the new AoE3

[callentournies]

No

[lordraphael]

RE Aztec FI relied on bug abuse lol.

And? It would've been possible to preserve the strategy by fixing the bug and buffing it. It was a unique fresh strategy that has now disappeared in the void. And why?

France making some huss and some musk and aging is not a very incriminating assault on the supposed meta you're attacking.

Huh? I'm specifically talking about the classic French build of 3 cdb 4 cdb 700w 700c while making 5 huss or 5-15 musk, which has basically been a staple of French builds since at least 2008.

Rattans got standardized because 26 guard units with no tags are kinda dumb because the game has a decent non transitive counter system going on which seems important to uphold.

Again, if that was a specific problem, why not buff the Chinese FI in other ways to actually make it viable? It was a unique, fun strategy that has all but disappeared. Also, that wasn't the only nerf to the FI.

Speaking of that, musks break it. Then DE added range resist musks which break it harder (and 6 infinite mams for 900c when people ship 4 once for 1000c but ok).

Age 4 shipments worth much more than age3?

So the "best options" got nerfed a bit and that included sepoy stats, jan stats, bow rider stats, wall hp, etc. Note that this has also included TP nerfs, exiled prince nerfs, and buffs to other politicians.

The "best option" for almost every civ in most MUs on most maps is now essentially a (semi) FF into skirm/goon/cav (or a slight variation of that), usually quite greedy.

We e.g. have:

Dutch: ideally, straight or semi FF with as many banks as possible, sometimes huss or skirm age2, into skirm/ruyt/huss.
French: ideally, semi FF with musk or huss into skirm/goon/cuir
Germans: ideally, semi or straight FF with uhlan into skirm/WW/uhlan
Ottomans: in most MUs, you probably now want to either straight FF or semi FF with stage and/or 3 TCs (otto also sometimes goes age2 jan/abus but atm that very rarely seems to happen or work in tourneys)
Portuguese: on land, semi FF into cassa/goon (some people like Kaiser essentially play this civ almost exactly like France, without walls, only slightly more defensive and no 2 falcs)
Spanish: straight FF into greed/spanish gold
Haudenosaunee: straight or usually semi FF into FP/MR/kanya/5 cuir
Lakota: straight or semi FF with cav into cav/some wakina
Chinese: straight FF usually, slight exception (no skirm/goon - but actually yes, with manchu/cav/arq)
Indians: usually semi FF with ghurka/zamb

Of course all these civs have different strategies too, sometimes they make 5-10 more age2 units, sometimes they rush (tower rush), sometimes they send 8 bows for a timing etc. But these^^are certainly their most popular, most meta and overall probably ideal/strongest strategies in most MUs and on most maps. That is already 10 out of 17 civs.

What do we have left? 7 civs. And what do almost all of these civs have in common?

British: this is the only exception - not a classic semi FF or skirm/goon civ, yet not part of the following group. All other remaining civs are either considered LAME or they are generally WEAK:

(considered) LAME:

Japanese
Incas
Swedes
(also port water here - I only talked about port land above)

WEAK:

Russians
Aztecs
United States (Marines might be strong, but that is again probably considered lame again and then part of group LAME)

i think you should team up with breeze and continue the fight together

[RefluxSemantic]

Imo you assert a lot and most of it is wrong

So do you imo

[callentournies]

Nope

[Goodspeed]

You keep mentioning the term "skill" but by that you seem to mostly refer to apm/unit control/micro. And that is actually precisely my point: some people consider only mechanical skill as real or actual skill. Decision making, builds, counter builds, crafting new, inventive strats is not seen as a skill but often just as lame or abuse. I find that extremely sad.

You misunderstand. I agree with your sentiment and have argued the same thing many times in the past, and no, mechanical skill is not what I'm referring to. Early all ins are not only easy to execute, they are also not particularly creative, require virtually no adaptation skills and, more generally, have very few "decision moments". They are designed to be the same or at least very similar each game, no matter what your opponent does. Lack of these decision moments, where your understanding of the game is tested, is the main thing that makes them "low-skill".

I feel for most MUs, the point that turtling (including walls) is too strong and that you cannot outboom as the defender is wrong. This is definitely the case when it comes to land TP maps, particularly when you account for trade monopoly. In aoe3, there is rarely a situation in which one civ can outboom and outscale another on a land map with stagecoach, IF the other player adapts and doesn't just bot/clash into walls. If e.g. France plays vs Ports on land and goes straight 3 TC with map control vs full wall turtle, France just straight out wins with stage coach etc. The same goes for most MUs. This is also because natural resources gather much more quickly than mills/estates.

I think you misunderstood me here too. It's probably my writing. I didn't say turtling is too strong. I'm very aware that it's typically not very good. My point was about when it is viable, and what makes it viable:

That is to say, "healthy" turtle builds, where the opponent has options to outboom, cannot be viable in AoE3. Only "unhealthy" turtling, where you force the opponent to crash armies into your defenses and you get ahead by sheer scaling, can be viable.

The example you mentioned would be a "healthy turtling" scenario, where Ports don't outscale France hard enough so that France is forced to attack them early. In that case France is in control, and can choose to switch into a boom. But importantly, this is not viable for the Port player, which was my point. If it is viable now, great, but it wasn't last I checked. Regardless, Port would then be the only civ in the game with access to a viable "healthy" turtle strat, which is not exactly redeeming.

Maybe water can be a different situation, but often there are less explored counter strats. E.g. Indian siege ele play seems to do really well vs Port water, and there could be other examples. Overall, I find the assertion that a proper counter build, sometimes while outbooming, cannot counter turtle, to be false.

Just to repeat: That's not what I said or meant to imply. My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack. In my big post I didn't really explain that and mostly went into why it's bad.
The problem is in the balance of the importance of map control, civ scaling, defender's advantage etc. These factors need to be carefully balanced in order to enable (healthy) turtling. AoE3 never really made an effort to do that.

[aaryngend]

While i do like the variety of strats on de much more than legacy youve just gotta accept a decent amount of said strats are broken/poorly designed and/or op.
E.g. port water after aging up with an age 1 tp at 3:30 with a tc so far up the coast at 4mins and can deny any dock being built by the large majority of civs.
Or the spanish logistician shipment curve, the villager seconds saved from not gathering crates and the amount of the resources the crates give hasnt been balanced properly yet. Which ofc leads to being bad for the game as its a very fast tempo build whether it be land or sea with not a whole lot of counter plays.

Atm in a way it's even worse, because some new "features" aren't balanced yet, e.g logistician combined with good age 1 cards, or sweden overall. Everyone abusing the same stuff because of the devs essentially fucking up massively is just a bit sad.

Ha Wasn't it one of you guys who said that the Spanish logistician is garbage and a weak strategy?
Look where we are now.

A small search reveals that it might have been Kaiser:

Lol I wanna see a decent level game where this strat works. I'm gonna be a cunt by saying this, but honestly there's basically no one good playing the game atm, so the general opinion of what's good and what's not is just irrelevant.
One can argue it's stupid that the resources add directly to your inventory, sure. But I won't buy that this strat is decent, let alone OP.

[Hazza54321]

While i do like the variety of strats on de much more than legacy youve just gotta accept a decent amount of said strats are broken/poorly designed and/or op.
E.g. port water after aging up with an age 1 tp at 3:30 with a tc so far up the coast at 4mins and can deny any dock being built by the large majority of civs.
Or the spanish logistician shipment curve, the villager seconds saved from not gathering crates and the amount of the resources the crates give hasnt been balanced properly yet. Which ofc leads to being bad for the game as its a very fast tempo build whether it be land or sea with not a whole lot of counter plays.

Atm in a way it's even worse, because some new "features" aren't balanced yet, e.g logistician combined with good age 1 cards, or sweden overall. Everyone abusing the same stuff because of the devs essentially fucking up massively is just a bit sad.

Ha Wasn't it one of you guys who said that the Spanish logistician is garbage and a weak strategy?
Look where we are now.

A small search reveals that it might have been Kaiser:

Lol I wanna see a decent level game where this strat works. I'm gonna be a cunt by saying this, but honestly there's basically no one good playing the game atm, so the general opinion of what's good and what's not is just irrelevant.
One can argue it's stupid that the resources add directly to your inventory, sure. But I won't buy that this strat is decent, let alone OP.

i thought it was op and kaiser said otherwise but that was before he faced the water variant of it

[Kaiserklein]

While i do like the variety of strats on de much more than legacy youve just gotta accept a decent amount of said strats are broken/poorly designed and/or op.
E.g. port water after aging up with an age 1 tp at 3:30 with a tc so far up the coast at 4mins and can deny any dock being built by the large majority of civs.
Or the spanish logistician shipment curve, the villager seconds saved from not gathering crates and the amount of the resources the crates give hasnt been balanced properly yet. Which ofc leads to being bad for the game as its a very fast tempo build whether it be land or sea with not a whole lot of counter plays.

Atm in a way it's even worse, because some new "features" aren't balanced yet, e.g logistician combined with good age 1 cards, or sweden overall. Everyone abusing the same stuff because of the devs essentially fucking up massively is just a bit sad.

Ha Wasn't it one of you guys who said that the Spanish logistician is garbage and a weak strategy?
Look where we are now.

A small search reveals that it might have been Kaiser:

Lol I wanna see a decent level game where this strat works. I'm gonna be a cunt by saying this, but honestly there's basically no one good playing the game atm, so the general opinion of what's good and what's not is just irrelevant.
One can argue it's stupid that the resources add directly to your inventory, sure. But I won't buy that this strat is decent, let alone OP.

Because people were talking about the logistician rush, which is about spamming infinite 300 res, and I don't think that's good. Now when you ship stuff like schooners or CM and get them in 20s with 400 res in the bank, it's lame.

[scarm]

Idk i just don't play enough to really know jackshit, but to me it just seems really sad that people like khorixt were 'bullied' bc their strategies "don't win either way and just waste time' or are "unfun" or that there's "treaty for that". Maybe some of you guys need to consider if you really like the game, or only like one specific playstyle. I understand that turtle shit can be frustrating to play against, but that just isn't an argument as to why they shouldn't exist or be viable - such elements of "tedium" exist in many games in different forms (e.g. grinding loops and not getting what you want), and for good reason. Same goes for the hate for the "unbalanced new garbage features" - yeah you're probably right that they aren't balanced well enough i guess, but like be glad that the devs are caring about the game and adding new content. Content brings players brings money brings support, a small competitive community just isn't enough to make a game financially lucrative. Just my 50 cents.

[lemmings121]

My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack.

I think thats the bigger issue here. in traditional rts balance, the counter to turtle should be boom, but with aoe3 civ diferences there are matchups that a civ turtling will outboom the other, so you are just forced to timing push into layers of walls and be frustrated with the game.

[helln00]

Tbh i dont really think turtling even exist in aoe 2 either, since you mostly wall up to defend yourself while trying to get and try to boom. The difference is that a boom with walls will be slower then a boom without walls. Not to mention there are low cost options to punish walling up like towers.

Ports then introduce a whole different issue since their defensive options are the same as a boom option. in aoe 2 only Cumans can build another TC in age 2 and that comes with significant downsides in build time (as it was considered to be OP before that). Port on the other hand gets a free TC, that builds faster (doesnt require vils as well), and right at the beginning of the age up. The only other civ that can get a 2nd TC in age 2 is inca, and that is essentially a lategame option in age 2.

So it being 2 separate issues, I think the solution should be 2-fold as well
1- wall cost should be changed, either increase it or make it cost a combination of resource (ideally wood and gold)
2- Change the port TC mechanic - Maybe instead of a wagon they can build TCs for free but at a slower speed, or the wagon has to be spawned at a cost from the TC, like the US at the Capitol.

[RefluxSemantic]

My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack.

I think thats the bigger issue here. in traditional rts balance, the counter to turtle should be boom, but with aoe3 civ diferences there are matchups that a civ turtling will outboom the other, so you are just forced to timing push into layers of walls and be frustrated with the game.

I always find this reasoning so silly. 20 years ago some random guy wrote down that in RTS boom should beat turtle, which should beat rushing which beats booming and now thats an universal truth of good game design? Why the hell does it necesarily have to work exactly like that? Why are we even simplifying game design and balance which such a stupid one-liner?

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Tbh i dont really think turtling even exist in aoe 2 either, since you mostly wall up to defend yourself while trying to get and try to boom. The difference is that a boom with walls will be slower then a boom without walls. Not to mention there are low cost options to punish walling up like towers.

Ports then introduce a whole different issue since their defensive options are the same as a boom option. in aoe 2 only Cumans can build another TC in age 2 and that comes with significant downsides in build time (as it was considered to be OP before that). Port on the other hand gets a free TC, that builds faster (doesnt require vils as well), and right at the beginning of the age up. The only other civ that can get a 2nd TC in age 2 is inca, and that is essentially a lategame option in age 2.

So it being 2 separate issues, I think the solution should be 2-fold as well
1- wall cost should be changed, either increase it or make it cost a combination of resource (ideally wood and gold)
2- Change the port TC mechanic - Maybe instead of a wagon they can build TCs for free but at a slower speed, or the wagon has to be spawned at a cost from the TC, like the US at the Capitol.

Ports already have the worst early eco in the entire game - nerfing their only bonus to the ground because they are too strong on water map (are they ?) seems dumb.

[Goodspeed]

My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack.

I think thats the bigger issue here. in traditional rts balance, the counter to turtle should be boom, but with aoe3 civ diferences there are matchups that a civ turtling will outboom the other, so you are just forced to timing push into layers of walls and be frustrated with the game.

I always find this reasoning so silly. 20 years ago some random guy wrote down that in RTS boom should beat turtle, which should beat rushing which beats booming and now thats an universal truth of good game design? Why the hell does it necesarily have to work exactly like that? Why are we even simplifying game design and balance which such a stupid one-liner?

No one wrote it down, things just naturally work that way. But the problem is that when they don't, it can and in AoE3's case does lead to frustrating gameplay. Sure, it's fun for the viewers, but I think you'll find players generally don't enjoy playing against turtle styles in AoE3. That's no coincidence.

[helln00]

Tbh i dont really think turtling even exist in aoe 2 either, since you mostly wall up to defend yourself while trying to get and try to boom. The difference is that a boom with walls will be slower then a boom without walls. Not to mention there are low cost options to punish walling up like towers.

Ports then introduce a whole different issue since their defensive options are the same as a boom option. in aoe 2 only Cumans can build another TC in age 2 and that comes with significant downsides in build time (as it was considered to be OP before that). Port on the other hand gets a free TC, that builds faster (doesnt require vils as well), and right at the beginning of the age up. The only other civ that can get a 2nd TC in age 2 is inca, and that is essentially a lategame option in age 2.

So it being 2 separate issues, I think the solution should be 2-fold as well
1- wall cost should be changed, either increase it or make it cost a combination of resource (ideally wood and gold)
2- Change the port TC mechanic - Maybe instead of a wagon they can build TCs for free but at a slower speed, or the wagon has to be spawned at a cost from the TC, like the US at the Capitol.

Ports already have the worst early eco in the entire game - nerfing their only bonus to the ground because they are too strong on water map (are they ?) seems dumb.

I mean I would totally be open to giving them a compensating buff, its that the way the TC bonus works makes it much more difficult to balance. Its like with China and Russia, any buffs to their other capabilities risks making their main option OP. Better to change how the bonus works so that you can be flexible with other bonuses

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack.

I think thats the bigger issue here. in traditional rts balance, the counter to turtle should be boom, but with aoe3 civ diferences there are matchups that a civ turtling will outboom the other, so you are just forced to timing push into layers of walls and be frustrated with the game.

I always find this reasoning so silly. 20 years ago some random guy wrote down that in RTS boom should beat turtle, which should beat rushing which beats booming and now thats an universal truth of good game design? Why the hell does it necesarily have to work exactly like that? Why are we even simplifying game design and balance which such a stupid one-liner?

No one wrote it down, things just naturally work that way. But the problem is that when they don't, it can and in AoE3's case does lead to frustrating gameplay. Sure, it's fun for the viewers, but I think you'll find players generally don't enjoy playing against turtle styles in AoE3. That's no coincidence.

If there is a reason for it, its not because of these overly simplistic rules. These 'rules' are just stupid and dont apply to aoe3 in any sense. Using them as an argument is silly.

[lemmings121]

My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack.

I think thats the bigger issue here. in traditional rts balance, the counter to turtle should be boom, but with aoe3 civ diferences there are matchups that a civ turtling will outboom the other, so you are just forced to timing push into layers of walls and be frustrated with the game.

I always find this reasoning so silly. 20 years ago some random guy wrote down that in RTS boom should beat turtle, which should beat rushing which beats booming and now thats an universal truth of good game design? Why the hell does it necesarily have to work exactly like that? Why are we even simplifying game design and balance which such a stupid one-liner?

its not a rule set in stone, you are right, but there should be a counterplay to every strat. Trade monopoly is a good exemple of a "anti turtle" design feature. its something to force the defender to do something. the potential to outgrow the turtle with map control is another option.

Problem is that there are map/matchups where goes into "I wall and wait, you either suicide at my wall, or lategame I win be default" some civs just are trash lategame, some cant boom, and it creates those not fun matchups.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

My point was that the viability of turtle strats in AoE3 tends to rely on the opponent being forced to attack.

I think thats the bigger issue here. in traditional rts balance, the counter to turtle should be boom, but with aoe3 civ diferences there are matchups that a civ turtling will outboom the other, so you are just forced to timing push into layers of walls and be frustrated with the game.

I always find this reasoning so silly. 20 years ago some random guy wrote down that in RTS boom should beat turtle, which should beat rushing which beats booming and now thats an universal truth of good game design? Why the hell does it necesarily have to work exactly like that? Why are we even simplifying game design and balance which such a stupid one-liner?

its not a rule set in stone, you are right, but there should be a counterplay to every strat. Trade monopoly is a good exemple of a "anti turtle" design feature. its something to force the defender to do something. the potential to outgrow the turtle with map control is another option.

Problem is that there are map/matchups where goes into "I wall and wait, you either suicide at my wall, or lategame I win be default" some civs just are trash lategame, some cant boom, and it creates those not fun matchups.

Thats just a consequence of 17 unique civs. Some match ups wont be great. The benefit is the civ diversity. Still seems like a silly argument to me tbh

[lemmings121]

Still seems like a silly argument to me tbh

Its just personal preference. imo turtle kills diversity. with at least half the civs in the game i'd rather just quit then play vs a port turtle. even clicking into matchmaking with a native civ is a dumb decision currently, its no coincidence that I quit lakota and iro that used to be my main civs in EP.

truth is, I dont find aoe3 turtle vs siege a fun game to play. I like the aggression/map control/raids/timings that other builds bring to the game. to each their own...

[RefluxSemantic]

Still seems like a silly argument to me tbh

Its just personal preference. imo turtle kills diversity. with at least half the civs in the game i'd rather just quit then play vs a port turtle. even clicking into matchmaking with a native civ is a dumb decision currently, its no coincidence that I quit lakota and iro that used to be my main civs in EP.

truth is, I dont find aoe3 turtle vs siege a fun game to play. I like the aggression/map control/raids/timings that other builds bring to the game. to each their own...

I understand and I never liked the turtle stuff either. But just say that to begin with, instead of trying to argue with very poor arguments that its clearly stupid game design.

Its a thing all too common with these discussions. People dont like some aspect of gameplay and then use very poor reasoning to pretend that its objectively bad and needs to be changed. In a way I think thats pretty entitled and egocentric. Your opinion is just your opinion. Expressing it is fine, but pretending that it is the truth is wrong.

Ultimately no game will be your perfect game. There will always be things you hate. But the things you hate are often the things others love. I hate playing against Japan, but I understand that some people love playing as Japan. Its entitled to value your joy over others and to use a bunch of arbitrary reasons to claim that 'Japan is broken'. With assymetric game design come strategies that you find annoying, but it also gives you strategies that you love and it gives you variety. Thats something we should probably just accept.

Now unfortunately for me, thats not something that happened in the past. Zoi and Goodspeed ruined the game for me because they mistook their opinions for objective truths. Its unfortunate, but irreversible. But after so many years, maybe this is what aoe is like now. I cant and shouldnt enforce my idea of fun on the game, just like the rest of the community shouldnt. Ive always liked the old school runescape idea: public voting for gameplay changes, which are only accepted with a supermajority. Its good to be conservative about these legacy games imo. The people that love the game as it should have precedent in my opinion.

[Astaroth]

Yeah, I find this ^^ really true. I understand some people enjoy e.g. a micro heavy game, based mostly on micro, unit control, mechanic ability. That is fine and their prerogative.

I just dislike it if some people then pretend this is the best or only way to play or balance the game, whereas many other strats are considered lame, "not aoe3" or unbalanced.

[Jotunir]

I love to turtle to be honest...

[Goodspeed]

Still seems like a silly argument to me tbh

Its just personal preference. imo turtle kills diversity. with at least half the civs in the game i'd rather just quit then play vs a port turtle. even clicking into matchmaking with a native civ is a dumb decision currently, its no coincidence that I quit lakota and iro that used to be my main civs in EP.

truth is, I dont find aoe3 turtle vs siege a fun game to play. I like the aggression/map control/raids/timings that other builds bring to the game. to each their own...

I understand and I never liked the turtle stuff either. But just say that to begin with, instead of trying to argue with very poor arguments that its clearly stupid game design.

What I've been trying to do is explain why people dislike it. And that is a discussion about game design. After all, good game design is something the majority of players enjoy. Bad game design is something they don't enjoy. In pvp games, it's also bad game design to have whole games that are enjoyable for one side (the "turtler" in this case) but generally not enjoyable for the other side. Overwhelmingly players don't enjoy playing against this style, so we can reasonably make some statements about whether it's well-designed or not.

Its a thing all too common with these discussions. People dont like some aspect of gameplay and then use very poor reasoning to pretend that its objectively bad and needs to be changed. In a way I think thats pretty entitled and egocentric. Your opinion is just your opinion. Expressing it is fine, but pretending that it is the truth is wrong.

To me, a discussion about why players dislike to play against certain styles, i.e. a discussion about what makes gameplay enjoyable and what makes it not enjoyable, is interesting. If you don't want to discuss game design that's okay. I don't know why you feel the need to judge people who do though.

Let's introduce a discovery age card called "coin flip". If it lands heads you win, else you lose. Technically balanced. Would you be judging people for calling this bad design?

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah, I find this ^^ really true. I understand some people enjoy e.g. a micro heavy game, based mostly on micro, unit control, mechanic ability. That is fine and their prerogative.

I just dislike it if some people then pretend this is the best or only way to play or balance the game, whereas many other strats are considered lame, "not aoe3" or unbalanced.

If say 80% of players at decent level don't enjoy it, consider it's low skill, too strong, etc. Doesn't it become more than just a matter of opinion?

[Goodspeed]

At the very least we should look into why players feel that way and maybe do something about it, if possible.