I didn't think the game would have so many maps and modes (I mostly tune in to play Mongol/Saracen campaign before burning out and not playing for years). I ended up picking King of the Hill on Crater out of the blue.
Which ones do you anons like?
Burmese, Bengalis, Incas. In Incas' case they're not even bad it's just because every time you're playing them you feel like you'd be rather playing Mayans or Aztecs instead.
Burmese are actually really cool now. Not good, but not underwhelming.
Burmese, Bengalis, Incas. In Incas' case they're not even bad it's just because every time you're playing them you feel like you'd be rather playing Mayans or Aztecs instead.
At least Burmese has knights, pretty good knights.
Bengalis has scouts and elephants, sure they are better elephants but not worth building a stable for
>Arabia >Enemy is already fully walled before hitting feudal
Whats the fricking point then
These homosexuals wouldnt last a minute in the oldschool hun wars no walls mod
Check the state of your own build order, maybe it's your build that's late. Also, the meta keeps changing - for example even on the very open versions of Arabia these days it feels like going Scouts hurts you more than it hurts your opponent.
>for example even on the very open versions of Arabia these days it feels like going Scouts hurts you more than it hurts your opponent.
Oh I definely agree, everytime I go for scouts the enemy is already fully walled and either mass producing archers from 2 ARs or simply FCing, sure I can go MAA trush but unless I do some serious damage I will have frickloads of archers on my doorstep, unless I also go archers/skirms myself, and while I can do this, I fricking hate going archers and archers gameplay and drains the fun of the game for me
Yeah I know this is just me b***hing, but when being a cavalrygay is almost a bad thing in the fricking most open and aggressive map of the game that is Arabia by excellency, that really rubs me the wrong way
I wish people played with the No Walls mod more often
It's been over half a year and you're still b***hing about walls, even after the devs crippled them. Get a clue and learn the game, or shut up. How are you this bad?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, frick off, so long quickwalls and dark age full walls exist I will never cease to complain about them.
No Walls mod or bust.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then make a "No walls mod AoE2" thread on >>>/vg/ and never come back.
>Implying
Yes they do. Full Walling modern Arabia takes time and resources. Scout aggressively find the most exposed side and start breaking down walls with archers/maa
Which civ has the best odds in Trebuchet wars?
Warwolf makes Briton Trebs never miss, Kataparuto makes Jap Trebs fire faster, Counterweights make Saracen Trebs deal more damage, etc
Brits, in treb wars the biggest factor is RNG, chances of missing or partially hit being very high, briton trebs completely removing the rng factor is so fricking good others cannot really compare
Tatars can perform above the level of other civs' special units if they have the hill advantage. Magyar CAs, Chinese scorpions, Ethiopian archers, etc.
The fact that vikings stopped being a top pick simply because they lost one archer tech (despite still having what is arguably the best eco bonus in the game) should be proof enough that archers need to get shafted
It all ends when melee pathing is fixed
Knightgays are cucked bigly. >If I have +2 knights, +2 skirmishers and mangonels, maybe, just maybe I can push the xbows back
The problem is that archers was all that vikings had, with their shitty cavalry and mediocre siege >b-but infantry
Infantry sucks. Make it not suck and perhaps vikings will see play once more
The fact that a single archer tech was all that was holding vikings together as a top tier is a small piece of the puzzle. But when you look at some of the most the underwhelming land civs: pattern: Burmese, Goths, Celts, Dravidians, Bengalis
Or civs that nowadays feel somehow weaker on land maps: Vikings, Celts, Slavs, Malay, arguably Japanese
Those are all civs that focus on either infantry, battle elephants or elephant archers. Devs should just buff those units and suddenly you have a bunch of good civs. In fact I'm afraid the devs are gonna look at the underperforming civs, buff them, then later on buff infantry/elephants and they're suddenly OP civs.
I would say Celts are weak, maybe in feudal since maas and arguably archers is the only thing keeping a float, then castle age you got siege but problem is that infantry and siege is not a very good mobile army, thus celts feeling too static unless you go full hoang
>Those are all civs that focus on either infantry, battle elephants or elephant archers. Devs should just buff those units
It's the MMO "Melee v Ranged" issue again
Ranged units are only strong while they're out of melee combat. Melee units are only strong if they can engage. If you make it easier for the units to make it into melee combat, the entire thing swings.
Personally, I believe archers should need a frontline to work.
aoe3 fixed that partly by forcing archers to enter a way weaker melee attack when connected with. Getting a flank or surround would suddenly cut all affected units' damage by a huge margin. Tagging was also a good solution. Both would be incredibly difficult to add at this stage to aoe2.
>Dravidians >Underwhelming
They got cheap man at arms, cheap pikes, free wood and their skirmishers fire faster. If they are weak its because low level players aren't taking full advantage of the civ.
And Goths is in the best state it has ever been in.
Slavs have a good eco bonus for knights and cheaper siege, the +5 pop per military building is also useful, you are getting a free house.
Goths was just absolutely broken back then, doesn't really count. As-is they're the prototypical cancer civ that auto-wins on Imp after a midgame struggle, which is a good enough niche to fill.
I'm ashamed to admit it but I got my economy raided by several feudal rushes and couldn't recover in time before my enemy sent the rams to my TC protected by some knights and archers.
This reminds I should really improve my micro.
Any hoangprostitute is not playing at celts strenght, using crossbows or knights, you should be able to best them in that game with crossbows or knights of your own
You should be afraid of the celt that actually uses infantry and siege exclusively
Generally a Hoang push has monks, knights and mangonels, you need either enough knights where you can let him convert a few or to kill the monks. The problem is your economy is going to be pushed to the limit, his is shit but he is the one attacking
>Steppe Lancer >HP from 60/80 to 75/95 >Armor from 0/1 to 1/1 >elite upgrade from 900F/500G to 750F/450G >Now also available to turks, and they benefit from the +1P armor and the +20HP from sipahi
>Steppe civilizations (mongols, cumans and tartars) and turks lose access to knight-line. >Cumans get access to the imperial lancer (115 HP, 2/1 Armor, 13 damage, 1000F/600G cost) as a new civ bonus
I have a mod, where all the campaign intros and outros are redrawn with anime girls and where they talk random Japanese gibberish, that fits what the original speaker spoke tonally nonetheless.
This is not AoC anymore, anons, knights nor CAs are the top dog of the game, that goes for crossbows
Nobody is scared of a knightgay, except maybe archergays
never really get why the unit intended to do hit and run raids got a frame delay that took ages while the unit thats supposed to support your troops got a higher fire rate as well as zero frame delays
I was thinking about that the other day. How do devs treat this game? Is it just a good RTS in general that they constantly support or is it a nostalgia bait product that just so happens to also be a good competitive game? What I mean with that is, if they could improve the game a lot and every competitive player agreed it would be a better game if they did something drastic like let's say, completely rework Franks and Britons, or completely rework base unit interactions or how age up works, or reworking monks or something like that, would they do it? On one hand, they would be making a better game in a vacuum, on the other hand the value in this being the definitive version of the game you played in your childhood is gone if it ends up feeling like a completely different game.
>What I mean with that is, if they could improve the game a lot and every competitive player agreed it would be a better game if they did something drastic like let's say, completely rework Franks and Britons, or completely rework base unit interactions or how age up works, or reworking monks or something like that, would they do it?
I can't even imagine typing this shit. I don't think they've ever struggled with this question. They're just monetizing an old game with a cult following. This means it still has to be the same game, but maybe with a few additions here and there where possible. Reworks and overhauls like those are beyond the scope of it.
noone would allow to rework the game to an extreme anymore, they would change values like unit price, armor, attack, production time and the likes, but they wont change the core gameplay anymore at this stage i think, AOE4 should be THE change if anything else, but sadly AOE4 released in a bad state, and even with it constant updates, it already lost it momentum to attract and maintain a sustainable playerbase and it will not surpass aoe2 in terms of popularity anytime soon
On the topic of campaigns, do you guys think we'll ever get ones for the civs that don't have them yet? (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vikings, Mayans, Persians, Turks). Could also be nice to see Dracula made into a dedicated Slavs campaign with the Magyars getting their own. Japanese getting an Oda Nobunaga campaign and the Turks getting a Mehmed II campaign would both also be pretty neat.
Personal I would like a playable Vlachs added that would replace both Slavs and Magyars in the Dracula campaign and Slavs and Magyars getting their own campaigns. But that's just my dream.
A Nobunaga campaign would be comfy, but too many spergs in the fanbase would complain that the Japanese would be the only civ to feature. Hideyoshi would be a good choice too, with the campaign starting immediately after the events of Kyoto.
Mehmed would be an obvious choice for the Turks, but Suleiman would be absolute kino.
>the Japanese would be the only civ to feature
Split the Nips then? Surely they can whip out a DLC with a bunch of weeb regional units and UUs like ninjas, onna-musha, ashigaru and stuff.
Age of Empires means the game takes place in an age of empires, doesn't mean everything you play as is an empire, a bunch of civs aren't. We would call them empires if that was the case, we call them civs instead.
>A Nobunaga campaign would be comfy, but too many spergs in the fanbase would complain that the Japanese would be the only civ to feature.
They can just make custom factions via triggers, like they did with french in burgundian campaign having organ guns via 'rebel supply camps', and they stop producing them when you destroy the camps. They also can't produce them if you destroy siege workshops.
Even if its just 8 of the same civ on the map you can definitely do some trigger / custom unit frickery to make each color of the same civ distinct.
Hindustanis >Counters archers with Ghulams >Counters Paladins with Imp Camels/Halbs >Counters infantry with Hand cannons >Has decent CA (only missing Parthian tactics) >Has FU Hussar >Has bombard cannons >Pretty good monks >Meh water >Cheap vills >Great eco
A one-off Monastery-esque building that appears useless at first, but Monks can garrison inside it to slowly and freely research all Monastery techs - the more Monks garrisoned, the faster the techs are researched.
The new Monastery can train Monks itself so it's not useless once all techs are done, and can even train Monks mid-research, but more slowly than regular Monasteries.
This is just the AoE4 Delhi mechanic. No thanks. Play Burmese or Bohemians.
-Ballista tower that fires scorpion-like projectiles
-A building that constantly trains a unit of your choice for free albeit with an increased training time
-an infirmary building. Units garrisoned inside heal fast (36 HP/minute compared to a TCs 6 HP/min or a Castle's 12 HP/min). It is affected by Herbal medicine
-Folwark but for trees (immediately collects 10% of the wood of a tree when it is felled. Obviously it would have a wide radius of effect unlike the folwark)
-Unique monastery that increases the faith recharge rate of monks near it
-A caravanserai but for villagers (villagers inside its radius carry more and move faster)
-Ballista tower that fires scorpion-like projectiles
-A building that constantly trains a unit of your choice for free albeit with an increased training time
-an infirmary building. Units garrisoned inside heal fast (36 HP/minute compared to a TCs 6 HP/min or a Castle's 12 HP/min). It is affected by Herbal medicine
-Folwark but for trees (immediately collects 10% of the wood of a tree when it is felled. Obviously it would have a wide radius of effect unlike the folwark)
-Unique monastery that increases the faith recharge rate of monks near it
-A caravanserai but for villagers (villagers inside its radius carry more and move faster)
A 14 by 14 building that's just the outer rim as a wall, with 4 2 wide holes on each of the four sides. All buildings inside it are 75% more effective, lumber camps boost worker harvesting and speed, training and tech works 75% faster, damage is 75% higher, wonder ticks 75% faster.
Too powerful. Basically getting a massive bonus to gather rate, research speed, and production speed just for playing a round of Tetris a week before you open up AoE2.
I just beat a guy with archers and he messaged afterwards with actual confusion as to how I won. When will you Black folk get it into your heads that archerchads always win? You can't beat us so may as well join us. No reason to ever not go archers
Hospital - available to the crusader civs
it's like a 6 by 6 building that units can go under like vils under a TC, heals a third of the rate of a monk
you can only garrison knights in a castle, and even then it is limited to 20 units or so
a hospital would cost way less (let's say 125 wood) and would be a point where you could launch raids at the beginning of your castle age next to your siege workshop
also garrisoning heals like trash don't debate me on that
>also garrisoning heals like trash don't debate me on that
Look at this guy not researching Herbal Medicine. Unironically a good tech if you already have a monastery up for whatever reason.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you did not get my point, it's alright
herbal medicine is a joke tech btw, none of the pros use it
Unique techs that give armor to a unit (or a bunch of units) feel like they are so randomly priced.
What I mean is, you have Castle Age UTs that give armor to core/power units for relatively cheap and then you have expensive imperial age techs that give armor to units that you are not going to use anyways
Compare, for example, Silk armor which gives +1/1 armor to 2 core units for tatars in castle age to shit like tower shields which, for a comparable price, gives +0/2 armor, in imperial age, to two units that do not benefit that much from it (Halbs lack the last armor upgrade and take bonus damage from archers anyways. Skirms are not really that useful in imperial vs arbalests and in trash wars they already take 1 pierce damage from other skirms without this upgrade).
And don't get me started on howdah
>Unique techs that give armor to a unit (or a bunch of units) feel like they are so randomly priced.
The prices are determined by the civ's power and existing power spikes.
ok poopmaster we get it you only pay le celts
[...]
Hospital - available to the crusader civs
it's like a 6 by 6 building that units can go under like vils under a TC, heals a third of the rate of a monk
>ok poopmaster we get it you only pay le celts
I'm not Ghostmaster.
you did not get my point, it's alright
herbal medicine is a joke tech btw, none of the pros use it
>herbal medicine is a joke tech btw, none of the pros use it
I fricking love drones. They'll throw their brains out a window if they haven't seen a professional player do something.
The Forgotten campaigns were the ultimate pleb filter, and people hated them because playing them required actual thinking instead of just spending 90% of the game gathering resources before spamming a load of units like with their favourite generic build and destroy campaigns.
We did the whole 'what if we twisted this RTS engine to make really sub-par RPGs' song and dance for years back in the 2000s in Age of Kings Heaven. It was a shit idea then, it's a shit idea now.
There has always been an element of RPG play in AOE2. The beginning of Attila 1 and El Cid 1, for example. Also a few scenarios in Age of Kings and The Conquerors where you have no villagers and have to make do with your soldiers. Even the DE Sforza has that to a degree. I find those scenarios more creative than ones where the objective is "defeat X enemy" and you start with a town.
Actually it's because they're clunky, the civ changes in Dracula are obnoxious, and the Bari campaign was a pants-on-head moronic premise. El Dorado was low key ludo though.
Go full feudal, add archers, put towers on their woodline
It's useless to go castle age in that situation cause you're already behind and you won't be able to catch up in terms of eco and tech. The best thing you can do is take map control and pressure your enemy
this, or atleast like in AOM, they could go stronghold route too, like if the archer unit made contact with the melee unit theyre forced to use their weak melee attack, so micro kiting a clump of archers even against light cavs are impossible, and archers should be used in tandem with your melee units to keep them save from their counters
franks are not that op balance wise, theyre just THAT GOOD at the thing theyre supposed to be good at, and theyre very strong at open maps like arabia, but if you manage to fend off their rushes early on, their late game options are quite limited, most of the game where i win against franks is the one where i managed to fend off against an FC>KTs(quite hard) or scout flush(easy), and the ones where i lose against the franks is where i lose either at a scrush or a FC KTs,
If you were an infantrygay you would not have problems with franks, MAA trush into massed MAAs/Spearmen to defend base, and spear spam against knights, you will be fine regardless
i think its the opposite for me lmao, never had problem facing off with archer civs since if you pick them off using pre mill drushes followed by a mild archer rush(6-8 archers with fletching, and 3 m@a without other upgrades to deal with skirms) at feudal, you usually go to castle a bit late if you upgrade m@a tho, but your opp eco will be worse since theyre basically forcing their way to castle without adequate eco and vills, at castle you could add mangos(if they keep pumping archers and renders m@a moot, unless playing as malians) or knights(more flexible since your existent archers counter their spears, they need more food to be spent into tho(BL, 1st and 2nd armor) into the mix
Burmese have free wood upgrades and a great man at arms opening.
Slavs have better economy once they buy the wood upgrades, and have a castle age powerspike with their knights and siege
Burmese have free wood upgrades, early knowledge of relics and the enemy's position, an excellent Men-at-arms opening, powerful castle-age infantry, an arrow sponge, incredible monk momentum, and the best endgame anti-archer cavalry.
Slavs have free supplies, faster farms, and cheaper defensive buildings, but nothing powerful or coherent outside of that.
>Burmese have free wood upgrades, early knowledge of relics and the enemy's position, an excellent Men-at-arms opening, powerful castle-age infantry, an arrow sponge, incredible monk momentum, and the best endgame anti-archer cavalry.
And they don't survive past early castle age if the enemy goes for xbows
Just open archers yourself, Burmese archers stay relevant early to mid Castle Age and by then you should have Knights and siege. Or better yet, don't play Burmese on open maps. They're an Arena civ.
Hoang is a homosexual that plays celts as anything but as an infantry/celt civ
There I said it.
Celts' two biggest and most important bonuses are the wood bonus (one of the best eco bonuses in the game) and the faster-firing siege. Their speedier infantry is such a minor bonus in comparison it makes 0 sense to play them as an infantry civ. Both on closed and open maps 1v1 they're an aggressive siege civ with one of the biggest CA power spikes in the game, if not the biggest, and the best backup for forward siege is monks and knights.
No, slavs have a faster MAA rush, can easily open with MAA flood, slavs are kinda lacking in the monastery department compared to burmese, but slavs have boyars that are much melee tanky knights, unlike elephants they can choose their fights
Lastly slav siege is fricking great, burmese siege is shite
>slavs are kinda lacking in the monastery department compared to burmese
They have the exact same techs. >but slavs have boyars that are much melee tanky knights
Who asked for this? When have knights ever had trouble with a unit that doesn't frick up Boyars just as easily? >unlike elephants they can choose their fights
Burmese have access to knights. >Lastly slav siege is fricking great, burmese siege is shite
Trading Siege rams and Siege Onagers for Bombard Cannon? I'd take that deal.
>They have the exact same techs.
Compared to Burmese, they got discounted monastery techs, Slavs doesnt. >Who asked for this? When have knights ever had trouble with a unit that doesn't frick up Boyars just as easily?
Boyars frick up longswords whereas they frick up knights. They also do slightly better against pikemen and camels than knights. >Trading Siege rams and Siege Onagers for Bombard Cannon? I'd take that deal.
Thats a very fricking bad trade, FU Siege Onager is great all on its own, having discounted siege rams and heavy scorps on top of that greatly outweights not having bombard cannons
>Compared to Burmese, they got discounted monastery techs, Slavs doesnt.
Yeah, so that's a momentum advantage, not an absolute one. >Boyars frick up longswords whereas they frick up knights.
And who's sending longswords everywhere in late castle without pikes? >They also do slightly better against pikemen and camels than knights.
But not enough to significantly change the matchup. Arambai even have the advantage here, since they beat all infantry, and maybe knights. >Thats a very fricking bad trade, FU Siege Onager is great all on its own, having discounted siege rams and heavy scorps on top of that greatly outweights not having bombard cannons
Having the ability to tell any unit to frick off from a distance is invaluable. Especially Trebs.
>And who's sending longswords everywhere in late castle without pikes?
Missing the point Boyar has to less counter to worry about, also infantrygays that dont send a few pikemen with longsword horde are either newb or confident they gonna win with brute strenght >Arambai
Yeah that one you're right, tho boyars can still charge down xbows tho not particurally good at it, and obv skirmishers >Having the ability to tell any unit to frick off from a distance is invaluable. Especially Trebs.
Or you can just onager it down, or send a couple of siege rams to destroy the treb and the castle
And yes rams have bonus damage vs other siege
2 years ago
Anonymous
>ram bonus damage
learnes that the hard way playing through the campaign....
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Missing the point Boyar has to less counter to worry about
It's the same set of counters: Camels pikes, and monks. >also infantrygays that dont send a few pikemen with longsword horde are either newb or confident they gonna win with brute strenght
That's my point. >Or you can just onager it down, or send a couple of siege rams to destroy the treb and the castle
Much riskier.
Celts/Goths/Burmese maa rush on regicide to snipe the castle? there's no possibility of murder holes until mid castle age >what if they go archers
1 range skirms?
I was also thinking about Celts/Slavs FC into ram rush but it seems too risky.
Goths, but they are a feast or famine civ. If they get to post-imp with a good economy they are essentially unstoppable. Unit comps cease to matter at that point, they will spam you to death. However all that means is that the "counter" to Goths is to not let them get to post-imp with a good economy. Lacking a strong early eco bonus means its easy for other players to get ahead of them and apply pressure early, while the civ is vulnerable. If the Goths player can weather this and make it to imp with a big eco, it's over.
>Siege/structure civ with faster infantry >Totally not an infantry civ
Okay gay
2 years ago
Anonymous
their infantry bonus is IRRELEVANT
there I said it poopmaster
2 years ago
Anonymous
>their infantry bonus is IRRELEVANT
Irrelevant to what? >there I said it poopmaster
Still not Ghostmaster
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ain't irrelevant when I'm chasing down your vills with MAA
2 years ago
Anonymous
Couldn't have better meself
You forgot the part in which in feudal age celtic maas can easily chase down archers
2 years ago
Anonymous
the faster infantry is actually an archer bonus. Faster MaA means you can deal more damage and create a wider window of opportunity for your archers (which you are going to make)
2 years ago
Anonymous
But I refuse to archers at all costs
2 years ago
Anonymous
it is ok, it is possible to win with suboptimal stategy anyways
magyar vs poles
i spotted they were walling up early, so i only made 3 scouts, and focused the rest on the econ
turned out they left a hole in the wall, so i keep sneaking in and picking their vills off.
i hit castles earlier, keep raiding with knights, but stopped when they got a castle up inside. later i got out 2 rams, they had to sally out all their knights and focused on the rams, so i picked off a majority of them.
i also focused hard on stone and parked 2 castles outside their base. they didn't produce more troops though.
final moments: i standground'd my knights at a corner. they had like 10+ vills just walk past my bros, which then turned into a massacre. they finally resigned. i was ageing up, and was ready to treb down their castles.
question: was only getting out 3 scouts the correct choice? i could have killed more, since there was a hole in the wall. even by that point, i was ahead in scores
If he walled to FV without military, leaning towards no
If he walled and produced archers? Maybe, skirms would have better, but murdering archers with scouts is fine
I think it was a fluke since there was a hole and killed a few vills, gaining eco advantage
FV?
no, as in i should have tried something else? >fluke
yeah, probably. i DID get in once or twice before he fully walled up (and found the hole), and killed some vils already
Make more scouts if you can do damage with them, if you have five in his base he will have to add a few spears himself.
You should carefully consider doing forward castles, because if your opponent imps faster he can push your forward castles
>make more scouts
yeah, in hindsight, i def should have made more since i could get in easy
he did make a couple of spears immediately, which i ran circles around. >castle
yeah, that's true. but i wasn't that worried, since i was confident that i was hitting him hard enough.
Because Cumans are the "Eternal Feudal scrapper" civ. You can stick it out in Feudal out to 30:00+ and be just fine. Following up a decent offense up with rams, even when you're still in Feudal, is fine.
Scourge of the Levant is so fun goddamn, it's like Attila 3 except the enemies aren't complete pushovers. I bought stone at the market just so that I could destroy everyone before I reached the gold goal.
i fricking hate how my country only AOE2 DE community only play their 4v4 lobbies in LN/Nomad/AC and Random is on, most of the time team that got lucky to play the most civs with the best nomad bonuses are the winner, they refrain from playing on common maps like arabia, arena, or hideout. while land nomad could be fun, its already RNG heavy in the first place with vills that spawn at random, shit spawn, and to add random civs to the mix is just a salt in the wound.
i dont even wath T90s but a change of pace like with maps like arabia, arena, or even hybrid maps lke migrations or archipelago with hidden civs(its a feature cmon now) will be a breath of fresh air, in AOE2 each civs got their own maps that fits with their style of play, not to mention your spawn in Nomads are randomized as well, one side that got more nomad suited civs most of the time wins over the side that got less of them.
Then play with people from a different country.
i mostly play against/with chinks nearly everyday because the lobbies and matchmaking(usually 1v1 RM) are filled with them, and i intend play with fellers from my country because its comfy to play with them(and i know lot of em as well)
>i mostly play against/with chinks nearly everyday because the lobbies and matchmaking(usually 1v1 RM) are filled with them
I don't want to lead with the question, so just tell me which civs you encounter most often from them.
chinks? they play to win so most of them play with franks, huns, or franks, really they got no variations, literal braindead robots that only stick to their programming, one day i played like 10 1v1 rm matches, 8 of em were against chink frank players
The only civs I've encountered from Chinese players have been Britons and Franks.
2 years ago
Anonymous
ah yes britons as well, really tho they got no variations, good thing chinks here keep to themselves(being an old game filled with 30 something players probably helps) compared to other game i've played, but their "min-max" nature at everything(family, work, ""entertainment"" ) in life kinda bugs(heh) me off, theyre efficient workers tho, just bad at being a human
2 years ago
Anonymous
I do not fear the player who plays knights 1000 games, I fear the player who makes 1000 arbalest in a game
Lost a game with Gurjaras just now. Opened archers and only realised they don't get arb in castle age so switched elephant archers which ended up getting raped by pikes and skirms, especially since they're harder to micro. How the frick are they the best performing civ right now? Their eco bonus is nice but not enough to carry them like that. Has the meta changed? I was under the impression that only early eco bonuses and good archers matter in this game
>I was under the impression that only early eco bonuses and good archers matter in this game
This is a shitter cope used on /vst/, it's not indicative of reality. Archers are completely counterable, most of the board simply doesn't care to do anything more than b***h that their strategy they selected before they even queued up got bulldozed.
Gurjara's can win as long as you hard read your opponent. If you got good scouting Gurjara has a tool for everything. >They go cavalry
Early camels that automatically upgrade into castle age ones are filthy oppressive >They go archers
Hold them off with scouts of skirms and then go shrivs >They go camels
Your camels are better unless you're facing imperial Hindustani >They go infantry
Literally like 10 of the fricking Chakram throwers with a good position can hold off dozens of champs due to the sheer losses they can inflict if micro'd >Need an unexpected move to throw them off
Elephant Archers and/or Hand Cannoneers
Easiest way to trip up a Gurjara's player is to mass infantry because it forces them to go into castles, and if that takes them by surprise at all they're fricked.
>Easiest way to trip up a Gurjara's player is to mass infantry because it forces them to go into castles, and if that takes them by surprise at all they're fricked.
What does forcing them to build a castle get you?
Do you plan to ram it down?
Chakrams kill rams in 22 hits so that is difficult.
I think pike and siege will do decent, or defend and boom, because the Gurjara eco bonus is worthless in castle age
>What does forcing them to build a castle get you?
Forces them to choose between booming and defense, set them economically behind you, bottleneck their production, force an imperial age game when Gurjara miss the last attack bonus.
I get Saracens (even though their knights are perfectly viable in early castle), but why Turks? They've used heavy cavalry historically and it gives them a solid castle/early imp option outside of gunpowder and horse archers.
Hello friends I have not played aoe2 in 20 years. I started again because it's a fun game and I found out yesterday there are co-op campaigns which I'm gonna play with a buddy. My question is: how the frick do I play?
Is there a reputable site with build orders? The last time I tried to get properly good at an RTS was in 2002 playing Brood War, but that was when we had actual learning resources during the game's boom. Now I dunno where to look or what to do. My skill level right now is around "I can hold my own against moderate AI". Any tips?
DE has the Art of War campaign, that's kinda a more advanced tutorial. You can also just look up build orders on the internet, aoe2 is one of the more popular RTS (more like one of the few alive RTS lol), so you won't have any problems with that
Thanks anon. It only occurs to me now how much more complicated an aoe build order is than BW since an scv can only do like 3 things and a villager can do 50.
No but i wish slavs got the tech in the form of a civ bonus, like "monks are affected by infantry armour upgrades". Anything to make them feel less generic 2bh
cavalry+siege is not a generic combo
It is not, a generic combo would be cavalry and archers, and infantry and siege
anyone ever researchs druzhina
Everyone does, if you can afford it, it's really fricking good in melee fights
Yeah forgot about that
BBC doesnt really matter anyways.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's the goddamn motherfricking best siege unit in the whole fricking game. It can take out buildings from a safe distance, which only trebuchets can do. It can take out onagers from a safe distance, which only monks can do. It can take out trebuchets from a safe distance, which NOTHING else in the game can do, seriously how else are you gonna take out a trebuchet with units in front if you have no BBC?
Why do you want berries? Are you gonna pick Franks, sicko?!
I just wanna put my TC next to it. Besides huntable and herdable animals, it's the third source for dark age food. There's no reason for it to be absent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>seriously how else are you gonna take out a trebuchet with units in front if you have no BBC
Suicide charge with light cavalry?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bombard cannons cost more than onagers, and more than trebs unless you are a civ with a discount
2 years ago
Anonymous
Those don't trade 1:1 with each other. It's a long-ranged counter.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It still dies to cav, fast moving infantry and monks, plus it fares worse vs arbalest/skirms. There are situations where bombards and where onagers excel.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It still dies to cav, fast moving infantry and monks
Yes, and part of being a responsible adult is keeping your bombard cannons out of danger. Also, in just about all of those cases, the Onager would be even worse off.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah so? It's worth every resource.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's the goddamn motherfricking best siege unit in the whole fricking game
Not really, anything the bombard cannon Siege Onagers can do better, except bringing down castles, which I'd use a trebuchet instead
I would make it the same as Rise of Nations
Units would transport automatically across water without the need of a transport ship, you just right click on the next island
Of course units would still be vulnerable when they cross water but at least you wouldn't have to micro a load of transport ships when you want to do a landing
I can see a civ having a UT that removes the gold cost for Galleys, but they don't get War Galley
Or maybe they don't cost wood. I think wood might be the more important resource.
There should be common gold counter-units, like an Imperial skirmisher that costs 40 wood and 15 gold.
Trash is held back by its cost and general monopoly on the "Counter-unit" niche. It justifies the upward spiral of power for knight/archer units.
>"Necro bumping" on a board where threads last for months >Thread still is fastest and biggest AOE2 thread on the board
Imagine being a wannabe janitor.
Like the other anon says, if its something like pre mill drush and achieves absolutely nothing, sees the enemy getting fast feudal into 2 ARs, then yeah i suppose its justified, otherwise it never is
I notice water levels are not fun. Most maps have a large body of water in the center, or completely cuts the land into two. But your ships can't reach most of your enemy buildings.
Landing and building a base on the enemy's island feels like a chore. Is this the same with AOE2?
Question on the bots:
AI
AI (CD)
AI (HD)
Is it correct to understand this as:
The first is the current Definite Edition AI (the smartest)
The (CD) is the oldest AI (the worst)
and the last is the 2013 AI (medium)?
Because it's different to the usual campaigns. It gives you more than just build and destroy and the character it focuses on is different to the usual kings/emperors/generals. Plus I am an Italiboo and the maps look gorgeous.
https://www.ageofempires.com/news/age-of-empires-ii-definitive-edition-update-63482/
The important thing here other than the supposed pathing fixes is the roadmap. What the hell do they mean with the ancient friends?
I'm looking forward to the new content >Something Different and Unknown
New random map content? I dunno. >Someone's Birthday
I suppose it's either the game's anniversary or the anniv from one of the other AOEs >Ancient Friends to hang out
This has to be AOE1 content ported to 2, if we have Priests and Broad Swordsman on the editor I can see other units & buildings being ported over. >That Dynasties of India on 2023
New civ split confirmed? I wonder which one will be.
>This has to be AOE1 content ported to 2, if we have Priests and Broad Swordsman on the editor I can see other units & buildings being ported over.
I wonder how it would work. Would it be that it exists as a game within a game, and all the AOE1 civs can't be played against the AOE2 ones? Although obviously changing the Italians to Romans in the Alaric campaign is ideal.
>New civ split confirmed? I wonder which one will be.
A lot of people reckon the Chinese. It would be stupid to get rid of the original Chinese civ as China has mostly been a single unified land, but it would make sense to bring in some new civs that the Chinese have been used to represent.
Most people seem to ask for Italy or China to be split. I think China makes more sense for several reasons.
1) Marketability
2) People want China to be nerfed/changed for various reasons
3) Probably the easiest to split and make unique
4) Not another European civ (personally I'd like more Italian/Euro civs)
5) No Chinese campaigns yet
Would honestly prefer a Slav rework to a Chinese rework to help Slavs stand out a little more - they currently feel like an awkward midpoint of the Celts and Bulgarians.
Considering that they got a massive change in the DoI patch in the form of a new UT (that's still moronic because the stone reduction doesn't fix their shit towers) I doubt they'd be given an overhaul so soon.
>That's still moronic because the stone reduction doesn't fix their shit towers
Literally who gives a shit about towers, stone cheaper castles is the only thing that matters
Slavs problem is the devs keep trying to pretend infantry civs aren't shit, even after all the recent infantry buffs there's no realistic situation where you'd go infantry over literally anything else, unless you're goths
Also it doesn't make much sense for slavs to be an infantry civ to begin with, with poland / bulgaria existing it's easier to narrow slavs down to russians, who're most well known for either quantity > quality (which is the goths niche), construction (you can make them into a byz style defensive civ) or relatively early successful adoption of gunpowder (bohemians)
you're right about slavs lacking flavour and niche because all the historic niches they could take are already taken, although the devs had already did a great job inventing new civs for the same niche (like poland / lithuania sharing anti armor / cav focus, or france / burgundy both being heavy cav civs without feeling the same at all)
Samurai are probably the most niche UU in the game, and it's not common enough for said niche to show up (infantry UUs or weak UUs in general) that I'd say Samurai suck right now.
As much as I'm biased against archers, I'm hoping the addition of Rathas would inspire FE to rework Samurai into what they were supposed to be before AoE II even came out, where they could switch between melee & ranged. If that doesn't happen, then I doubt Sams can ever be good without losing their anti-UU gimmick.
>UU has to be an archer in order to be good
Clown world
2 years ago
Anonymous
huscarl?
boyar?
conquistador / thrown axeman? (idk if they counts as archer)
berserker?
hussite wagon?
cataphract?
lithuanian / burgundian horse?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>lithuanian / burgundian horse?
Leitis and Konnik
Also whats the veredict about Hussite Wagons? How accepted by the community rn?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>burgundian
Goddamm it, Coustillier, Konniks are the Bulgarian ones
2 years ago
Anonymous
oh yeah I forgot konnik existed, they are also a great unit.
Samurai are probably the most niche UU in the game, and it's not common enough for said niche to show up (infantry UUs or weak UUs in general) that I'd say Samurai suck right now.
As much as I'm biased against archers, I'm hoping the addition of Rathas would inspire FE to rework Samurai into what they were supposed to be before AoE II even came out, where they could switch between melee & ranged. If that doesn't happen, then I doubt Sams can ever be good without losing their anti-UU gimmick.
maybe they can fix samurai by giving it something like those new unique units, like when they attack for the first time every 40 seconds they run up to the enemy with a big speed boost, and/or when they die they do a trample spin attack
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'll only accept that if they go full weeb and drag their sword through the ground while they charge. It'd be gay as frick but I'd love to see it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Also whats the veredict about Hussite Wagons? How accepted by the community rn?
Micro-heavy and requires one to know what he's doing. Excellent test of skill and knowledge. Unless you're an Arena clown, in which case it's just broken.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're a solid unit, but I feel like there's missed potential in them being sorta like Trebuchets, where they have to be packed to move and unpacked to fire. I would've made them something like tanky, accurate Hand Cannoneers when unpacked, but right now they're pretty fun to use.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but I feel like there's missed potential in them being sorta like Trebuchets
This would've been so much more interesting, they could've been like mobile unpackable towers that shoot more projectiles when garrisoned by archers or hand cannoneers. It would also make more sense given their historical usage. Still, props to the devs for their damage soaking gimmick.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I would've made them something like tanky, accurate Hand Cannoneers when unpacked, but right now they're pretty fun to use.
That's what Organ Guns should be.
>but I feel like there's missed potential in them being sorta like Trebuchets
This would've been so much more interesting, they could've been like mobile unpackable towers that shoot more projectiles when garrisoned by archers or hand cannoneers. It would also make more sense given their historical usage. Still, props to the devs for their damage soaking gimmick.
They're better than this right now. They can completely absorb building arrows, spread damage taken, and contribute against any unit type. If you have a bunch of crossbows, a monk, and a villager in the middle of the enemy base, surrounded by farms and TCs, you are living the dream.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Organ guns should actually fire a volley of projectiles. Right now they just fire a single real one.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Organ guns should actually fire a volley of projectiles.
Right now, they're just somewhat-tanky Hand Cannoneers. I'm fine with that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not necessarily. Archers may be broken but there's a solid chunk of melee UUs that're in a good spot right now. >Cataphracts demolish Pikes & American civs >Woad Raiders are excellent raiders and TC takers >Huskarls >Berserks are nearly unstoppable when fully invested >Kamayuks are great support units who can mow down cavalry >Magyar Huszars are better trash than Winged Hussars >Boyars are extremely tanky against opposing cavalry, and AFAIK can even take on generic Camels >Konniks deal tons of damage >Serjeants can be massed easily and are hard to take down >HERE COMES ANOTHER POLISH EARTHQUAKE OBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBU >Ghulams are basically a cross between Eagles & Huskarls
It's not hard to make a good non-ranged UU, it's just that infantry in general gets overshadowed by a bunch of factors.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>HERE COMES ANOTHER POLISH EARTHQUAKE OBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBU
>Samurai are probably the most niche UU in the game
You see them sometimes in 1v1 games. I've never seen the Persian war elephant outside of me playing around in single player.
three kingdoms campaign for Chinese >b-b-b-but it's outside of the time period
the Chinese literally don't even get a single gunpowder unit, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference
>4 players on the same civ is not something that will work
Sure it would, we're not good enough to really handle more than 1/3rd of a base at a time so it almost makes us into one functioning player. We tried it with 3 of us vs a rando and I thought it was great, divvying up the tasks and I got to actually focus on shit without being worried everything else was falling to bits.
>Unless you homies are in voice chat
Why the frick wouldn't we be in voice chat together? We're a group of 4 shitters who play together, that's like one of the first requirements for such a thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Alright fair enough
2 years ago
Anonymous
6762835
My friend code btw, so I can get you into the group.
>1vs1 me on arabia
Queue u-- >huns war
Why? >no walls mod.
Are you that moron who's been haunting the threads since the launch of DE with 30-pop scrushes, wondering why his opponent keeps walling him out?
>Are you that moron who's been haunting the threads since the launch of DE with 30-pop scrushes, wondering why his opponent keeps walling him out?
No, I'm the infantrygay.
Also no walls mod hun wars in arabia is the ultimate test of skill.
Do you accept or not? Gotta go soon tho
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hun wars no walls mod? No. 1v1 Arabia? Yes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Weakling.
2 years ago
Anonymous
69 somewhere else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You should 1vs1 me instead, except Black Forest Vikings only on Voobly and no rush 15..
There is no Chinese umbrella. China represents the Han Chinese, which is one civ, just like all the other civs, except for Indians before DOI was released.
>There is no Chinese umbrella.
It represents every Sinic culture and ethnicity that isn't already in the game. >China represents the Han Chinese, which is one civ
And it also represents all of the other Chinese ethnicities. >just like all the other civs, except for Indians before DOI was released.
All three of the African civs are umbrella civs. So are the Mongols, Tatars, and Saracens, though the first two are fine like that.
The Zhuang are not Chinese in any way, they are Tai.
The Hui are just ethnic Han Chinese who married with silk road traders and became muslim, so yeah, they're part of the Chinese civ we have in the game.
Honestly I've never heard of Khampas, but they appear to be Tibetan, who are not Chinese but an entirely different civ.
Manchus are not Chinese, they're also an entirely different civ.
I suppose you might be right about Bai.
Yi are not Han.
Anyway you're confusing the historical meaning of Chinese with the modern political meaning of Chinese. Zhuang, Tibetans, Manchus, Yi, Tanguts and Mongols are not Chinese. All of these civs, except for Mongols who you didn't mention, are currently unrepresented in the game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Anyway you're confusing the historical meaning of Chinese with the modern political meaning of Chinese.
"Chinese" as a word is nonsense to me.
More realistically you'd have the Yuan, Han(current Chinese) and the Song.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There would be zero point to having Mongols and Yuan in the same game.
Also, Han is an ethnicity. Song was one of their dynasties. The Han dynasty is too far back for this game.
remove sicilians (normans) but add sicilians (actually sicilians)
remove bohemians but add serbians or albanians
remove bulgarians but add wallachians
remove burgundians but add swiss
>https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Thirisadai >However, that article has been debunked by a Reddit user because the references cited by that article didn't mention Thirisadai at all.[5] As a result, that Wikipedia article has been edited so the article (as of 25 May 2022) no longer mentioning Thirisadai.
>some dude makes up a fictional wiki article >folk mythos
The worst thing to me is how the devs are basically just going to wikipedia to learn about those civs in order to think up bonuses.
once again the "rationalist" söyredditor is the murderer of perfectly good legend and folk mythos >UHHH DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT????
Whats moronic is the actual ship classes the Cholas used are named on one of Rajendras copper plates which is the best first hand source you could get but they used a fricking wiki article for research instead of speaking to actual historians or archeologists.
>I WON'T build multiple TCs >I DON'T need loom. I can protect my villagers. >I WILL research herbal medicine >I WILL research supplies for my pikemen >I WON'T make skirmishers. They are weak. >I WILL make nothing but Teutonic Knights. They are the coolest unit
I suck with archer civs, they're so slow to walk across the map, can't break down house walls/get shut down by towers in feudal, then in castle age are too slow to defend against raids if they're out of position, and then you look away for 10 seconds and a mangonel hits them. I know they're good, OP even with castle age power spike, so how do you use them more effectively? Always find cav/seige to be more reliable with skirm support in feudal
Honestly I hope you guys are wrong about splitting China. I have no interest in the region and I feel like it isn't that necessary. I would much rather see devs adding completely new nations than taking existing ones apart.
The other AOK civs didn't just pop out of thin air at the start of the medieval ages, and the Persians didn't disappear, they're still around today. A Chinese Three Kingdoms campaign is just as likely as a Persian campaign set in antiquity. Why would they anounce only 1 campaign when there are several civs that still need one? It doesn't make sense.
They only make one campaign for old civs at a time to go with the new civ campaigns. The new civs are always the selling points of the DLC. See Britons in Lords of the West.
Sure, LOTW and DOTD did that, but DOI broke that trend. At this rate we still have a shitton of DLCs coming our way, which makes me think a campaign pack for multiple civs is more likely than that they just put one campaign on the roadmap.
I think he's referring to the Indians/Hindustanis being "campaignless" after Gurjaras got the Prithviraj campaign, then getting the Babur campaign? Extremely shitty logic though?
2 years ago
Anonymous
How is it shitty logic?
Prithviraj is not part of the dlc nor is Hindustani (Indians)
There are 2 campaigns in the dlc for new civs and 1 for an old one just like previous dlc.
Yes the dlc added 3 civs but we are talking about campaigns
welcome to literally every ranked mode in literally every game ever made
outside the top 5% and the bottom 5% the only thing that noticeably goes up is the dunning kruger effect
Depends on what you mean, sheer player percentage? Definitely compstomps and campaigns. But online community presence is definitely majority competitive multiplayer people
It's only on page 7 what are you doing
Tranime poster’s brain is all rotten away
Franks on Arena, fast castle and put down first farms in feudal age or fast castle and put farms down in castle age
Good morning I hate crossbowmen
I didn't think the game would have so many maps and modes (I mostly tune in to play Mongol/Saracen campaign before burning out and not playing for years). I ended up picking King of the Hill on Crater out of the blue.
Which ones do you anons like?
I exclusively play random map Arabia.
>Arabia
>Arabia/Runestones
Ugh, I'm so disappointed these two posts didn't get widespread condemnation.
I like Random Map Arabia/Runestones.
Burmese are actually really cool now. Not good, but not underwhelming.
What is the most underwhelming civilization?
Bengalis, they only got one unit
Burmese, Bengalis, Incas. In Incas' case they're not even bad it's just because every time you're playing them you feel like you'd be rather playing Mayans or Aztecs instead.
At least Burmese has knights, pretty good knights.
Bengalis has scouts and elephants, sure they are better elephants but not worth building a stable for
New tournament announced, thanks facebook money
Tamerlane is so fun bros, such a power trip
It really is.
not his fault that the other muslims didn't want to donate their skulls willingly
The mission where you fight the Golden Horde and their Slav allies was really kino.
Is there a compilation of these somewhere?
just go to silver bell's twitter
the virgin aoe 2 anime e-girl vs the chad Vicky 2 cows
Keyed Crimeamodchad
>Arabia
>Enemy is already fully walled before hitting feudal
Whats the fricking point then
These homosexuals wouldnt last a minute in the oldschool hun wars no walls mod
If they're walled that early they're still vulnerable because they fricked up the flow of their build order.
Doesnt fricking feel like it sometimes.
Check the state of your own build order, maybe it's your build that's late. Also, the meta keeps changing - for example even on the very open versions of Arabia these days it feels like going Scouts hurts you more than it hurts your opponent.
>for example even on the very open versions of Arabia these days it feels like going Scouts hurts you more than it hurts your opponent.
Oh I definely agree, everytime I go for scouts the enemy is already fully walled and either mass producing archers from 2 ARs or simply FCing, sure I can go MAA trush but unless I do some serious damage I will have frickloads of archers on my doorstep, unless I also go archers/skirms myself, and while I can do this, I fricking hate going archers and archers gameplay and drains the fun of the game for me
Yeah I know this is just me b***hing, but when being a cavalrygay is almost a bad thing in the fricking most open and aggressive map of the game that is Arabia by excellency, that really rubs me the wrong way
I wish people played with the No Walls mod more often
It's been over half a year and you're still b***hing about walls, even after the devs crippled them. Get a clue and learn the game, or shut up. How are you this bad?
No, frick off, so long quickwalls and dark age full walls exist I will never cease to complain about them.
No Walls mod or bust.
Then make a "No walls mod AoE2" thread on >>>/vg/ and never come back.
No.
just build archers
Archers dont bring walls down.
>Implying
Yes they do. Full Walling modern Arabia takes time and resources. Scout aggressively find the most exposed side and start breaking down walls with archers/maa
Hell, just find the side closest to their berries and build a tower on the border, then break in. What are they going to do?
>Archers dont bring walls down.
Saracens say hi
>Whats the fricking point then
Break the walls, dumbass.
Me? I'm a custom campaign enjoyer.
>basedjak posting
I thought you were better than this, Ghostmaster
Wrong guy, butthole.
u fuken better be
Delete Trebs and people who build Trebs.
There really should be better ways to deal with them than bombard cannons.
>mangonels
>rams
>light cav
>knights
>champs
>bombard cannon
>your own trebs
>petard
>cannon galleon
trebs are fine
The only acceptable counter to Trebs is having whoever builds one get swatted.
Which civ has the best odds in Trebuchet wars?
Warwolf makes Briton Trebs never miss, Kataparuto makes Jap Trebs fire faster, Counterweights make Saracen Trebs deal more damage, etc
Brits, in treb wars the biggest factor is RNG, chances of missing or partially hit being very high, briton trebs completely removing the rng factor is so fricking good others cannot really compare
Tatars can in the right circumstances since they get an extra 25% hill bonus and have +2 range.
Tatars can perform above the level of other civs' special units if they have the hill advantage. Magyar CAs, Chinese scorpions, Ethiopian archers, etc.
I said better. The only one that is in that case is the cannon galleon.
sorry but this game peaked with vanilla 20 years ago
there are way too many seaBlack person factions, they should be rolled into one if they have to exist at all (they don't). same with poos.
No, variety is good.
Don't respond to bait. You're on /vst/
so do like EE did then and just have a civ builder with a points system. since that's what civs in this game amount to anyway
thought-terminating moron
You can just play Vanilla if you don't like it Black person.
>variety is good
>8 of 10 matches will have you faced against yet another franks player
civ bloat, more like
And it's not a >franks op episode because...?
cope
>I'VE COME TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT
*AHEM*
FRICK MONGOLS, MANGUDAI ARE OVERTUNED AND IM TIRED OF PRETENDING THEY'RE NOT
The fact that vikings stopped being a top pick simply because they lost one archer tech (despite still having what is arguably the best eco bonus in the game) should be proof enough that archers need to get shafted
It all ends when melee pathing is fixed
Knightgays are cucked bigly.
>If I have +2 knights, +2 skirmishers and mangonels, maybe, just maybe I can push the xbows back
The problem is that archers was all that vikings had, with their shitty cavalry and mediocre siege
>b-but infantry
Infantry sucks. Make it not suck and perhaps vikings will see play once more
The fact that a single archer tech was all that was holding vikings together as a top tier is a small piece of the puzzle. But when you look at some of the most the underwhelming land civs: pattern: Burmese, Goths, Celts, Dravidians, Bengalis
Or civs that nowadays feel somehow weaker on land maps: Vikings, Celts, Slavs, Malay, arguably Japanese
Those are all civs that focus on either infantry, battle elephants or elephant archers. Devs should just buff those units and suddenly you have a bunch of good civs. In fact I'm afraid the devs are gonna look at the underperforming civs, buff them, then later on buff infantry/elephants and they're suddenly OP civs.
I would say Celts are weak, maybe in feudal since maas and arguably archers is the only thing keeping a float, then castle age you got siege but problem is that infantry and siege is not a very good mobile army, thus celts feeling too static unless you go full hoang
>Those are all civs that focus on either infantry, battle elephants or elephant archers. Devs should just buff those units
It's the MMO "Melee v Ranged" issue again
Ranged units are only strong while they're out of melee combat. Melee units are only strong if they can engage. If you make it easier for the units to make it into melee combat, the entire thing swings.
Personally, I believe archers should need a frontline to work.
aoe3 fixed that partly by forcing archers to enter a way weaker melee attack when connected with. Getting a flank or surround would suddenly cut all affected units' damage by a huge margin. Tagging was also a good solution. Both would be incredibly difficult to add at this stage to aoe2.
>Dravidians
>Underwhelming
They got cheap man at arms, cheap pikes, free wood and their skirmishers fire faster. If they are weak its because low level players aren't taking full advantage of the civ.
And Goths is in the best state it has ever been in.
Slavs have a good eco bonus for knights and cheaper siege, the +5 pop per military building is also useful, you are getting a free house.
>And Goths is in the best state it has ever been in.
I'd say they were better when they had free loom + infantry discount right from the dark age
Don't they still have cheaper infantry in Dark?
Goths was just absolutely broken back then, doesn't really count. As-is they're the prototypical cancer civ that auto-wins on Imp after a midgame struggle, which is a good enough niche to fill.
Archers now only get one arrow, which they have to go and pick up after firing before being able to shoot again
>archers get damage AND range from their blacksmith upgrade
>cavalry and infantry get only damage
Yeah, you are meant to go for armour, HP and speed in the stable
>Wow you are really bad
>But I am worse
That is a little too much shit talk when you are 8000 score behind
Haha celts eat my TC
How the frick do you even let that happen?
t. Celtgay
I'm ashamed to admit it but I got my economy raided by several feudal rushes and couldn't recover in time before my enemy sent the rams to my TC protected by some knights and archers.
This reminds I should really improve my micro.
Any hoangprostitute is not playing at celts strenght, using crossbows or knights, you should be able to best them in that game with crossbows or knights of your own
You should be afraid of the celt that actually uses infantry and siege exclusively
Generally a Hoang push has monks, knights and mangonels, you need either enough knights where you can let him convert a few or to kill the monks. The problem is your economy is going to be pushed to the limit, his is shit but he is the one attacking
that is not a new image nor is it really anime ironic weab op frick you
What distinguishes the Franks and the Persians from each other as cavalry civs?
Franks have good infantry, and Persians have elephants, FU hussars, camels and trashbows
persians have bombards and trashbows and camelswitch, franks have siege ram and throwing axemen.
>Steppe Lancer
>HP from 60/80 to 75/95
>Armor from 0/1 to 1/1
>elite upgrade from 900F/500G to 750F/450G
>Now also available to turks, and they benefit from the +1P armor and the +20HP from sipahi
>Steppe civilizations (mongols, cumans and tartars) and turks lose access to knight-line.
>Cumans get access to the imperial lancer (115 HP, 2/1 Armor, 13 damage, 1000F/600G cost) as a new civ bonus
>Cumans
>Imperial anything
one thing i like about aoe is that it has nothing in common with anime so why are you posting anime
t. Spirit of the law
I have a mod, where all the campaign intros and outros are redrawn with anime girls and where they talk random Japanese gibberish, that fits what the original speaker spoke tonally nonetheless.
What mod?
a commissioned one, I spent 4 digits in
Just give more pierce armor to infantry and more reloading time to archers
>WTF fast fires kill Thirisidai and elephants
Should have paused to check the tech tree Hera, that mistake could cost him the showmatch
The only good ships in this world are heavy demos.
age of empires 2 more like age of knights, in fact if your civ doesnt have knights or bloodline its borderline unplayable
This is not AoC anymore, anons, knights nor CAs are the top dog of the game, that goes for crossbows
Nobody is scared of a knightgay, except maybe archergays
Archergays not even scared of mangonels
never really get why the unit intended to do hit and run raids got a frame delay that took ages while the unit thats supposed to support your troops got a higher fire rate as well as zero frame delays
The community is extremely resistant and opposing to changes, like every rts playerbase
Autism?
Old school rts communities dislike changes.
I was thinking about that the other day. How do devs treat this game? Is it just a good RTS in general that they constantly support or is it a nostalgia bait product that just so happens to also be a good competitive game? What I mean with that is, if they could improve the game a lot and every competitive player agreed it would be a better game if they did something drastic like let's say, completely rework Franks and Britons, or completely rework base unit interactions or how age up works, or reworking monks or something like that, would they do it? On one hand, they would be making a better game in a vacuum, on the other hand the value in this being the definitive version of the game you played in your childhood is gone if it ends up feeling like a completely different game.
>What I mean with that is, if they could improve the game a lot and every competitive player agreed it would be a better game if they did something drastic like let's say, completely rework Franks and Britons, or completely rework base unit interactions or how age up works, or reworking monks or something like that, would they do it?
I can't even imagine typing this shit. I don't think they've ever struggled with this question. They're just monetizing an old game with a cult following. This means it still has to be the same game, but maybe with a few additions here and there where possible. Reworks and overhauls like those are beyond the scope of it.
noone would allow to rework the game to an extreme anymore, they would change values like unit price, armor, attack, production time and the likes, but they wont change the core gameplay anymore at this stage i think, AOE4 should be THE change if anything else, but sadly AOE4 released in a bad state, and even with it constant updates, it already lost it momentum to attract and maintain a sustainable playerbase and it will not surpass aoe2 in terms of popularity anytime soon
What is the best campaign and why is it Sforza?
It is Grand Dukes
Sforza is pretty comfy
Algirdas and Kestutis because the civ is great, the scenarios are great, and the story is about actual bros doing bro shit
Jadwiga tbh
On the topic of campaigns, do you guys think we'll ever get ones for the civs that don't have them yet? (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vikings, Mayans, Persians, Turks). Could also be nice to see Dracula made into a dedicated Slavs campaign with the Magyars getting their own. Japanese getting an Oda Nobunaga campaign and the Turks getting a Mehmed II campaign would both also be pretty neat.
I really hope they add campaigns for at least Persians and Vikings.
Personal I would like a playable Vlachs added that would replace both Slavs and Magyars in the Dracula campaign and Slavs and Magyars getting their own campaigns. But that's just my dream.
This would be optimal but it's not happening.
A Nobunaga campaign would be comfy, but too many spergs in the fanbase would complain that the Japanese would be the only civ to feature. Hideyoshi would be a good choice too, with the campaign starting immediately after the events of Kyoto.
Mehmed would be an obvious choice for the Turks, but Suleiman would be absolute kino.
>the Japanese would be the only civ to feature
Split the Nips then? Surely they can whip out a DLC with a bunch of weeb regional units and UUs like ninjas, onna-musha, ashigaru and stuff.
The game is called 'Age of Empires', not 'Age of Clans'.
Age of Empires means the game takes place in an age of empires, doesn't mean everything you play as is an empire, a bunch of civs aren't. We would call them empires if that was the case, we call them civs instead.
Clans aren't separate civilizations.
>A Nobunaga campaign would be comfy, but too many spergs in the fanbase would complain that the Japanese would be the only civ to feature.
They can just make custom factions via triggers, like they did with french in burgundian campaign having organ guns via 'rebel supply camps', and they stop producing them when you destroy the camps. They also can't produce them if you destroy siege workshops.
Even if its just 8 of the same civ on the map you can definitely do some trigger / custom unit frickery to make each color of the same civ distinct.
That's true. Also make one of the enemies specialise in infantry, another in cav archers, etc.
What is the strongest civilization?
My favourite civ, duh
Indians
Which Indians?
Hindustanis (formerly Indians) literally have like a 70% overall win rate right now
Hindustanis
>Counters archers with Ghulams
>Counters Paladins with Imp Camels/Halbs
>Counters infantry with Hand cannons
>Has decent CA (only missing Parthian tactics)
>Has FU Hussar
>Has bombard cannons
>Pretty good monks
>Meh water
>Cheap vills
>Great eco
My main, Magyars, obviously
Thread feels dead compared to previous ones
Activity is being split between this thread and the other one nearby.
SCORPIONS AFFECTED BY BALLISTICS
MAKE IT HAPPEN MICROSOFT
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think it'll just make it easier to dodge those with basic micro.
Give me a unique building. A bigger monastery.
A Castle Age building that serves as a house but gives more population points
Inca?
a lumber/mining camp that can shoot a 3 damage arrow. Prepare to get camp rushed.
A trade workshop that automatically deposits all resources from surrounding villagers.
A mobile building. It doesn't pack up, it lifts off and moves while keeping all it's defenses.
Fortified Wooden Wall. Upgraded palisades but they're made of nice straight cut wood.
Wooden Tower or upgraded Outpost.
A Trade Post that you can send trade carts to.
A bank that generates gold but takes up population space.
Please keep that in Age 3/4
I like all of these except for mobile buildings, what the hell dude.
i think they added the healing aura for the caravanserai just to lay the groundwork for some kind of medical building later on. so i’ll go with that
OH BOY A HOSPITAL JUST FOR THE NEW MARY-SUE KANGZ CIVILIZATIONS
>Hindustanis
>New
Can't you read?
What the frick do you mean by Mary Sue civs
What the frick are you talking about?
Just more buildings with gold or stone costs would be wonderful. The inability of players to invest in valuable buildings doesn't sit right with me.
A drop-off building that accepts ALL resources and replaces the mill/mining camp/lumber camp for the civ that has it
A one-off Monastery-esque building that appears useless at first, but Monks can garrison inside it to slowly and freely research all Monastery techs - the more Monks garrisoned, the faster the techs are researched.
The new Monastery can train Monks itself so it's not useless once all techs are done, and can even train Monks mid-research, but more slowly than regular Monasteries.
Forgot to mention that this is inspired by that one little side thing in El Cid 4 where you get to convert a Mosque and get free Monastery techs.
This is just the AoE4 Delhi mechanic. No thanks. Play Burmese or Bohemians.
1, 3, 4, and 5 are fine.
-Ballista tower that fires scorpion-like projectiles
-A building that constantly trains a unit of your choice for free albeit with an increased training time
-an infirmary building. Units garrisoned inside heal fast (36 HP/minute compared to a TCs 6 HP/min or a Castle's 12 HP/min). It is affected by Herbal medicine
-Folwark but for trees (immediately collects 10% of the wood of a tree when it is felled. Obviously it would have a wide radius of effect unlike the folwark)
-Unique monastery that increases the faith recharge rate of monks near it
-A caravanserai but for villagers (villagers inside its radius carry more and move faster)
A 14 by 14 building that's just the outer rim as a wall, with 4 2 wide holes on each of the four sides. All buildings inside it are 75% more effective, lumber camps boost worker harvesting and speed, training and tech works 75% faster, damage is 75% higher, wonder ticks 75% faster.
Too powerful. Basically getting a massive bonus to gather rate, research speed, and production speed just for playing a round of Tetris a week before you open up AoE2.
moat
The toilet stall, not available to Indian civs
I just beat a guy with archers and he messaged afterwards with actual confusion as to how I won. When will you Black folk get it into your heads that archerchads always win? You can't beat us so may as well join us. No reason to ever not go archers
My favorite civ has terrible archers, so no. You are not loved of women.
ok poopmaster we get it you only pay le celts
Hospital - available to the crusader civs
it's like a 6 by 6 building that units can go under like vils under a TC, heals a third of the rate of a monk
>a building that units can go under like vils under a TC
How odd that even after all these addons the TC is still unique in that aspect.
>heals a third of the rate of a monk
Black person that's just garrisoning...
you can only garrison knights in a castle, and even then it is limited to 20 units or so
a hospital would cost way less (let's say 125 wood) and would be a point where you could launch raids at the beginning of your castle age next to your siege workshop
also garrisoning heals like trash don't debate me on that
>also garrisoning heals like trash don't debate me on that
Look at this guy not researching Herbal Medicine. Unironically a good tech if you already have a monastery up for whatever reason.
you did not get my point, it's alright
herbal medicine is a joke tech btw, none of the pros use it
viper gets it every other game unironically
Unique techs that give armor to a unit (or a bunch of units) feel like they are so randomly priced.
What I mean is, you have Castle Age UTs that give armor to core/power units for relatively cheap and then you have expensive imperial age techs that give armor to units that you are not going to use anyways
Compare, for example, Silk armor which gives +1/1 armor to 2 core units for tatars in castle age to shit like tower shields which, for a comparable price, gives +0/2 armor, in imperial age, to two units that do not benefit that much from it (Halbs lack the last armor upgrade and take bonus damage from archers anyways. Skirms are not really that useful in imperial vs arbalests and in trash wars they already take 1 pierce damage from other skirms without this upgrade).
And don't get me started on howdah
Extra pierce armor is priceless
>Unique techs that give armor to a unit (or a bunch of units) feel like they are so randomly priced.
The prices are determined by the civ's power and existing power spikes.
>ok poopmaster we get it you only pay le celts
I'm not Ghostmaster.
>herbal medicine is a joke tech btw, none of the pros use it
I fricking love drones. They'll throw their brains out a window if they haven't seen a professional player do something.
I fricking love low elo legends and middle elo morons, they think they can reinvent the wheel
What, because I said Herbal medicine has a use? Frick off.
Take note of the failure and use the replay data to improve before your next match.
all scorpions should get +3 attack
and chemistry should add +2 to things like scorpions / ballista elephants / war wagons / galleons
when will you realize aoe 2 is perfectly balanced?
Do you play certain civs for roleplaying or strictly for strategic benefits or a mixture of the two?
The Forgotten campaigns were the ultimate pleb filter, and people hated them because playing them required actual thinking instead of just spending 90% of the game gathering resources before spamming a load of units like with their favourite generic build and destroy campaigns.
We did the whole 'what if we twisted this RTS engine to make really sub-par RPGs' song and dance for years back in the 2000s in Age of Kings Heaven. It was a shit idea then, it's a shit idea now.
There has always been an element of RPG play in AOE2. The beginning of Attila 1 and El Cid 1, for example. Also a few scenarios in Age of Kings and The Conquerors where you have no villagers and have to make do with your soldiers. Even the DE Sforza has that to a degree. I find those scenarios more creative than ones where the objective is "defeat X enemy" and you start with a town.
Actually it's because they're clunky, the civ changes in Dracula are obnoxious, and the Bari campaign was a pants-on-head moronic premise. El Dorado was low key ludo though.
If LOL is Low Elo Legends and MEM is Middle Elo Morons, what does HEH stands for?
High Elo Heroes
Now that's a good one
what to do if I fail a scout rush, didn't make much impact, and my opp still manages to age up before I do?
trush
Go full feudal, add archers, put towers on their woodline
It's useless to go castle age in that situation cause you're already behind and you won't be able to catch up in terms of eco and tech. The best thing you can do is take map control and pressure your enemy
this, or atleast like in AOM, they could go stronghold route too, like if the archer unit made contact with the melee unit theyre forced to use their weak melee attack, so micro kiting a clump of archers even against light cavs are impossible, and archers should be used in tandem with your melee units to keep them save from their counters
franks are not that op balance wise, theyre just THAT GOOD at the thing theyre supposed to be good at, and theyre very strong at open maps like arabia, but if you manage to fend off their rushes early on, their late game options are quite limited, most of the game where i win against franks is the one where i managed to fend off against an FC>KTs(quite hard) or scout flush(easy), and the ones where i lose against the franks is where i lose either at a scrush or a FC KTs,
meant for this
If you were an infantrygay you would not have problems with franks, MAA trush into massed MAAs/Spearmen to defend base, and spear spam against knights, you will be fine regardless
Knight civs are not a problem, archer civs are.
i think its the opposite for me lmao, never had problem facing off with archer civs since if you pick them off using pre mill drushes followed by a mild archer rush(6-8 archers with fletching, and 3 m@a without other upgrades to deal with skirms) at feudal, you usually go to castle a bit late if you upgrade m@a tho, but your opp eco will be worse since theyre basically forcing their way to castle without adequate eco and vills, at castle you could add mangos(if they keep pumping archers and renders m@a moot, unless playing as malians) or knights(more flexible since your existent archers counter their spears, they need more food to be spent into tho(BL, 1st and 2nd armor) into the mix
>1006 elo
>11 win
>11 losses
What did they mean by this
>Monks countered by Teutons being anywhere on the enemy team
>This is ok
Yeah, for me, this is the most bullshit bonus in the game as it just completely invalidates a unit. Why does nobody ever mention this?
>+1 Damage, +1 range, +5 HP, better accuracy, faster creation time
>only 125F/75G and 35s of research time
based
I like to do a bit of trolling myself 🙂
Why should one play as the Slavs nowadays? Don't the Burmese completely overshadow them?
Burmese have free wood upgrades and a great man at arms opening.
Slavs have better economy once they buy the wood upgrades, and have a castle age powerspike with their knights and siege
Burmese have free wood upgrades, early knowledge of relics and the enemy's position, an excellent Men-at-arms opening, powerful castle-age infantry, an arrow sponge, incredible monk momentum, and the best endgame anti-archer cavalry.
Slavs have free supplies, faster farms, and cheaper defensive buildings, but nothing powerful or coherent outside of that.
>Burmese have free wood upgrades, early knowledge of relics and the enemy's position, an excellent Men-at-arms opening, powerful castle-age infantry, an arrow sponge, incredible monk momentum, and the best endgame anti-archer cavalry.
And they don't survive past early castle age if the enemy goes for xbows
What are xbows?
Xbox crossbows
This is exaggerated. They have more than a small number of answers to let them deal with crossbows.
Just open archers yourself, Burmese archers stay relevant early to mid Castle Age and by then you should have Knights and siege. Or better yet, don't play Burmese on open maps. They're an Arena civ.
Celts' two biggest and most important bonuses are the wood bonus (one of the best eco bonuses in the game) and the faster-firing siege. Their speedier infantry is such a minor bonus in comparison it makes 0 sense to play them as an infantry civ. Both on closed and open maps 1v1 they're an aggressive siege civ with one of the biggest CA power spikes in the game, if not the biggest, and the best backup for forward siege is monks and knights.
Dunno, celtic MAA rush is always no matter what, and woadies are good vs crossbows, provided you get there first
No, slavs have a faster MAA rush, can easily open with MAA flood, slavs are kinda lacking in the monastery department compared to burmese, but slavs have boyars that are much melee tanky knights, unlike elephants they can choose their fights
Lastly slav siege is fricking great, burmese siege is shite
>slavs are kinda lacking in the monastery department compared to burmese
They have the exact same techs.
>but slavs have boyars that are much melee tanky knights
Who asked for this? When have knights ever had trouble with a unit that doesn't frick up Boyars just as easily?
>unlike elephants they can choose their fights
Burmese have access to knights.
>Lastly slav siege is fricking great, burmese siege is shite
Trading Siege rams and Siege Onagers for Bombard Cannon? I'd take that deal.
>They have the exact same techs.
Compared to Burmese, they got discounted monastery techs, Slavs doesnt.
>Who asked for this? When have knights ever had trouble with a unit that doesn't frick up Boyars just as easily?
Boyars frick up longswords whereas they frick up knights. They also do slightly better against pikemen and camels than knights.
>Trading Siege rams and Siege Onagers for Bombard Cannon? I'd take that deal.
Thats a very fricking bad trade, FU Siege Onager is great all on its own, having discounted siege rams and heavy scorps on top of that greatly outweights not having bombard cannons
>Compared to Burmese, they got discounted monastery techs, Slavs doesnt.
Yeah, so that's a momentum advantage, not an absolute one.
>Boyars frick up longswords whereas they frick up knights.
And who's sending longswords everywhere in late castle without pikes?
>They also do slightly better against pikemen and camels than knights.
But not enough to significantly change the matchup. Arambai even have the advantage here, since they beat all infantry, and maybe knights.
>Thats a very fricking bad trade, FU Siege Onager is great all on its own, having discounted siege rams and heavy scorps on top of that greatly outweights not having bombard cannons
Having the ability to tell any unit to frick off from a distance is invaluable. Especially Trebs.
>And who's sending longswords everywhere in late castle without pikes?
Missing the point Boyar has to less counter to worry about, also infantrygays that dont send a few pikemen with longsword horde are either newb or confident they gonna win with brute strenght
>Arambai
Yeah that one you're right, tho boyars can still charge down xbows tho not particurally good at it, and obv skirmishers
>Having the ability to tell any unit to frick off from a distance is invaluable. Especially Trebs.
Or you can just onager it down, or send a couple of siege rams to destroy the treb and the castle
And yes rams have bonus damage vs other siege
>ram bonus damage
learnes that the hard way playing through the campaign....
>Missing the point Boyar has to less counter to worry about
It's the same set of counters: Camels pikes, and monks.
>also infantrygays that dont send a few pikemen with longsword horde are either newb or confident they gonna win with brute strenght
That's my point.
>Or you can just onager it down, or send a couple of siege rams to destroy the treb and the castle
Much riskier.
wasn't there a mod that backported all the DE balance changes to HD
Forgotten Updates?
Celts/Goths/Burmese maa rush on regicide to snipe the castle? there's no possibility of murder holes until mid castle age
>what if they go archers
1 range skirms?
I was also thinking about Celts/Slavs FC into ram rush but it seems too risky.
A single tower would trivialize your rush
This is a very dumb idea anon
Infantry too slow to catch the king
What is the most powerful civ?
Goths.
Goths, but they are a feast or famine civ. If they get to post-imp with a good economy they are essentially unstoppable. Unit comps cease to matter at that point, they will spam you to death. However all that means is that the "counter" to Goths is to not let them get to post-imp with a good economy. Lacking a strong early eco bonus means its easy for other players to get ahead of them and apply pressure early, while the civ is vulnerable. If the Goths player can weather this and make it to imp with a big eco, it's over.
Celts
HOOOOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>Tfw I read HOOOOOGOOOOO as HOOOOOAAAANG
My brain has been rotted by celts eating TCs
Hoang is a homosexual that plays celts as anything but as an infantry/celt civ
There I said it.
what's so infantry about celts you fricking homosexual? the free squires?
>le UU unit
>Siege/structure civ with faster infantry
>Totally not an infantry civ
Okay gay
their infantry bonus is IRRELEVANT
there I said it poopmaster
>their infantry bonus is IRRELEVANT
Irrelevant to what?
>there I said it poopmaster
Still not Ghostmaster
Ain't irrelevant when I'm chasing down your vills with MAA
Couldn't have better meself
You forgot the part in which in feudal age celtic maas can easily chase down archers
the faster infantry is actually an archer bonus. Faster MaA means you can deal more damage and create a wider window of opportunity for your archers (which you are going to make)
But I refuse to archers at all costs
it is ok, it is possible to win with suboptimal stategy anyways
take the ARCHERPILL
Mongols, hussars+mangudais+siege is unbeatable
>laughs at your pikes
>shrugs off arrow fire
>more resistant to monks
how do you deal with FU Sicilian cavaliers?
Paladins
Bulgarian Cavaliers
Malian Cavalier/Camel
Teutons Cavalier/Paladin
+1 melee armor isn't enough to stand up to the best cav civs
Stone walls and Elephants guarding chokepoints.
Send more halbs, or just send champs.
People that complain about Sicilians are alien to me.
magyar vs poles
i spotted they were walling up early, so i only made 3 scouts, and focused the rest on the econ
turned out they left a hole in the wall, so i keep sneaking in and picking their vills off.
i hit castles earlier, keep raiding with knights, but stopped when they got a castle up inside. later i got out 2 rams, they had to sally out all their knights and focused on the rams, so i picked off a majority of them.
i also focused hard on stone and parked 2 castles outside their base. they didn't produce more troops though.
final moments: i standground'd my knights at a corner. they had like 10+ vills just walk past my bros, which then turned into a massacre. they finally resigned. i was ageing up, and was ready to treb down their castles.
question: was only getting out 3 scouts the correct choice? i could have killed more, since there was a hole in the wall. even by that point, i was ahead in scores
If he walled to FV without military, leaning towards no
If he walled and produced archers? Maybe, skirms would have better, but murdering archers with scouts is fine
I think it was a fluke since there was a hole and killed a few vills, gaining eco advantage
FV?
no, as in i should have tried something else?
>fluke
yeah, probably. i DID get in once or twice before he fully walled up (and found the hole), and killed some vils already
>make more scouts
yeah, in hindsight, i def should have made more since i could get in easy
he did make a couple of spears immediately, which i ran circles around.
>castle
yeah, that's true. but i wasn't that worried, since i was confident that i was hitting him hard enough.
>FV
Sorry, meant Fast Castle
Make more scouts if you can do damage with them, if you have five in his base he will have to add a few spears himself.
You should carefully consider doing forward castles, because if your opponent imps faster he can push your forward castles
Carried again by my English longbows
Me? I'm a cataphract enjoyer
Same.
Byzaboo reporting in.
WE
FRICKING
WON
have we ever not been winning?
How do we make the Cooman feudal ram push viable??
Increase ram speed? Give free MAAs on age up? Replace starting vils with militias? Militias can build?
Stop spoon-feeding Cuman players so people with a clue don't feel dirty playing them.
Doesn't need to be viable, Cumans have probably got the easiest scouts into skirms build in the game
If it's unviable then why give them Feudal siege?
Because Cumans are the "Eternal Feudal scrapper" civ. You can stick it out in Feudal out to 30:00+ and be just fine. Following up a decent offense up with rams, even when you're still in Feudal, is fine.
Navy?
They had access to the sea at its biggest extension
If Huns and Tartars can have a navy, so can Tibetans, I'd say. But I think they should maybe miss War Galley and just have to use Fire/Demo ships.
Yeah, landlocked civs should have weaker navies
just finished the tamerlane campaign
and holy shit, it was hardcore
i was literally just killing everyone
Scourge of the Levant is so fun goddamn, it's like Attila 3 except the enemies aren't complete pushovers. I bought stone at the market just so that I could destroy everyone before I reached the gold goal.
i fricking hate how my country only AOE2 DE community only play their 4v4 lobbies in LN/Nomad/AC and Random is on, most of the time team that got lucky to play the most civs with the best nomad bonuses are the winner, they refrain from playing on common maps like arabia, arena, or hideout. while land nomad could be fun, its already RNG heavy in the first place with vills that spawn at random, shit spawn, and to add random civs to the mix is just a salt in the wound.
Then play with people from a different country.
>BRUHHH FR FR NO CAP WHY DON'T PEOPLE WANNA PLAY T90 ARABIA ONLY??? SO CRINGE NO LIE ON GOD fr fr
frick off redditor
i dont even wath T90s but a change of pace like with maps like arabia, arena, or even hybrid maps lke migrations or archipelago with hidden civs(its a feature cmon now) will be a breath of fresh air, in AOE2 each civs got their own maps that fits with their style of play, not to mention your spawn in Nomads are randomized as well, one side that got more nomad suited civs most of the time wins over the side that got less of them.
i mostly play against/with chinks nearly everyday because the lobbies and matchmaking(usually 1v1 RM) are filled with them, and i intend play with fellers from my country because its comfy to play with them(and i know lot of em as well)
>i mostly play against/with chinks nearly everyday because the lobbies and matchmaking(usually 1v1 RM) are filled with them
I don't want to lead with the question, so just tell me which civs you encounter most often from them.
chinks? they play to win so most of them play with franks, huns, or franks, really they got no variations, literal braindead robots that only stick to their programming, one day i played like 10 1v1 rm matches, 8 of em were against chink frank players
The only civs I've encountered from Chinese players have been Britons and Franks.
ah yes britons as well, really tho they got no variations, good thing chinks here keep to themselves(being an old game filled with 30 something players probably helps) compared to other game i've played, but their "min-max" nature at everything(family, work, ""entertainment"" ) in life kinda bugs(heh) me off, theyre efficient workers tho, just bad at being a human
I do not fear the player who plays knights 1000 games, I fear the player who makes 1000 arbalest in a game
Lost a game with Gurjaras just now. Opened archers and only realised they don't get arb in castle age so switched elephant archers which ended up getting raped by pikes and skirms, especially since they're harder to micro. How the frick are they the best performing civ right now? Their eco bonus is nice but not enough to carry them like that. Has the meta changed? I was under the impression that only early eco bonuses and good archers matter in this game
>I was under the impression that only early eco bonuses and good archers matter in this game
This is a shitter cope used on /vst/, it's not indicative of reality. Archers are completely counterable, most of the board simply doesn't care to do anything more than b***h that their strategy they selected before they even queued up got bulldozed.
So what are Gurjaras players doing to get to top spot? Not like they have knights and tbh, I find archers way easier to play since you can micro them
I was thinking they might be better since easier to mass now but no, still suck ass
Gurjara's can win as long as you hard read your opponent. If you got good scouting Gurjara has a tool for everything.
>They go cavalry
Early camels that automatically upgrade into castle age ones are filthy oppressive
>They go archers
Hold them off with scouts of skirms and then go shrivs
>They go camels
Your camels are better unless you're facing imperial Hindustani
>They go infantry
Literally like 10 of the fricking Chakram throwers with a good position can hold off dozens of champs due to the sheer losses they can inflict if micro'd
>Need an unexpected move to throw them off
Elephant Archers and/or Hand Cannoneers
Easiest way to trip up a Gurjara's player is to mass infantry because it forces them to go into castles, and if that takes them by surprise at all they're fricked.
Oh I also forgot castle crossbows under unexpected move to throw them off
>Easiest way to trip up a Gurjara's player is to mass infantry because it forces them to go into castles, and if that takes them by surprise at all they're fricked.
What does forcing them to build a castle get you?
Do you plan to ram it down?
Chakrams kill rams in 22 hits so that is difficult.
I think pike and siege will do decent, or defend and boom, because the Gurjara eco bonus is worthless in castle age
>What does forcing them to build a castle get you?
Forces them to choose between booming and defense, set them economically behind you, bottleneck their production, force an imperial age game when Gurjara miss the last attack bonus.
>switched elephant archers
oh no no no
Start off with crossbow and if he is going skirms get a castle for chakrams, also shrivamsha will kill skirms no problem
>AOE4 thread fell off the board
Absolute state of that fricking game, bahahahaha
have a nice day, israelite.
Turks and Saracens should lose the knight line.
I get Saracens (even though their knights are perfectly viable in early castle), but why Turks? They've used heavy cavalry historically and it gives them a solid castle/early imp option outside of gunpowder and horse archers.
If you're going to do that you'd have to rework the way cavalry works at a fundamental level. Which isn't gonna happen.
Hello friends I have not played aoe2 in 20 years. I started again because it's a fun game and I found out yesterday there are co-op campaigns which I'm gonna play with a buddy. My question is: how the frick do I play?
Is there a reputable site with build orders? The last time I tried to get properly good at an RTS was in 2002 playing Brood War, but that was when we had actual learning resources during the game's boom. Now I dunno where to look or what to do. My skill level right now is around "I can hold my own against moderate AI". Any tips?
DE has the Art of War campaign, that's kinda a more advanced tutorial. You can also just look up build orders on the internet, aoe2 is one of the more popular RTS (more like one of the few alive RTS lol), so you won't have any problems with that
Thanks anon. It only occurs to me now how much more complicated an aoe build order is than BW since an scv can only do like 3 things and a villager can do 50.
Was Orthodoxy a good UU?
It was not, no.
No, monks have so little hp armor doesnt really matter, aztec hp bonus is better
No but i wish slavs got the tech in the form of a civ bonus, like "monks are affected by infantry armour upgrades". Anything to make them feel less generic 2bh
the only thing i can remember about the slav is their boyars have more melee armor, that's it
Slavs have full and cheaper siege
Slavs have Druzhina, giving their infantry splash damage, allowing it to beat gothic infantry cost effectively
>implying cavalry+siege is not a generic combo
>implying anyone ever researchs druzhina
cavalry+siege is not a generic combo
It is not, a generic combo would be cavalry and archers, and infantry and siege
anyone ever researchs druzhina
Everyone does, if you can afford it, it's really fricking good in melee fights
>Slavs have full and cheaper siege
They miss BBC
Yeah forgot about that
BBC doesnt really matter anyways.
It's the goddamn motherfricking best siege unit in the whole fricking game. It can take out buildings from a safe distance, which only trebuchets can do. It can take out onagers from a safe distance, which only monks can do. It can take out trebuchets from a safe distance, which NOTHING else in the game can do, seriously how else are you gonna take out a trebuchet with units in front if you have no BBC?
I just wanna put my TC next to it. Besides huntable and herdable animals, it's the third source for dark age food. There's no reason for it to be absent.
>seriously how else are you gonna take out a trebuchet with units in front if you have no BBC
Suicide charge with light cavalry?
Bombard cannons cost more than onagers, and more than trebs unless you are a civ with a discount
Those don't trade 1:1 with each other. It's a long-ranged counter.
It still dies to cav, fast moving infantry and monks, plus it fares worse vs arbalest/skirms. There are situations where bombards and where onagers excel.
>It still dies to cav, fast moving infantry and monks
Yes, and part of being a responsible adult is keeping your bombard cannons out of danger. Also, in just about all of those cases, the Onager would be even worse off.
Yeah so? It's worth every resource.
>It's the goddamn motherfricking best siege unit in the whole fricking game
Not really, anything the bombard cannon Siege Onagers can do better, except bringing down castles, which I'd use a trebuchet instead
BBCs are irrelevant.
Why does Land Nomad not have berries?
Why do you want berries? Are you gonna pick Franks, sicko?!
what would you do to make water more interesting
I would make it the same as Rise of Nations
Units would transport automatically across water without the need of a transport ship, you just right click on the next island
Of course units would still be vulnerable when they cross water but at least you wouldn't have to micro a load of transport ships when you want to do a landing
>runs away from your soldiers
Okay!
*Razes your base instead*
Small drawback for a massive advantage
OOPSY!
WHERE DID ALL YOUR PALADINS GO?
MUST HAVE BEEN CLIMATE CHANGE, OR THE PANDEMIC!
https://youtube.com/shorts/gMSnFDkFK9k
even T90 commit flaming rocks to horsy shooty
you have no excuse
Do you socially distance your units?
I always use the staggered formation
Bump
There're two AoE II threads, mate
You can just let this one die and there won't be any problems
This one has the anime OP, more posts, and a faster rate
Bump.
>This one has the anime
yeah that's the problem
There should be a trash warship and a trash siege weapon
I can see a civ having a UT that removes the gold cost for Galleys, but they don't get War Galley
Or maybe they don't cost wood. I think wood might be the more important resource.
>I can see a civ having a UT that removes the gold cost for Galleys
That'd be far too powerful.
There should be common gold counter-units, like an Imperial skirmisher that costs 40 wood and 15 gold.
Trash is held back by its cost and general monopoly on the "Counter-unit" niche. It justifies the upward spiral of power for knight/archer units.
>Aoe2 anime
>only one anime
4u
Give Cumans Bracer.
No, they already got fully upgraded paladins
would you watch an aoe2 anime
No, anime is trash.
Depends who's writing it
Bleh. It would be harem isekai or highschool comedy. Also that ashigaru/teuton/viking manga already exists.
If it's one of those Hetalia-style shorts and goes above the level of SotL, sure.
>"Necro bumping" on a board where threads last for months
>Thread still is fastest and biggest AOE2 thread on the board
Imagine being a wannabe janitor.
What unit is this
Long Swordsman maybe?
Is that the only thing you can type? Get new insults, kid.
The autism is almost impressive
Don't look at him. You'll catch whatever he has.
>rush failed
>resign immediatly
Is this justified?
Depends on the kind of rush. If it's a meme 8-pop rush, then sure. If it's an all-in, also sure. If it's just a failed M@A trush, no.
Like the other anon says, if its something like pre mill drush and achieves absolutely nothing, sees the enemy getting fast feudal into 2 ARs, then yeah i suppose its justified, otherwise it never is
Does sword girl now have hot lesbian sex with archer girl?
>BF
>BF
>BF
>Nomad (gets dodged by some homosexual)
>Megarandom (teammate resigns 5m in)
Horrible matchmaking system.
I just completed all age of empires 1 missions.
I notice water levels are not fun. Most maps have a large body of water in the center, or completely cuts the land into two. But your ships can't reach most of your enemy buildings.
Landing and building a base on the enemy's island feels like a chore. Is this the same with AOE2?
congrats anon. I couldn't bring myself to play after beating the first mission. It's just not the game I played as a kid.
That's because the DE of AoE is a hack job, as opposed to the sequels. Try vanilla with the HD Mod.
Pretty sure the vast majority of aoe2 campaign missions are land-based.
>Arena
>Hideout
>African clearing
>Megarandom
>Northern isles
>No Runestones
Why is this map pool so shit fricking damn
Question on the bots:
AI
AI (CD)
AI (HD)
Is it correct to understand this as:
The first is the current Definite Edition AI (the smartest)
The (CD) is the oldest AI (the worst)
and the last is the 2013 AI (medium)?
Yep
Alaric, Bari and Sforza are the holy trinity of campaigns.
Why is Sforza good? I found it pretty boring considering the small scope of the story and how basically every civ in the campaign is Italians
Because it's different to the usual campaigns. It gives you more than just build and destroy and the character it focuses on is different to the usual kings/emperors/generals. Plus I am an Italiboo and the maps look gorgeous.
Bari is a shit campaign and a poor use of Byzantines.
Especially when you consider the kino that a Belisarius, Heraclius or Basil II campaign would've been
>memb 12k viewers
Memb bros we won
GL had the wrong game plan, they lost too much ground for the fast imp play to be worth it
I can't fricking stand aM players. Why did Viper not play Desert Slopes?
>2 decades of changes to mongols
>Mangudai still just fricking broken
GG
They're slow to get up and running, cost a shitton and aren't that amazing until you get a deathball of them
https://www.ageofempires.com/news/age-of-empires-ii-definitive-edition-update-63482/
The important thing here other than the supposed pathing fixes is the roadmap. What the hell do they mean with the ancient friends?
Maybe AOE1 content is getting ported over?
Persian campaign, hopefully.
This would be good, just so long as they add some new civs such as the Gauls or Parthians.
I'm looking forward to the new content
>Something Different and Unknown
New random map content? I dunno.
>Someone's Birthday
I suppose it's either the game's anniversary or the anniv from one of the other AOEs
>Ancient Friends to hang out
This has to be AOE1 content ported to 2, if we have Priests and Broad Swordsman on the editor I can see other units & buildings being ported over.
>That Dynasties of India on 2023
New civ split confirmed? I wonder which one will be.
>This has to be AOE1 content ported to 2, if we have Priests and Broad Swordsman on the editor I can see other units & buildings being ported over.
I wonder how it would work. Would it be that it exists as a game within a game, and all the AOE1 civs can't be played against the AOE2 ones? Although obviously changing the Italians to Romans in the Alaric campaign is ideal.
>New civ split confirmed? I wonder which one will be.
A lot of people reckon the Chinese. It would be stupid to get rid of the original Chinese civ as China has mostly been a single unified land, but it would make sense to bring in some new civs that the Chinese have been used to represent.
I was also thinking about the Slavs as well
Slavs should just be renamed to Russians tbh, pretty much all the other civs they previously represented are now included in the game.
Most people seem to ask for Italy or China to be split. I think China makes more sense for several reasons.
1) Marketability
2) People want China to be nerfed/changed for various reasons
3) Probably the easiest to split and make unique
4) Not another European civ (personally I'd like more Italian/Euro civs)
5) No Chinese campaigns yet
Like I say, split the Chinese but keep the Chinese civ.
>New civ split
Or maybe new regional units?
>start game
>opponent leaves immediately
>get cooldown of 5 mins
How is this fair lmao
>parthian tactics to civs that never touched central asia
>hussar to non-central europe civs like celts I mean what the frick
justify this
>Tech represents any method or tactic, with the current names just being examples of such.
Would honestly prefer a Slav rework to a Chinese rework to help Slavs stand out a little more - they currently feel like an awkward midpoint of the Celts and Bulgarians.
Considering that they got a massive change in the DoI patch in the form of a new UT (that's still moronic because the stone reduction doesn't fix their shit towers) I doubt they'd be given an overhaul so soon.
>That's still moronic because the stone reduction doesn't fix their shit towers
Literally who gives a shit about towers, stone cheaper castles is the only thing that matters
Exactly. There's no point in applying the discount to towers if the drvs are completely unwilling to buff them elsewhere.
Thats a dumb reasoning, just because they are not good doesnt mean they shouldnt be affected by the UT
Slavs problem is the devs keep trying to pretend infantry civs aren't shit, even after all the recent infantry buffs there's no realistic situation where you'd go infantry over literally anything else, unless you're goths
Also it doesn't make much sense for slavs to be an infantry civ to begin with, with poland / bulgaria existing it's easier to narrow slavs down to russians, who're most well known for either quantity > quality (which is the goths niche), construction (you can make them into a byz style defensive civ) or relatively early successful adoption of gunpowder (bohemians)
you're right about slavs lacking flavour and niche because all the historic niches they could take are already taken, although the devs had already did a great job inventing new civs for the same niche (like poland / lithuania sharing anti armor / cav focus, or france / burgundy both being heavy cav civs without feeling the same at all)
>there's no realistic situation where you'd go infantry over literally anything else
Against enemy cavalry
I should clarify I meant champions / samurai / jaguars, spears are great
>tfw always wanted switzerland with a 'swiss pikeman' upgrade over halberdier
>Sams and Jags
Eeeeeeeeh they get wrecked by heavy cavalry for my tastes, which is why I will always favour Berserks over the rest of infantry UU
Samurai are probably the most niche UU in the game, and it's not common enough for said niche to show up (infantry UUs or weak UUs in general) that I'd say Samurai suck right now.
As much as I'm biased against archers, I'm hoping the addition of Rathas would inspire FE to rework Samurai into what they were supposed to be before AoE II even came out, where they could switch between melee & ranged. If that doesn't happen, then I doubt Sams can ever be good without losing their anti-UU gimmick.
>UU has to be an archer in order to be good
Clown world
huscarl?
boyar?
conquistador / thrown axeman? (idk if they counts as archer)
berserker?
hussite wagon?
cataphract?
lithuanian / burgundian horse?
>lithuanian / burgundian horse?
Leitis and Konnik
Also whats the veredict about Hussite Wagons? How accepted by the community rn?
>burgundian
Goddamm it, Coustillier, Konniks are the Bulgarian ones
oh yeah I forgot konnik existed, they are also a great unit.
maybe they can fix samurai by giving it something like those new unique units, like when they attack for the first time every 40 seconds they run up to the enemy with a big speed boost, and/or when they die they do a trample spin attack
I'll only accept that if they go full weeb and drag their sword through the ground while they charge. It'd be gay as frick but I'd love to see it.
>Also whats the veredict about Hussite Wagons? How accepted by the community rn?
Micro-heavy and requires one to know what he's doing. Excellent test of skill and knowledge.
Unless you're an Arena clown, in which case it's just broken.
They're a solid unit, but I feel like there's missed potential in them being sorta like Trebuchets, where they have to be packed to move and unpacked to fire. I would've made them something like tanky, accurate Hand Cannoneers when unpacked, but right now they're pretty fun to use.
>but I feel like there's missed potential in them being sorta like Trebuchets
This would've been so much more interesting, they could've been like mobile unpackable towers that shoot more projectiles when garrisoned by archers or hand cannoneers. It would also make more sense given their historical usage. Still, props to the devs for their damage soaking gimmick.
>I would've made them something like tanky, accurate Hand Cannoneers when unpacked, but right now they're pretty fun to use.
That's what Organ Guns should be.
They're better than this right now. They can completely absorb building arrows, spread damage taken, and contribute against any unit type. If you have a bunch of crossbows, a monk, and a villager in the middle of the enemy base, surrounded by farms and TCs, you are living the dream.
Organ guns should actually fire a volley of projectiles. Right now they just fire a single real one.
>Organ guns should actually fire a volley of projectiles.
Right now, they're just somewhat-tanky Hand Cannoneers. I'm fine with that.
Not necessarily. Archers may be broken but there's a solid chunk of melee UUs that're in a good spot right now.
>Cataphracts demolish Pikes & American civs
>Woad Raiders are excellent raiders and TC takers
>Huskarls
>Berserks are nearly unstoppable when fully invested
>Kamayuks are great support units who can mow down cavalry
>Magyar Huszars are better trash than Winged Hussars
>Boyars are extremely tanky against opposing cavalry, and AFAIK can even take on generic Camels
>Konniks deal tons of damage
>Serjeants can be massed easily and are hard to take down
>HERE COMES ANOTHER POLISH EARTHQUAKE OBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBU
>Ghulams are basically a cross between Eagles & Huskarls
It's not hard to make a good non-ranged UU, it's just that infantry in general gets overshadowed by a bunch of factors.
>>HERE COMES ANOTHER POLISH EARTHQUAKE OBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBUBU
>Samurai are probably the most niche UU in the game
You see them sometimes in 1v1 games. I've never seen the Persian war elephant outside of me playing around in single player.
three kingdoms campaign for Chinese
>b-b-b-but it's outside of the time period
the Chinese literally don't even get a single gunpowder unit, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference
Anyone here rated between 1k and 1.2k and fancy fighting 4 shitters all controlling the same civ?
Still looking, anybody interested? This isn't something you'd get to try every day and we'd rather not fight some rando Chink or whatever.
4 players on the same civ is not something that will work, 2 players on the same civ will work, I can try this weekend I guess
>4 players on the same civ is not something that will work
Sure it would, we're not good enough to really handle more than 1/3rd of a base at a time so it almost makes us into one functioning player. We tried it with 3 of us vs a rando and I thought it was great, divvying up the tasks and I got to actually focus on shit without being worried everything else was falling to bits.
Unless you homies are in voice chat or with a hardcore pre plan I highly doubt work, but at low elo everything can work I suppose
>Unless you homies are in voice chat
Why the frick wouldn't we be in voice chat together? We're a group of 4 shitters who play together, that's like one of the first requirements for such a thing.
Alright fair enough
6762835
My friend code btw, so I can get you into the group.
One of you, come online right now. Only guy in queue has Arabia banned.
>Only guy in queue has Arabia banned
I also ban arabia.
Then stay offline or play AoE4 or something.
No.
1vs1 me on arabia, huns war, no walls mod.
>1vs1 me on arabia
Queue u--
>huns war
Why?
>no walls mod.
Are you that moron who's been haunting the threads since the launch of DE with 30-pop scrushes, wondering why his opponent keeps walling him out?
>Are you that moron who's been haunting the threads since the launch of DE with 30-pop scrushes, wondering why his opponent keeps walling him out?
No, I'm the infantrygay.
Also no walls mod hun wars in arabia is the ultimate test of skill.
Do you accept or not? Gotta go soon tho
Hun wars no walls mod? No. 1v1 Arabia? Yes.
Weakling.
69 somewhere else.
You should 1vs1 me instead, except Black Forest Vikings only on Voobly and no rush 15..
Get out of here, Fastslob.
>Only guy in queue has Arabia banned.
based, i'd rather play with him
I hate archers and women
I love MAA's and men
Wait a mom-
>China is not split if you keep China and add non Chinese civs
He means the Chinese umbrella, not the Chinese polity.
There is no Chinese umbrella. China represents the Han Chinese, which is one civ, just like all the other civs, except for Indians before DOI was released.
>There is no Chinese umbrella.
It represents every Sinic culture and ethnicity that isn't already in the game.
>China represents the Han Chinese, which is one civ
And it also represents all of the other Chinese ethnicities.
>just like all the other civs, except for Indians before DOI was released.
All three of the African civs are umbrella civs. So are the Mongols, Tatars, and Saracens, though the first two are fine like that.
>It represents every Sinic culture and ethnicity that isn't already in the game.
Who?
Many of them are extreme minorities now, due to the recent population boom, but Zhuang, Hui, Khampas, and Manchu would all work.
Forgot to add Bai, the best option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_people#History
"Yunnanese"?
The Zhuang are not Chinese in any way, they are Tai.
The Hui are just ethnic Han Chinese who married with silk road traders and became muslim, so yeah, they're part of the Chinese civ we have in the game.
Honestly I've never heard of Khampas, but they appear to be Tibetan, who are not Chinese but an entirely different civ.
Manchus are not Chinese, they're also an entirely different civ.
I suppose you might be right about Bai.
Yi are not Han.
Anyway you're confusing the historical meaning of Chinese with the modern political meaning of Chinese. Zhuang, Tibetans, Manchus, Yi, Tanguts and Mongols are not Chinese. All of these civs, except for Mongols who you didn't mention, are currently unrepresented in the game.
>Anyway you're confusing the historical meaning of Chinese with the modern political meaning of Chinese.
"Chinese" as a word is nonsense to me.
More realistically you'd have the Yuan, Han(current Chinese) and the Song.
There would be zero point to having Mongols and Yuan in the same game.
Also, Han is an ethnicity. Song was one of their dynasties. The Han dynasty is too far back for this game.
AOE 1 is on sale, is it any fun?
Its aoe1 with a new brand coat of paint and a few QoL changes.
If you liked aoe1 before, you will like it, same thing applies otherwise.
remove sicilians (normans) but add sicilians (actually sicilians)
remove bohemians but add serbians or albanians
remove bulgarians but add wallachians
remove burgundians but add swiss
>sicilians (actually sicilians)
What would you change?
Dude just go MAA rush, pull vills to bring down the donjons, if the guy commits to Serjeants just get supply and overwhelm his serjeants
>supply
Just get supply (sic) bro, every civ has it after all.
Normans were the wienerroaches of Europe anyway
Thirisadaibros....... how do we do the needful?
>https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Thirisadai
>However, that article has been debunked by a Reddit user because the references cited by that article didn't mention Thirisadai at all.[5] As a result, that Wikipedia article has been edited so the article (as of 25 May 2022) no longer mentioning Thirisadai.
It should be deleted from the game
once again the "rationalist" söyredditor is the murderer of perfectly good legend and folk mythos
>UHHH DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT????
The day Reddit dies is the day we shall have peace
>some dude makes up a fictional wiki article
>folk mythos
The worst thing to me is how the devs are basically just going to wikipedia to learn about those civs in order to think up bonuses.
Not like it's the only made up UU in the game.
Whats moronic is the actual ship classes the Cholas used are named on one of Rajendras copper plates which is the best first hand source you could get but they used a fricking wiki article for research instead of speaking to actual historians or archeologists.
Supposedly other recent media had used it as well, but also coming from the wikipedia article.
What I don't understand is why it was made up in the first place?
What other recent media?
'Ancient friends' from the roadmap refers to AoM: DE, I thought it's obvious
If that's the case, then why would it be in AoE II's roadmap?
>I WON'T build multiple TCs
>I DON'T need loom. I can protect my villagers.
>I WILL research herbal medicine
>I WILL research supplies for my pikemen
>I WON'T make skirmishers. They are weak.
>I WILL make nothing but Teutonic Knights. They are the coolest unit
1tc all-in is legit, i do it every match
>Start going M@A into Archers
>Win more
>Start opening archers more over scouts
>Win more
I have become what I hate..
I suck with archer civs, they're so slow to walk across the map, can't break down house walls/get shut down by towers in feudal, then in castle age are too slow to defend against raids if they're out of position, and then you look away for 10 seconds and a mangonel hits them. I know they're good, OP even with castle age power spike, so how do you use them more effectively? Always find cav/seige to be more reliable with skirm support in feudal
>play Japanese
>open archers
>play Vikings
>open archers
>play Celts
>open archers
>play Magyars
>open archers
>play Franks
>open archers
hahaha... hahahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Magyars are a sleeper flank pick.
>FU Arbs
>Best CA in the game
*Blocks your path
Not that anon but can't Spanish just do maa trush archers fc into conq? A conq is a type of archer
How do you use archers? When do you stop making skrims?
>How do you use archers
Learn to micro.
>Making skirms
A refined archer build order requires no skirms since you'll have the army lead.
>low elo legend dumpstering Anon
Love to see it. Let them play how they want.
Honestly I hope you guys are wrong about splitting China. I have no interest in the region and I feel like it isn't that necessary. I would much rather see devs adding completely new nations than taking existing ones apart.
>Why only Persians? Can't we consider all the AOK and AOC civs to be ancient friends?
What I was referring to was that the Persians are an ancient civ, not that they are an original civ.
The other AOK civs didn't just pop out of thin air at the start of the medieval ages, and the Persians didn't disappear, they're still around today. A Chinese Three Kingdoms campaign is just as likely as a Persian campaign set in antiquity. Why would they anounce only 1 campaign when there are several civs that still need one? It doesn't make sense.
They only make one campaign for old civs at a time to go with the new civ campaigns. The new civs are always the selling points of the DLC. See Britons in Lords of the West.
Sure, LOTW and DOTD did that, but DOI broke that trend. At this rate we still have a shitton of DLCs coming our way, which makes me think a campaign pack for multiple civs is more likely than that they just put one campaign on the roadmap.
>DOI broke that trend
No it didn't
Yes it did, what the hell are you talking about?
I think he's referring to the Indians/Hindustanis being "campaignless" after Gurjaras got the Prithviraj campaign, then getting the Babur campaign? Extremely shitty logic though?
How is it shitty logic?
Prithviraj is not part of the dlc nor is Hindustani (Indians)
There are 2 campaigns in the dlc for new civs and 1 for an old one just like previous dlc.
Yes the dlc added 3 civs but we are talking about campaigns
And yet, the best civs are still from the pre-DE era, and even mostly from AoK. Funny, that.
True
There will still never be a Japanese campaign though
aoe2 threads sure are weird
It's just one schizo off his meds, from time to time happens
kys moron
I don't say GG win or lose.
>Get higher elo
>Queue time gets longer and longer
>Teams just as shit
2k is suffering
welcome to literally every ranked mode in literally every game ever made
outside the top 5% and the bottom 5% the only thing that noticeably goes up is the dunning kruger effect
>Teams just as shit
Get friends to play with, loneliness is suffering.
Qutlugh has such a cool voice and accent, I think I've heard it somewhere before, have they listed out voice actor names somewhere?
Finally, mongolian horse archer gf
>Steppe nomad waifu
Y E S
Babur I'm going to frick your mom
How do most people play AoE2? Team games, ranked 1v1s, arenas, campaigns, comp stomp vs ai??
I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure it's the last two.
campaigns, then compstomps, then team games, then ranked 1vs1s
Depends on what you mean, sheer player percentage? Definitely compstomps and campaigns. But online community presence is definitely majority competitive multiplayer people
wew lad
Post elo
860
congrats morons now I can't bump the thread anymore
Make a new one then, gayballs.
1200 but I feel lazy and I drop to 900 everytiem
Team Elo is about 730, I refuse to play 1vs1.