesn't, a good treaty player can be total trash at supremacydeleted_user wrote:In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
- lemmings121
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Mar 15, 2015
- ESO: lemmings121
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
In aoe2 xbows/archers are much better vs cav. More bow dps, No snare, worse cav patching... If you have 40 xbows, Knights dont counter you anymore unless he has a huge mass
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Yeah that's why it doesn't make sense and it's just a joke. I believe it was started by a demented child we have around here called "The Ear."ǝɯɐuɹǝsn wrote:I don't get the idea, a good supremacy will always be good a treaty, but the opposite doesn't, a good treaty player can be total trash at supremacydeleted_user wrote:In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
I'm pretty familiar with age of mythology, and from my experience there, nobody really makes cav, so anti-cav is just pretty worthless. Heck, most of the time "infantry" (aoe3 heavy inf equiv) is mostly used for raiding and taking down siege units. Heres a few stats just to show why:
as you can see cavalry is only a couple hp more than the heavy inf, only double an archers hp (like a huss with 15rr and 240 hp), has barely more speed than the melee inf, yet significantly more expensive. This isnt even accounting for the "vet" equiv that should be applied. If you're used to these sorts of stats, with no snare, why would you be afraid of cav switches? The most common atlantean compostion is a mix of destroyers and arcus, which is basically Mantlet-Aenna in aoe3 terms, with nearly no anticav in age 3 except in specific matchups (war elephants). I can understand why a player unfamiliar with aoe3s hard counters and heavy mulitpliers would just mass long range inf and little else
as you can see cavalry is only a couple hp more than the heavy inf, only double an archers hp (like a huss with 15rr and 240 hp), has barely more speed than the melee inf, yet significantly more expensive. This isnt even accounting for the "vet" equiv that should be applied. If you're used to these sorts of stats, with no snare, why would you be afraid of cav switches? The most common atlantean compostion is a mix of destroyers and arcus, which is basically Mantlet-Aenna in aoe3 terms, with nearly no anticav in age 3 except in specific matchups (war elephants). I can understand why a player unfamiliar with aoe3s hard counters and heavy mulitpliers would just mass long range inf and little else
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Well there are no musk type units in aoe2 (except genoese crossbow but those are only specific to italians) and pikeman is too slow due to lack of snare. So the most common anit-cav are camel riders which isn't a thing in aoe3.
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
atlanteans are a weird example since their cav are known to be garbage for those reasons but it doesnt fully apply to other civs.
Norse on the other hand have very fast all-rounded infantry and their early cav are faster but mostly for raiding and late cav are like aoe2 knights - extremely tanky and basically kills everything
Egyptians only get access to cav age 3 onwards and they are anti-cav camels and elephants so you dont go for them early either.
greeks are like the only one with like decent early cav but I don't see them used that often either.
tbh thats not even getting into the whole soft counter vs hard counter thing which is more prominent in aoe2 and aom but not really a thing anymore with aoe 3
Norse on the other hand have very fast all-rounded infantry and their early cav are faster but mostly for raiding and late cav are like aoe2 knights - extremely tanky and basically kills everything
Egyptians only get access to cav age 3 onwards and they are anti-cav camels and elephants so you dont go for them early either.
greeks are like the only one with like decent early cav but I don't see them used that often either.
tbh thats not even getting into the whole soft counter vs hard counter thing which is more prominent in aoe2 and aom but not really a thing anymore with aoe 3
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Yes the greek hippokons are quite strong (a bit more hp, a bit more attack than contarius) but very pricey, and hopolites, especially zeus, are just much better units. Posidon players use them a lot but thats more of a synergy thing.helln00 wrote:atlanteans are a weird example since their cav are known to be garbage for those reasons but it doesnt fully apply to other civs.
Norse on the other hand have very fast all-rounded infantry and their early cav are faster but mostly for raiding and late cav are like aoe2 knights - extremely tanky and basically kills everything
Egyptians only get access to cav age 3 onwards and they are anti-cav camels and elephants so you dont go for them early either.
greeks are like the only one with like decent early cav but I don't see them used that often either.
tbh thats not even getting into the whole soft counter vs hard counter thing which is more prominent in aoe2 and aom but not really a thing anymore with aoe 3
Raiding cav is actually significantly worse than contarius, norse just absolutely has to have cav to compliment their 0-archer melee focused armies. Odin has some scary cav tho, they are very solid late.
I just main kronos and its the one im most familiar with. Its always turma-murmillo, a few cheiroballistae into arcus and destroyers. Maybe destroyers fill the cav role with the tanking and thats why i prefer them and nearly never train contarius, except a few to check wood lines, mines, etc.
Legit, if I'd only played atlanteans and immediately picked up aoe3 id be going so infantry heavy, with no expectation of snare, the sheer amount of ranged hitpoints on most cav, or how much quicker skirm masses vanish to a handful of melee units if you arent covered. Going from 8 damage cav to 30+ with that ranged hp scaling on huss or worse, lancer type, is just not something thats easy to explain without experiencing it
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
In aoe2 crossbowmen are soft countered by knights in low numbers. But once massed they counter knights.
Then only defeated by skirmishers or onager.
Maybe aoe2 pro believe they can counter everything with superior eco and micro of ranged units. They never take time to see the negative multipliers of their units and positive multipliers of enemy.
Apart from not being familiar with hard counter system, the difference in Armor or resistance is also there.
And other reason is because of soft counters and the design of game with getting committed to a unit type with specific upgrades. They are used to making single unit composition armies.
I watched Daut making only Ulhans for lot of games in succession. Against heavy infantry, dragoons. Even when he realised they counter, he said I'll win with superior eco and outmass. Later he switched to France and spammed Gendarmes. I guess, Caroleans or Otto Nizams are units which can be played such manner.
It will take time for them to realise how big the hard counters are, and adapt with using 3 unit compositions.
Apart from pros from aoe2. Did anyone see a SC2 or 1 pro try DE?
What is SC2 like? Difference from Aoe3 in regards to counters, Armor, pop, and army playstyle..
Then only defeated by skirmishers or onager.
Maybe aoe2 pro believe they can counter everything with superior eco and micro of ranged units. They never take time to see the negative multipliers of their units and positive multipliers of enemy.
Apart from not being familiar with hard counter system, the difference in Armor or resistance is also there.
And other reason is because of soft counters and the design of game with getting committed to a unit type with specific upgrades. They are used to making single unit composition armies.
I watched Daut making only Ulhans for lot of games in succession. Against heavy infantry, dragoons. Even when he realised they counter, he said I'll win with superior eco and outmass. Later he switched to France and spammed Gendarmes. I guess, Caroleans or Otto Nizams are units which can be played such manner.
It will take time for them to realise how big the hard counters are, and adapt with using 3 unit compositions.
Apart from pros from aoe2. Did anyone see a SC2 or 1 pro try DE?
What is SC2 like? Difference from Aoe3 in regards to counters, Armor, pop, and army playstyle..
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Xbow in AoE3 needs a buff. Vs 40 xbows/knights in Aoe2 camel/skirm? XD.lemmings121 wrote:In aoe2 xbows/archers are much better vs cav. More bow dps, No snare, worse cav patching... If you have 40 xbows, Knights dont counter you anymore unless he has a huge mass
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Playing 20ngames of aoe2, crossbows directly clutner knights, so why even care? Lol. Really don't understand aoe2 counter system logic and they say our makes no sense
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
lol, maybe the whole point of nizams and caroleans is to make a unit familiar to aoe2 players, that just counters everything if you outmicro
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Einstein discovered theory of Relativity while spending time in an nr60 Orinoco gameovi12 wrote:Do you think Newton or Leibniz played treaty or sup?deleted_user wrote:In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
Treaty played by all Intellectuals
"We are kings or pawns" Napoleon Bonaparte
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Not really since a random good supremacy player cant just dominate in a high level treaty game since there will be new things that they'll have to get used toǝɯɐuɹǝsn wrote:I don't get the idea, a good supremacy will always be good a treaty, but the opposite doesn't, a good treaty player can be total trash at supremacydeleted_user wrote:In AoE3 a lot of top players are actually also really good at Treaty. Because of this they are able to disseminate difficult information unto the larger and less intelligent AoE3 Supremacy community, such as the counter system. In AoE2 the TR and Sup communities have less overlap, and as a result "top" Supremacy players like The Viper struggle with this concept simply because they've not been exposed. It's much like if Newton and Leibniz had never published Calculus, perhaps I would not have learned it in secondary school.
"We are kings or pawns" Napoleon Bonaparte
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
It's true we NR players have higher iq. I myself am a topper in my school and iirc got 2nd place in my state Spell Beedeleted_user wrote:There's a dumb meme that TR players are vastly more intelligent than Sup players which is funny because TR is 95% mechanics. I made the joke that only 200 IQ TR players can understand such a complex system like rock, papers, scissors, and that they graciously offer up this intellectual bread to us feeble supremacy peasants. I completely made up the aoe2 stuff for the sake of the joke. It's probably a little yikes, hung up on this idea of absolute superiority derived from "intelligence." But that's such a silly, simplified concept that I think it aids the presentation.
"We are kings or pawns" Napoleon Bonaparte
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Whats hard to understand that a guy with a javelin counters longbowmens ???SoldieR wrote:Playing 20ngames of aoe2, crossbows directly clutner knights, so why even care? Lol. Really don't understand aoe2 counter system logic and they say our makes no sense
More seriously yes aoe2 counter system doesnt make any sense for a big part and when you learn aoe2 you'll also learn that what we told you on aoe2 about being more realist or logic was a very big lie .
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
Perfectly summarized.Garja wrote:TAD has:
- snare
- hard counter system (RI has neg multiplier vs cav)
- you win a battle you win the game so not much room for losing ur army and making just anticav to comeback
On nilla you could get away more without anticav
Re: Why don't pros from other games make anticav?
hmm does the fact a guy on a horse take an arrow in the face doesn't make more cense than cav running straight to lbs for exemple without dying ?SoldieR wrote:Playing 20ngames of aoe2, crossbows directly clutner knights, so why even care? Lol. Really don't understand aoe2 counter system logic and they say our makes no sense
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: fallenangelaire and 12 guests