Why don't pros from other games make anticav?

[[Armag] diarouga]

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

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 ?

It does but then why would you make cav?

[big_bada]

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

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 ?

It does but then why would you make cav?

because of the number i guess ? idk. Tho in aoe2 bows fail a lot of shoot.

[Goodspeed]

Yeah the reason is probably because archers are well-rounded units in AoE2 whereas they have a direct counter here. In AoE2 if you have 20 xbows and you see like 8 knights it's whatever, you'll probably break even, but in AoE3 your army's about to get wiped.

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

Assuming you meant to say "counter", that's not true. Xbows only counter knights in chokepoints. In the open field knights have an edge, until late game where paladins wreck arbalests.

I wonder, what would you think if someone says "played 20 games of AoE3 and the counter system makes no sense"?

[harcha]

I'd say "read the in-game unit descriptions pls"

[Hazza54321]

Everytime ive seen daut play french he always overspams goons

[0nni]

They are just playing the game for fun since both got knocked out of kotd3 in first round. I doubt they will commit to aoe3 so no the point in tryharding.

[UpMySleeves]

They really not taking the game serious, just trying to have some fun, take a break from tryharding aoe2. Daut actually seems to have decent game knowledge still, yet one stream he was spamming pure Uhlans every game. It also seems like they're playing lower skilled players, so it barely matters what units they're making, since they have good mechanics.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yeah the reason is probably because archers are well-rounded units in AoE2 whereas they have a direct counter here. In AoE2 if you have 20 xbows and you see like 8 knights it's whatever, you'll probably break even, but in AoE3 your army's about to get wiped.

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

Assuming you meant to say "counter", that's not true. Xbows only counter knights in chokepoints. In the open field knights have an edge, until late game where paladins wreck arbalests.

I wonder, what would you think if someone says "played 20 games of AoE3 and the counter system makes no sense"?

Well he's saying that because Spirit of the law made a video where he said that the aoe3 counter system doesn't make sense.

[Goodspeed]

Sure. He wouldn't be the first AoE2 player who said some dumb shit about AoE3. Then again, I get the sentiment. It's not intuitive for goons to have a multiplier against heavy cav, for skirms to have a multiplier against musks, for archers to have a negative multiplier against cav, etc.

[somp]

They're kind of right, theoretically. Assuming aoe would be completely "mastered" by AI, I think it would be always both making skirm-goons. However, higher skirm count would always win in this case. Therefore, outcome would be both 100% skirms, however then heavy cavalry would actually have a swinging effect. But because goon-type is so op vs heavy cav, adding goon after some hus switch would win easily res-wise.

Therefore, if there's no incentive to do any hus (assuming your opponent responds perfectly) it would be a pure skirm war.
Surely, arti mixes this all up a little.

In reality with imperfect information you can't rely having perfect goon timings, meaning people automatically mix goon. Even if opponent wouldn't make a single hus anyway (and because they can kill falcs)

[Imperial Noob]

Sure. He wouldn't be the first AoE2 player who said some dumb shit about AoE3. Then again, I get the sentiment. It's not intuitive for goons to have a multiplier against heavy cav, for skirms to have a multiplier against musks, for archers to have a negative multiplier against cav, etc.

It is though... skirmishing tactics worked great against British redcoats in the 13 Colonies Insurrection, where the British had to either fire a full salvo on a handful of ducking human targets, or let themselves be extremely demoralized by constant enemy sniping shots without any way of retaliation.

Light cavalry outran, tired, and arrowed heavy cavalry in:
1) Achaemenid Persia
2) Ancient Rome
3) Ancient and medieval China
4) anywhere else the Mongols went
5) Early Modern Eastern Europe, where the Tatars were

Later in western Europe (for example the Napoleonic wars) and in the US Civil War cavalry with guns always had an advantage over cavalry with only melee weapons.

As for the negative archer multipliers, a horse can take many arrows and still keep charging. In World War One horses sometimes ran even with their guts out. Moreover, cavalry usually scared the shit out of infantrymen, with many missing or otherwise being ineffective.

[Hawk_Girl]

Everytime ive seen daut play french he always overspams goons

i respect that playstyle

[drsingh]

Sure. He wouldn't be the first AoE2 player who said some dumb shit about AoE3. Then again, I get the sentiment. It's not intuitive for goons to have a multiplier against heavy cav, for skirms to have a multiplier against musks, for archers to have a negative multiplier against cav, etc.

I can't say which counters make sense. Like javelin throwing unit countering archers or dragoons countering hussars.

But information about counters is readily accessible in Aoe3 as compared to aoe2.

I remember when I had started playing Aoe2 many years back, information about counters was difficult to get. One of my friend who was very good l, was the go to guy for asking about counters about some seemingly unbeatable or unique unit. Like massed longbowmen on blackforest or playing aztec against massed scorpions. In retrospect it seems trivial. But the information we got from ui was camels or pike good against cavalry, skirm good against archers. But no exact info about how much bonus damage. Today there are mods to display these in game. And information in general in better known because of sites or YouTube.

When I played my first few games of Aoe3. I was already able to make out easily what counters what and is weak to what. It's all there. I could figure out what unit compositions I should make, by myself.

[harcha]

Pros from other games are not fully familiar with which units are best, which compositions are standard and what to expect from your opponent, so it's natural that they might have weird quirks or just spam 1 unit until they learn what counters what and what the opponent is making.

[robo]

As an AoE2 'decent' player, when playing vs the American civs its very hard to know what counters what as all of their stuff is on foot (infantry), therefore no cav, therefore full skirm should be best.

Now I know this isn't the case but that isn't intuitive to new players.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye I had hard time understanding how the Aztec units work when I switched to TAD. At first I thought that they didn't have cav.

[chris1089]

Ye I had hard time understanding how the Aztec units work when I switched to TAD. At first I thought that they didn't have cav.

Ye I remember that even when I was 1st Lt there was the odd guy who would go skirm/cannon and be surprised when I lost very little of my army with 25 coyotes in it.

[bobabu]

The micro in age 2 and age 3 is way different. In Age 3 u usually fight with large armies while in age 2 you don't. On top of that, there are hill bonuses and strong defensive buildings while not having snare. These reasons make slow melee units less efficient.

[Goodspeed]

Sure. He wouldn't be the first AoE2 player who said some dumb shit about AoE3. Then again, I get the sentiment. It's not intuitive for goons to have a multiplier against heavy cav, for skirms to have a multiplier against musks, for archers to have a negative multiplier against cav, etc.

I can't say which counters make sense. Like javelin throwing unit countering archers or dragoons countering hussars.

The javelin throwing unit has a shield to block arrows with. Seems intuitive to me

[deleted_user]

not rly intuitive ngl

in a spirit of the law video he was trying to make a point by showing units from aoe2 and aoe3 and asking which countered which and I was 0/3 on aoe2, and he's like "see it's much ezier in aoe2."

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ye not intuitive, I didn't understand it at first.
Arrows are simply more effective than a javelin at range, while the javelin also has a use in melee. So intuitively, the javelin would be worse than a bowman at range, and better in hand combat, just like musks with their bayonets.

[PancakePrincess]

Sure. He wouldn't be the first AoE2 player who said some dumb shit about AoE3. Then again, I get the sentiment. It's not intuitive for goons to have a multiplier against heavy cav, for skirms to have a multiplier against musks, for archers to have a negative multiplier against cav, etc.

I can't say which counters make sense. Like javelin throwing unit countering archers or dragoons countering hussars.

The javelin throwing unit has a shield to block arrows with. Seems intuitive to me

Longswordsman also have shields though and are bad against archer. Huskarls on the other hand do carry shields and are good against archers again. The list goes on and on...

In all honesty, this whole debate on intuitiveness that plagues RTS communities is pointless imo. No RTS counter system will just "click" for beginners, since RTS games are hard by nature and have a lot of intricacies which gets even more convoluted if you take micro techniques into account. There's also an individual component based on pre-existing knowledge in regards to what makes sense and what doesn't.

[aaryngend]

As an AoE2 'decent' player, when playing vs the American civs its very hard to know what counters what as all of their stuff is on foot (infantry), therefore no cav, therefore full skirm should be best.

Now I know this isn't the case but that isn't intuitive to new players.

That only goes for the Aztec tbh, I mean you have to be pretty blind if you don't know which units are cav for the Sioux (now Lakota) and Iroquois (now Haudenosaunee)

[robo]

how about inca?

[vividlyplain]

As an AoE2 'decent' player, when playing vs the American civs its very hard to know what counters what as all of their stuff is on foot (infantry), therefore no cav, therefore full skirm should be best.

Now I know this isn't the case but that isn't intuitive to new players.

That only goes for the Aztec tbh, I mean you have to be pretty blind if you don't know which units are cav for the Sioux (now Lakota) and Iroquois (now Haudenosaunee)

but you also need to know that rifle riders dumpster heavy infantry (and boats)