General forum about Age of Empires 3 DE. Please post strategy threads, recorded games, user-created content and tech support threads in their respective forum.
Incas are very close to the Aztec, so the same goes for them.
The first thing people should do is to learn the counter system, at least on an intermediate level, then learn what is actually in the game (units, buildings, technologies).
It's cool to see the aoe2 players try aoe3, but I wish they would do so with more grit and structure.
TheViper seems to be playing AOE3 only for fun/stream. He said that he has no intention of picking it up competitively. So it makes sense that he doesn't go into nerdy-sweaty stuff on stream and doesn't play it off-stream.
Daut on the other hand has played it before and it shows.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Goodspeed wrote: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....
I never said AoE2s counters all make sense but skirm vs archer is pretty much a perfect example of when it does
harcha wrote:TheViper seems to be playing AOE3 only for fun/stream. He said that he has no intention of picking it up competitively. So it makes sense that he doesn't go into nerdy-sweaty stuff on stream and doesn't play it off-stream.
Daut on the other hand has played it before and it shows.
No one said he should give up on aoe2 for it, but he could still put more effort into it and play it on the side from time to time.
Getting both communites together from time to time would only be beneficial for us and them.
Goodspeed wrote: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....
I never said AoE2s counters all make sense but skirm vs archer is pretty much a perfect example of when it does
It only makes sence about having pierce armour. Not that his arm with nothing throws javelin as far as bow. The damage bonus is ok because of all energy from whole body but thats it. And that javelin looks quite good vs cav first glance. Then you have no more javelins. so at least slower rate of fire. So intuitively i would still use bow at range. And conversion of knight is too pretty funny. I would think that knight specifically would be proud about his religion.
I feel like the aoe3 counter system is much easier to understand because it's rock paper scizors with visible bonuses. In aoe2, you would need to dig into the wikipedia pages to even know the bonuses.
Probably harder for new players because the bonuses may be visible but not by default (or did this change in DE?) and new players won't understand many of them. You have bonuses against heavy infantry, light infantry and ranged infantry, which is which? Intuitively a musk is ranged, a skirm is ranged but also light, etc. A new player is unlikely to research which tag belongs to each unit and will probably just end up learning the hard way. It does help that most units fit into roles, but a new player is unlikely to know those roles.
I remember when I first started playing I thought cav countered jans. I know that if I had done my due diligence I would've known that to be false, but new players don't do that. They just want to play the game; Previous games showed me that ranged units were typically countered by cav.
AoE2's bonuses are all over the place, and really understanding all of them certainly takes more research than in AoE3, but at least the tech tree somewhat accurately tells you what a unit is good against. For new players that's enough.
A tech tree was always sorely missing in AoE3.
Idk, maybe that's just me, but to me it was intuitively clear that Cavalry beats ranged infantry, because well closing distance tends to be important vs range, that muskeeters are in turn good vs cavalry because they have bayonetts, that polearms are good vs cavalry because of range, and that longer range infantry is good vs lower range infantry. The main thing that does not make much sense are dagoons.
AoE 2 has some similarly intuitive things, like polearm vs. cav, even camels vs. cav, and then some obscure shit like peltasts, which haven't even been around much in the middle ages being good vs Archers, Onagers being good vs Cav archers and all of that.
Overall i think both systems are mostly quite intuitive, and make the right design choices in favouring gameplay over historical accuracy in some cases. The main thing AoE2 is missing is an obvious stat tab like the AoE3 one.
People just need to read tooltips. Tooltips in most aoe games should be improved by the way.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
harcha 
Hago the carrier 
RefluxSemantic 
scarm 
gamevideo113 
