Why semi-FF? Truth is that the Commerce Age is boring

[iamgaming]

Move falc to 2nd age, problem solved, happy European civs.

[helln00]

tbqh mega-campaigns are where its at. We need file transfer to Victoria thr...... two. Let's break the arbitrary boundaries imposed on us by the microsoft bourgeoisie and go even beyond imperial age.

Age of Empires.....In SPACE!!!

[Astaroth]

What's ironic is that Mitoe is probably one of the top players who stays in age2 the longest lol

[fei123456]

"Men are born equal, but some of them are more equal."

Some civ semi-FF with 40+ vills, while some semi-FF with 20 vills and no steel trap, no skirm, no cannon.

[klonko]

What's ironic is that Mitoe is probably one of the top players who stays in age2 the longest lol

Despite all the semi-ff lobbying and the fact he stays age 2 so long and he finds a way to be top 10, Mitoe best player confirmed?

[Darwin_]

If muskets weren't an inherently broken unit, then the game, and colonial in particular, would be much better/more interesting.

[MasterOfDoot]

Historically, it makes sense that the forstress age has the military edge too. The ''Commerce'' or ''Colonial'' age is an era of expansion, you're building up infrastructure; market, rax, housing, church, TPs (trading post for commerce). In real life, it's when the europeans started establishing more colonies in North America. The military presence of this era is quite limited in scope and fights were mostly small skirmishes and raids with natives and european competitors. Once the colonies are firmly established and stable, we move to the ''Fortress age'' (I don't think it's an actual term, but probably based from 1750s to the industrial era) is more militarized, you build forts, more military infrastructure, defenses, etc... So ''Colonial'' age is expanding your colony, Fortress age has increased military presence.

[Peachrocks]

If muskets weren't an inherently broken unit, then the game, and colonial in particular, would be much better/more interesting.

This, but honestly I think a lot of units are inherently broken in all eras of the game and why compositions look extremely repetitive for my eyes rather than players reacting and countering but true enough this does especially apply to Muskets of all sorts. They really missed an opportunity with muskets, making them evolve and improve with the times rather than being a ranged pike right from the get go.

On topic though, it doesn't help that numerous civs don't have units that properly counter Muskets and/or they are saddled with significant drawbacks like set up time. Still think Muskets should get a ranged attack penalty against ranged infantry (skirms/bows) but that's one of 'numerous' things I'd like done with the counter system.

[Jets]

Encourage Native TPs control, make native warriors worth. Make grenadiers anti-inf unit rather than a siege unit.

There are literally native skirms with twice the health a standard musketeer would have.

[EGCTV]

I spend 3 months blowing my inheritance on show matches and recruiting moles all to further the semi-FF cause just for Mitoe to blow cover in an ESOC post.

Ffs dude.

[RefluxSemantic]

I think the original discussions were more nuanced and slowly devolved into this simple one liner. Idc about commerce or fortress age, but I'd argue that through the years much of the game devolved into a sort of nr10 gameplay with one big fight in fortress age that decides the game. This happened through maps and imo through a bias in the balancing process. Its more fair and balanced and maybe more skillful and interesting, but I cant help but think the game also got a bit more boring.

[Abrahamburgerlincon]

I feel like this is dividing the community, we should be working together so that all Ages can be played and not fall to the tyranny of the Ages Lobbies, be it the Commerce Lobby, Fortress Lobby, Industrial Lobby, the Imperial Lobby or the Exploration CBD pioneer rush Lobby.

You forgot the revolution lobby, that’s it I’m starting a riot

[n0el]

Why doesn’t the sea have more resources? Seems like an easy fix to the semiFF meta.

[gibson]

If every water map had 3x the fish and 2x the Whales semi ff would be less viable

[InsectPoison]

to be honest age 1 doesnt make any sense. Wish AoE3 was more like SC2 where there can be action immediatelly.

[_NT_sven]

to be honest age 1 doesnt make any sense. Wish AoE3 was more like SC2 where there can be action immediatelly.

That's not quite true. Treasures affect your build order a lot, and the order of scouting is also important. Based on that, age 1 is essentially a psychological battle between the two players, each trying to gain small advantages for oneself while frustrating the other's early plan. It might be more accurate to say that only a peaceful age 1 where each player gets some small treasures evenly is not that important.

[lemmings121]

age1 currently is also a mechanics test. you might think its all the same, but watch some elo 1200 micro his starting vills and you know he is already far behind a better player. You can argue that the skill ceiling is low as high level players can micro the start well everytime, but for the ~90% players, thats already a challenge where some do better then others and start to create advantages in the first minute.

[scarm]

I personally also think it makes it way easier for newcomers to play the game because you don't have to be worried about a minute 1 zergling or zealot or some other meme shit. Maybe that is just me but i distinctly remember really liking that period of peace when i started playing.

[WickedCossack]

I personally also think it makes it way easier for newcomers to play the game because you don't have to be worried about a minute 1 zergling or zealot or some other meme shit. Maybe that is just me but i distinctly remember really liking that period of peace when i started playing.

It's one of a number of things that separates age of empires from other RTS franchises that you get this little moment of peace early on to scout, explore, strategise.

I like it.

I think aoe2 shows a lot of people like it.

That's not to say that the pacing is inherently superior to the SC2 model but it's a defining characteristic of the series. People will prefer one over the other. There's clearly interest in both and importantly you can be successful with both hence I see no reason for age to make any changes to the formula.

[Hawk_Girl]

aging up should be a heavy investment that can be punished if scouted well but this is not the case in many MUs. but if it gets more expensive and shit, then some colo civs get too strong and everything is balanced around semi-ff meta so its hard to change. it should be a rock-paper-scissors between aging up/pushing/not pushing but its mostly a rock-rock-rock.

this works usually better going industrial. i.e in otto mirror FI beats passive FF but aggressive FF beats FI.

musket wars are boring but skirm wars are just the same.

So not pushing should beat pushing?

[somp]

aging up should be a heavy investment that can be punished if scouted well but this is not the case in many MUs. but if it gets more expensive and shit, then some colo civs get too strong and everything is balanced around semi-ff meta so its hard to change. it should be a rock-paper-scissors between aging up/pushing/not pushing but its mostly a rock-rock-rock.

this works usually better going industrial. i.e in otto mirror FI beats passive FF but aggressive FF beats FI.

musket wars are boring but skirm wars are just the same.

So not pushing should beat pushing?

Yeah. Assuming both do the same and units walk for +30 seconds across the map, basically the player defending should have more units and better enforcements with all the other benefits of the defender (los, mm, tc+outpost fire etc).

Obviously, if player X is significantly better than Y, then rock-paper-scissors wont matter at all.

[Jets]

Remove the fast age up to fortress. You either stay on age2 or risk it all on a ff.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

aging up should be a heavy investment that can be punished if scouted well but this is not the case in many MUs. but if it gets more expensive and shit, then some colo civs get too strong and everything is balanced around semi-ff meta so its hard to change. it should be a rock-paper-scissors between aging up/pushing/not pushing but its mostly a rock-rock-rock.

this works usually better going industrial. i.e in otto mirror FI beats passive FF but aggressive FF beats FI.

musket wars are boring but skirm wars are just the same.

So not pushing should beat pushing?

Yeah. Assuming both do the same and units walk for +30 seconds across the map, basically the player defending should have more units and better enforcements with all the other benefits of the defender (los, mm, tc+outpost fire etc).

Obviously, if player X is significantly better than Y, then rock-paper-scissors wont matter at all.

This is complicated by the fact that the defending player lacks map control.

[Kaiserklein]

Remove the fast age up to fortress. You either stay on age2 or risk it all on a ff.

Sounds refreshing, so the current FF civs keep FFing every game, while basically every other civ just makes musks or loses

[somp]

Show hidden quotes

aging up should be a heavy investment that can be punished if scouted well but this is not the case in many MUs. but if it gets more expensive and shit, then some colo civs get too strong and everything is balanced around semi-ff meta so its hard to change. it should be a rock-paper-scissors between aging up/pushing/not pushing but its mostly a rock-rock-rock.

this works usually better going industrial. i.e in otto mirror FI beats passive FF but aggressive FF beats FI.

musket wars are boring but skirm wars are just the same.

So not pushing should beat pushing?

Yeah. Assuming both do the same and units walk for +30 seconds across the map, basically the player defending should have more units and better enforcements with all the other benefits of the defender (los, mm, tc+outpost fire etc).

Obviously, if player X is significantly better than Y, then rock-paper-scissors wont matter at all.

This is complicated by the fact that the defending player lacks map control.

Not really.

I.e in brit mirror if you make a forward base and your opponent makes a home-base, you do not want to push into the base unless you think he is aging. Pushing into equally massed base is a bad idea. If the base player pushes into equally massed fb (running out of hunts), he should lose, he is the pusher.
In AOE its always complicated and any skill gap can turn around the game. But in my opinion, it should follow the rock-paper-scissors mechanism.

^ No fast age would indeed make i.e french mirror much more interesting.