Why did you give up on kino of empires 3? It has the perfect sweat-to-gameplay ratio.
None of the "place a pixel perfect palisade box around your vils in case of harassment or gg out" silliness.
Macro is smaller scale and yet still has a big impact. Early, mid and late game are very clear cut and distinct. It's a really well designed RTS that manages to both utilize rock-paper-scissors counters AND make it not shit and have actual depth to it.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Game is too artificial. Too reliant on damage multipliers and %-based number improvements. Lacks the stone resource, limits where you can place defenses, makes those defenses worthless, and the whole game just comes down to figuring out where you are on the counter wheel to determine exactly how effectively you kill villagers.
>Too reliant on damage multipliers and %-based number improvements.
Holy frick this. Vanilla was manageable, but all the expansions added so many fricking unique units that it was impossible to keep track of what counters what.
>game has TOO MUCH content
He's saying they don't organize the information well.
That's not true. The unit counters are still quite orderly and unique counters are more rare than in AoE2. Also unlike in AoE2, you actually get to see tooltips that tell you all the armor classes (e.g. light cavalry) of the selected unit and what armor classes it counters.
It's true that the base game had this super legible light cav/heavy cav/light inf/heavy inf/artillery counter system, but it's doesn't take that long to figure out in the current state either. The game has a well-maintained wikia too.
If the original was overwhelming to you, than you should know that DE has far more stuff in it, including cards. It's definitely for players who experimenting a lot, just like when I spent a whole month doing nothing but trying different chink builds.
duality of man
>That's not true. The unit counters are still quite orderly and unique counters are more rare than in AoE2. Also unlike in AoE2, you actually get to see tooltips that tell you all the armor classes (e.g. light cavalry) of the selected unit and what armor classes it counters.
>It's true that the base game had this super legible light cav/heavy cav/light inf/heavy inf/artillery counter system, but it's doesn't take that long to figure out in the current state either. The game has a well-maintained wikia too.
True. I've played plenty of Wars of Liberty, so I know. I personally disagree with the game's simplicity.
No kidding. WoL adds multiple layers of complexity to a game that was already quite a handful to some so I can see how you could be unimpressed by the unmodded game.
The wiki isn't great, though, and it gets some things wrong. Also most of the strategy tips are kinda outdated. That's why you instead use Hellpunch's website. https://aoe3-companion.web.app has everything up to date. The UI is slick and the information is organized brilliantly.
Website is made by Dori moron
It's not the most readable thing in the world but it's still intuitive enough. Melee polearms counter cavalry, melee swords counter infantry. Muskets and spears counter cavalry, rifles and bows counter infantry. Swords and lances counter infantry, carbines and pistols counter cavalry. Artillery is not well telegraphed, though. Culverins are still the most awkward and stupid unit of all time.
I think people expect there to be 3 unit types when there's really 8, which is a function of setting the game in an era where guns and melee weapons mix so freely.
>It's not the most readable thing in the world but it's still intuitive enough.
We're talking about everything EXCEPT the counter relationships.
Which is more cost-effective in a melee engagement against Sepoys: Rajputs, or Hussars? How many Samurai are going to come out of your opponent's barrack within the next 20 seconds? How many vills does it take to sustain cuirassier production out of a single stable?
>Which is more cost-effective in a melee engagement against Sepoys: Rajputs, or Hussars?
rajputs
>How many Samurai are going to come out of your opponent's barrack within the next 20 seconds?
have you been raiding? How long and how successfully? What resources are you sure you denied the most? Or are you going to clown on me and say something like "durr in AoE2 they come out one by one every time this is better because its simplified for my peabrain!!!! u mad lel"
>How many vills does it take to sustain cuirassier production out of a single stable?
dont play the french so cant tell you. But you do realize this isnt black magic or secret masonic knowledge? If you played the game youd figure it out real quick. But youre just here to trash a different game because its different like the rest of the bored rabid AoE2 morons ITT
>rajputs
Right. I should've used another heavy infantry unit for comparison.
>have you been raiding? How long and how successfully? What resources are you sure you denied the most?
Suppose there's only been light raiding.
>Or are you going to clown on me and say something like "durr in AoE2 they come out one by one every time this is better because its simplified for my peabrain!!!!
No, I'll clown on you and say 10-pop's worth of units shouldn't come out of one building in about 30 seconds.
>dont play the french so cant tell you. But you do realize this isnt black magic or secret masonic knowledge? If you played the game youd figure it out real quick.
Here, I'm both poking fun at AoE3's absurd throughput values and asking because knowledge of cost and training time never comes up in these discussions. It's always waved off for being "different", as though AoE2 alone could be such a behemoth that novelty would carry its sequel.
>But youre just here to trash a different game because its different like the rest of the bored rabid AoE2 morons ITT
I'm here to explain what I meant when I answered earlier.
It's not about content. I'd be fine if enemies looked like they can do what they do but truly what's the visual difference between anti-building canon and anti-siege canon? They behave completely different but look the same.
Same issue with infantry. At a glance, after tons of upgrades, muskets (heavy infantry) and skirmishers (light infantry) may look very similar but they counter one another. That's kind of shitty design all over
Melee units also behave stupidly, with worse pathing than AoM.
>if enemies looked like they can do what they do
AoE 2 has about as much clarity. In both games it takes a good while to learn what counters what. 3 at least is somewhat organized and consistent with its unit types.
>anti-building canon (sic) and anti-siege canon
I don't know how you can get the mortar and culverin mixed up but again, if everything looks the same to you it surely is a matter of inexperience (or poor eyesight) and everything gets easier to understand the more you play.
>mortar and culverin
Sorry I meant anti-infantry canon, Falconet, I played a translated version as a kid and still get the english names wrong.
>AoE 2 has about as much clarity.
AoE2 is 90% equivalent units, 10% unique units. Regional units aren't that much spicy to change things too much beyond bare minimum. Units never deal negative damage to one another and are only strong against 1 unit type with only UU exceptions.
>3 at least is somewhat organized and consistent with its unit types.
And these unit types are weird as shit. How is the rodelero strong against cavalry? Literally why? no logic in this. Also no logic in Cavalry archers dealing negative damage to villagers other than to balance out raiding? Those are gameplay changes addressed at 'fixing' the outcomes of AoE2 shortcomings instead of building up from it.
>and are only strong against 1 unit type with only UU exceptions.
Skirms, spears, scorpions, mangonels, knights, archers...
Most units can work against multiple unit types rather well.
Skirms are only good against archers. Bonus vs pikes makes sense as pikes are inherently weak against range.
Spears are only good against cavalry.
Scorpions being strong against elephants is weird but most of the time it's doing its intended damage
Mangos only have bonus damage against builds IIRC
Knights literally have no bonus damage whatsoever. Just like Archers.
>Skirms are only good against archers.
Archers, cav archers, spears, and potentially swords if they miss the last armor upgrade.
>Spears are only good against cavalry.
Cavalry, cav archers, and siege when in melee range.
>Scorpions being strong against elephants is weird but most of the time it's doing its intended damage
Scorpions are strong against archers, skirms, infantry out of melee range, and anything prone to massing in small spaces.
>Mangos only have bonus damage against builds IIRC
And siege, but they have immense baseline damage, making them strong against everything except cavalry and things that outrange them.
>Knights literally have no bonus damage whatsoever. Just like Archers.
And, due to their stats, they still bowl over most of the game's units, to the point that these two are considered to be the pillars of the game's meta, and the easiest source of "GGs" in AoE2.
there's merit to what you're saying, but in DE culverins, howitzers, and falconets are very easily distinguishable. The only duo that I'd understand people can struggle with is falconet and european heavy cannon as it's mostly just a slightly different shade of grey and shape of the tip
>And these unit types are weird as shit. How is the rodelero strong against cavalry?
and how is a dirty smelly padded armor camel rider with a scimitar/cutlass stronger than trained european knights in half or full plate? Let's not pretend AoE2 is based in logic or realism lmao, you just played more of it and are more familiar with its mechanics and design quirks
>Units never deal negative damage to one another
>Those are gameplay changes addressed at 'fixing' the outcomes of AoE2 shortcomings instead of building up from it.
so it's bad because it's not AoE2, OK. But it's also bad because it introduces additional armor types (building up melee/ranged armor mechanic from AoE2) in the form of damage multipliers, thus providing more variety in overall strategy and approach to each matchup? Again, sounds like you're just mad it's a different game and are unwilling to learn about it like you did with AoE2
NTA.
>and how is a dirty smelly padded armor camel rider with a scimitar/cutlass stronger than trained european knights in half or full plate?
It isn't. You can see in that stats that it's a worse unit in most contexts. It just counters knights because camels frick up horse instincts.
>so it's bad because it's not AoE2, OK. But it's also bad because it introduces additional armor types (building up melee/ranged armor mechanic from AoE2) in the form of damage multipliers
Damage multipliers are too severe in this game. It makes everything part of a hard counter relationship because it wants to be Rise of Nations.You have less overall options for approaching a given problem, and each option has less lasting importance since you're not just throwing power units at each other and adding counters to stifle them.
>You have less overall options for approaching a given problem, and each option has less lasting importance since you're not just throwing power units at each other and adding counters to stifle them.
anon if you played a single multiplayer game of AoE3 you'd understand you've got everything backwards. You're criticizing the design principles on paper without putting them in practice.
Shit goes wrong all the time. All 3 of your falconets get sniped when you're macroing. You can very rarely afford the optimal unit comp. Techs, units and BUILDINGS are very expensive and resources are very limited. You mostly get to invest in one "core" unit type, and that goes for upgrades AND cards, which accumulated also cost a frick ton of resources. Upgraded Guard musketeers with arsenal buffs don't actually have much of a problem with any regular or veteran skirmishers, which on paper are a hard counter. Nor do they struggle against hussars.
Upgraded archaic pikemen in staggered formation can in fact eat a ton of damage from artillery in front of your advancing guns, while your guns get in position or cav rushes to attack their flank.
You CAN snipe culverins with falconets. You CAN chip away at giant armies with mortars forcing them to charge or retreat.
Unit supply is also very limiting, you can rarely field 100 troops as a european civ without fricking over your macro sustainability late game.
I have a hard time grasping the
>Damage multipliers are too severe in this game
argument when AoE2 halberdiers erase cavalry in seconds, and onagers erase armies in seconds due to humongous area of effect and god knows what else. They're really not too severe, or you're sending veterans against imperials and cursing the game because the power gap is so big. Maybe this is your actual problem with the game?
>anon if you played a single multiplayer game of AoE3 you'd understand you've got everything backwards. You're criticizing the design principles on paper without putting them in practice.
I've played AoE3 for a good while now. Mainly back in 2017 and 18.
>Shit goes wrong all the time. All 3 of your falconets get sniped when you're macroing. You can very rarely afford the optimal unit comp. Techs, units and BUILDINGS are very expensive and resources are very limited. You mostly get to invest in one "core" unit type, and that goes for upgrades AND cards, which accumulated also cost a frick ton of resources. Upgraded Guard musketeers with arsenal buffs don't actually have much of a problem with any regular or veteran skirmishers, which on paper are a hard counter. Nor do they struggle against hussars.
So, if you give one unit an overwhelming tech advantage, if manages to survive attacks from its counter? Tell me something new.
>Upgraded archaic pikemen in staggered formation can in fact eat a ton of damage from artillery in front of your advancing guns, while your guns get in position or cav rushes to attack their flank.
Fair.
>You CAN snipe culverins with falconets.
That's a misplay.
>You CAN chip away at giant armies with mortars forcing them to charge or retreat.
Or to just tank the hit.
>Unit supply is also very limiting, you can rarely field 100 troops as a european civ without fricking over your macro sustainability late game.
That's not saying much at all. You can do a lot with just 12 guys.
>argument when AoE2 halberdiers erase cavalry in seconds, and onagers erase armies in seconds due to humongous area of effect and god knows what else
Halbs are the game's dedicated hard-counter against cavalry, unable to force engagements, and oftentimes unable to win decisively against Paladins. Mangonels don't rely on damage multipliers to win, except against certain siege units. Most of it's just raw melee damage.
>They're really not too severe, or you're sending veterans against imperials and cursing the game
No, the counters really are just very dramatic.
It's not often a matter of open, legible stats. Units (esp. my main: Chinese) will do tiny amounts of damage at times because of armor class issues, even when upgraded.
I don't play Chinese, could you elaborate on that a bit? Do you mean all units?
Chu-kos, Qiangs, Keshiks, flamethrowers...
Many units that could just be generally threatening are only threatening to certain unit types. Your damage gets cut by 2/3rds just for attacking cavalry with a skirmisher, without regard for armor or techs.
>and how is a dirty smelly padded armor camel rider with a scimitar/cutlass stronger than trained european knights in half or full plate?
Camels scare the shit out of horses. Look it up. It's impressive. They don't even have to be near each other.
>AoE2 is 90% equivalent units
It has loads of non-obvious stuff, tho. Monks counter cavalry (much better than pikes, too) but for some reason fail against a specific type of cavalry. You have siege units that aren't so good in siege warfare - like mangonel that sucks against static defenses, especially castles, even though in most games catapults are used primarily for that.
>Regional units aren't that much spicy to change things
You have infantry that eats archers, cavalry that destroys infantry, archers that shred cavalry, and just about anything else. Now there's even units that can dodge or change attack modes. What's next, fast elephants that resist conversion?
>Units never deal negative damage
AoE2 has units that deal negligible damage to stuff they don't counter, like the pathetically weak spearmen who lose to villagers with loom, or petards whose explosions harm solid walls more than soft flesh.
>How is the rodelero strong against cavalry
All heavy infantry units are consistently strong against cavalry.
>no logic in Cavalry archers dealing negative damage to villagers other than to balance out raiding?
Is there any logic in quickwalling other than balancing against raiding?
>It has loads of non-obvious stuff, tho.
And you learn it. Most of the tech tree is shared between civs, and they have one or two UUs, then maybe a few regional units.
>You have infantry that eats archers, cavalry that destroys infantry, archers that shred cavalry, and just about anything else. Now there's even units that can dodge or change attack modes. What's next, fast elephants that resist conversion?
All of those are unique units, tied to a particular civ.
>AoE2 has units that deal negligible damage to stuff they don't counter, like the pathetically weak spearmen who lose to villagers with loom, or petards whose explosions harm solid walls more than soft flesh.
Because trash can't push until imperial, and petards are countered by non-buildings/siege.
>Is there any logic in quickwalling other than balancing against raiding?
Impromptu battlefield construction.
>>Is there any logic in quickwalling other than balancing against raiding?
>Impromptu battlefield construction.
Oh please. Cope.
I know your thing is being an AoE2 noob and all, but that's a big part of playing archers against cav, and one of Bohemia's biggest advantages.
>And you learn it.
...same could be said for AoE3?
>All of those are unique units, tied to a particular civ.
same could be said for AoE3?
>Because trash can't push until imperial, and petards are countered by non-buildings/siege
and how are these grounded in logic and realism again?
>Impromptu battlefield construction.
now you're just trolling, frick off lmao go stick a conjured in seconds palisade up your arse
>THE MONGOLS ARE COMING!
>QUICK! BUILD AN ENTIRE FRICKING WOODEN FORT WHILE THEY'RE CHARGING DOWNHILL!
>...same could be said for AoE3?
No, it couldn't, because every civ's roster is made up of UUs, varied in timing, stats, and costs.
>same could be said for AoE3?
For some units, yes. However, there's a significant difference in number there.
>and how are these grounded in logic and realism again?
Not my claim.
>now you're just trolling, frick off lmao go stick a conjured in seconds palisade up your arse
50 Paladins charging an army of 75 arbs is already silly for a war between nations. The timescale isn't quite the same, and cavalrymen weren't historically immune to arrow-fire.
Quickwalling is dumb but the only 'fix' would be houses being garissonable. Still better to quickwall (use of clear and obvious game mechanics in unexpected ways) than hidden attack penalties that make people gathering resources tougher than a military man + his horse.
>no Joshua, you can't turn that into a barcade
>Game is too artificial. Too reliant on damage multipliers and %-based number improvements
This is the dumbest complaint when it's used as a comparison to AoE2 with its skirmishers that counter archers and spearmen that can't kill villagers
>Trash units are dedicated counters, and useless for trash-only pushing
Who could've guessed?
>it's fine to have video game arcade logic in AoE2 because.... it just is!
Yes. Ultimately, it is a game.
It's pretty rare that instead of flattening the civ differences for the sake of balance, they made them more diverse and continue to do so. Like when they tinkered with the Germans and Ottomans and how the Russians (and the Russian consulate) will get tweaks the upcoming update. The amount of content the game has received is ridiculous.
i ike it but i get bored of it really quick
it's actually my favorite AOE game cuz it tried something different, but it seems so complicated with all the cards and whatnot my brain explodes
yknow what
frick it, im gonna learn it
which version should i use? definitive edition?
get DE for new content and balance changes.
Cards are completely reworked. Everything is unlocked from the get go and youre allowed to build a deck suiting your strats best.Theres also a bunch of premade ones to get you started
I should also mention AoE3 is one of the few games that actually hugely benefit from temporal AA. FXAA looks like utter dogshit and no one should subject themselves to it
>which version should i use? definitive edition?
>actually thinking about paying for censorship
KWAB
They introduced some changed to the DE to make it more "culturally appropriate"
The brunt of changes were on the Lakota campaign, as for actual gameplay, aside from some name changes the Iroquois and Lakota have to build a cheap building on the mines that 'mines' it by selling pelts. The game has been constantly updated, the new voices they had for the those two were horrible but now they have changed. That's also another thing, constant changes, new units and mechanics being introduced via patches, which I guess make competitive snobs mad.
the idea of competitive snobs for a game as shitty for competitive play as AoE3 is pretty funny
That partly the reason I like this game, it seems to be subtly giving modern esports mindset players the middle finger. It wants to have a bunch of different civilizations for players to try out and have FUN while doing it, not being on some dog-eat-dog competition.
Same. Balancing your game purely for competitive is an excellent way to kill it by removing all the fun for the casual players. It happened to both Siege and Overwatch. Siege in particular removed every single high-risk high-reward strat, because anytime one got used in the pro scene, all the pro players would b***h and whine about it, ignoring how easy the strategy is to counter.
I'm glad AoE3 seems to be leaning into the idea that casual players should be allowed to have fun. It's a game I keep coming back to, even though I suck at RTS in general.
>It wants to have a bunch of different civilizations for players to try out and have FUN while doing it
It has less than AoE2, and the lack of tight gameplay makes the differences that do exist, meaningless.
AoE2 has one civilisation, you have the option to switch your special unit and building aesthetic
Anon, you know how the tech tree has all of these funny words on the side of the page?
Literate people can understand those.
>so? AoE2 civs are all the same with 5% bonus here and there
Anon, look at the page and pretend you're a sentient human.
>t. seething aoe2 autist who never played the game and came to a thread about a different game and is mad it's not aoe2
I play regularly. OP asked why I gave up on AoE3, so I gave my feedback and participated in the rest of the thread.
>steppe lancer
>elite steppe lancer
OK anon you got me! That's two whole unique units for 1 civ. Wow.
>OP asked why I gave up on AoE3, so I gave my feedback and participated in the rest of the thread.
but you're saying things that are simply untrue and baity af. Every battle in AoE3 is tight as frick and often decided with good cannon shots or cav flanks, especially large team ones.
And if you played for more than 15 minutes 10 years ago, you'd realize the differences between civs are actually much, much bigger than in AoE2. Archers/trash is always an option in AoE2 for every civ, this isn't the case in AoE3.
>b-but I can't do X and Y!
but you can do other things you couldn't in AoE2... because it's a different game. And it isn't worse for the "arguments" you provide
>Steppe Lancer
>Unique
I can't even be angry. Just disgusted.
>but you're saying things that are simply untrue and baity af. Every battle in AoE3 is tight as frick and often decided with good cannon shots or cav flanks
I'm talking about the overall game, not just mid/late battles. This means the process of obtaining resources, early skirmishes, map control, and the relationship between all parts of the game.
>And if you played for more than 15 minutes 10 years ago
I still play Wars of Liberty and 3DE now. Started almost a decade ago. Both games are dumb fun.
>Archers/trash is always an option in AoE2 for every civ, this isn't the case in AoE3.
Spanish, Bulgarians, Slavs, Turks, Burmese, Gurjaras, and all of the Meso civs disagree.
>but you can do other things you couldn't in AoE2... because it's a different game. And it isn't worse for the "arguments" you provide
You respond without understanding me, AoE2, or AoE3. This is painful.
They look the same, but don't function the same. This is easily contrasted with AoE3 and its many units, but few unit types.
>You respond without understanding me, AoE2, or AoE3. This is painful.
Anon... you respond without understanding me, AoE2, or AoE3. This is painful.
>This is easily contrasted with AoE3 and its many units, but few unit types.
>I never played the game, btw
And then take into consideration the 100 different upgrades and cards that benefit different unit types, selectively.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't.
>I never played the game, btw
I'm sure you haven't. You don't have to look long at the unit descriptions to find significant overlap in function between them. You have your heavy infantry (both melee and ranged), you have skirms, you have either hand cav or light infantry, you have heavy cav, you have dragoons, you have anti-foot siege, you have anti-building siege, you have anti-siege siege, and then you have the special explorer/merc/spy/native units.
Where AoE2 has 1 unit that encapsulates what would be an entire unit class in AoE3, then lets civs modify those or use a UU for it, AoE3 wastes design space by making additional units serving much the same purpose, even in the same roster (China esp.).
>And then take into consideration the 100 different upgrades and cards that benefit different unit types, selectively.
Yeah, and those would be the things that matter. The units themselves are close to generic, and no one is memorizing all UU matchups.
>You have no idea what you're talking about.
You aren't even thinking. You're running from what we both know and it's just disgusting.
>You don't have to look long at the unit descriptions to find significant overlap in function between them
OH MY GOD JUST play the fricking game you drooling moron and see for yourself how different unit types interact with each other. P.S. playing against Easy AI and amassing 1 unit type is not playing the game. And would you stop moving the fricking goalposts?
>Where AoE2 has 1 unit that encapsulates what would be an entire unit class in AoE3
and that's good... because?
>AoE3 wastes design space by making additional units
you're a moron. It's a good thing you don't make or design these games
>The units themselves are close to generic, and no one is memorizing all UU matchups
you're a moron. Stop posting
>OH MY GOD JUST play the fricking game you drooling moron and see for yourself how different unit types interact with each other.
You can read, right?
>and that's good... because?
Readability, and it means there's actual variation instead of surface-level differences.
>you're a moron. It's a good thing you don't make or design these games
Deal with it, moron.
>you're a moron. Stop posting
Notice how this is all you've been able to do? You can't refute it, so you just call me dumb.
absolute state of AoE2lets
only in a game where every civ is nothing more than a minor modification of the same basic civ will you see Tatars with visibly European zweihander-wielders
>It has less than AoE2
so? AoE2 civs are all the same with 5% bonus here and there, and a single special unit that is usually too shitty and expensive to use in the meta
>lack of tight gameplay
t. seething aoe2 autist who never played the game and came to a thread about a different game and is mad it's not aoe2
go play arabia 1v1 already, T90 is streaming soon!
They also included a handy message when you log in to let you know what a piece of shit you were for enjoying it in 2005.
what a normal person sees
>We have replaced inaccurate or stereotypical depictions, created new voiceover using authentic speakers, and addressed problematic and harmful mechanics and storylines.
what a poltard sees
>What a piece of shit you were for enjoying it in 2005, huh? Btw WHITE PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE! HAIL Black folk! HAIL WAKANDA! DEATH TO WHITE PEOPLE! WHITE GENOCIDE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE MUST REPLACE ALL WHITE PEOPLE WITH Black folk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
are the poltard in the room with us right now?
yes officer he's right here in this thread
I swear he made me do it!
here's your meds, citizen
i'm a poltard and im offended by your post. Apologise
>actually, censorship is a good thing and here's why
a shekel for the good goy
> To wit, we have added white ethnostates as Revolution options.
Ehh. Reworking natives so they don't get bonuses by doing magical dances around a fire was fine. Renaming plantations to estates and changing it from cotton to something else was just petty revisionism, but I think it was the only major example.
>Ehh. Reworking natives so they don't get bonuses by doing magical dances around a fire was fine.
dont priests from monasteries heal other units with magical prayers and scepters? at least in aoe2.
No, they carry proper medical supplies.
christcucks don't care when they're spat on by other cultures
In AoE2 they do, they also turn people to you cause by waving a stick at them. It's still silly but it's how everyone works so it doesn't single out magical primitives at least. In AoE3 I think monks explicitly carry medicine and heal by "mundane" means (as much as healing cannonballs in 5 seconds with some herbs is) because that just what monks did.
>Renaming plantations to estates and changing it from cotton to something else was just petty revisionism
Cotton plantations came late in the game's timeframe.
If you don’t find that to be patronising bullshit then you’ll tolerate anything.
>make native american civs more historically accurate in a historical game
>how dare they patronize me! The message isn't about me but I'll find a way to make it about me!
If it was the other way around, that is >plantations are now worked exclusively by Black folk
>Colonial Age renamed to TOTAL Black person DEATH
>injun civs are exclusively ooga chaka weed smoking screeching tomahawk throwers and dart blowers
And the welcome message stayed unchanged, you'd be fricking clapping and rolling around like fat seals, screaming based and redpilled. If you find changes in AoE3DE to be patronizing historical anti-white revisionism, you're unironically too moronic to be a part of society. have a nice day.
Why didn't they rename European and Asian civilizations to their endonyms?
Because Europeans and Asians use those terms themselves. Swedes will even wear cartoonish fantasy viking helmets. Native Americans don't use the names Eurangutans came up with.
I bet actual native descendents don't give a damn is always whites getting offended for them as usual.
Yeah, anon. I bet absolutely no one appreciated devs remembering to use their actual names in a video game.
Why are you getting all "sour grapes" about something like this?
>Why are you getting all "sour grapes" about something like this?
because he's a /misc/tard tourist who would rather go into outrage over a non-issue like changed unit names in a video game, than make white kids and save his masterrace. They cant breed so all they have is this eternal seethe about their projections and headcanons
who do you think was consulted to change these names? Wypipo?
seething leftoid we will never not notice. not playing the pozzed version, i will stick to the original. kys
the definitive edition is a huge improvement
and if the name changes triggers you use the original names mod
How does it compare to WoL?
is not a fan mod made by spics
If homosexuals that think videogames are sports don't like it it must be a good game
PUP datamine shows that the game hasn't been forgotten
>Polish civ
very nice, there's already winged hussars in the game. A cav focused civ to rival french and russians would be great
Well, those are revolt icons, so it'd be less of a new empire than a revolution/some weird consulate thing
Polish revolt. Turns your vills into scythemen. Come on, do it.
more like turn your vills into white Black folk and russian/german wienerholes.
who hurt you?
polaks still living in Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia
you mean historical polish territories where germany had 0 claim throughout all of their moronic history? All those people are long dead, anon
the only claims the poles have are stinky mudhuts and my toilet.
I'm not even a polack, but thanks for confirming all germans are in essence just feral Black folk no different from somalians.
we are feral, but poles are the Black folk
>enters video game thread
>insults an entire nationality for no reason
>claims NOT to be a Black person
doesn't compute
I want to have sex with Fubuki even if we're just friends
>be stinky polaks
>literally dubbed the white Black person of Europe by actual Black folk
>live on lands rightfully owned by Germany for over 100 years
>only got its current border due to russia but also hates russia
>no reason
there has never been a more pathetic group of people than the polaks and their defenders. Poloid Delenda Est.
>live on lands rightfully owned by Germany for over 100 years
it was rightfully owned by polacks for over 1000 though? I don't know anon, it just sounds like you're a seething Black person wannabe german wehraboo. Germany doesn't even exist anymore, your girls are all arab property and you voted for this. You've got nothing to be proud of in life, no achievements, but the geographical location you were born in. Now you're seething about it on an Indochinese flax manufacturing forum.
And to top that off, you obliviously think you're in any position to call anyone else pathetic. Lmao
>frogposter and Black personlover can only think of interracial sex
like clockwork
You forgot
>thinks they can resurrect Poland-Lithuania by buddying up to Americans and the EU
>is surprised when they're forced to adopt l*beral policies by the afforementioned entities
How odd. Mexico gets to be a full-blown civ but not Poland?
On the other hand, just because it's a revolution doesn't mean it won't be added as a civ anyway just like Mexico and USA were, I guess. Polish revolutions could include United States and Haiti.
>Polish revolutions could include United States and Haiti.
>white Black folk magically turning into regular black ones
O ja pierdolę . . .
>revolutions
errrrrr
Wars of Liberty made this game fun
bloat
WoL is so damn unbalanced and the visuals just look so...bleh compared to DE
>Yet another buff for Ottos
>Aztecs STILL don't have a good anti-skirm
Revolt changes are awesome as frick though. If you keep getting rekt as Maltese, maybe age up to get some coin and ship the Totenkopf Allies card ASAP? That makes them way less vulnerable to the 2 Falconet FF timing.
>That makes them way less vulnerable to the 2 Falconet FF timing.
It does, but the main issue I'm encountering is that most popular civs like Ottos and French get the eco ball rolling much easier and faster thanks to some early key cards. Not to mention only 1 factory in Age4 for Maltese, although late game is still the strongest for them imo
What usually ends up happening is I defend early aggression with Commanderies and card Outposts, having invested very little in army at that point to get to Fortress age faster. And even if I do manage that, enemy tends to overtake me in eco anyway and begin spahi / cannon spam who are just simply tougher and better than anything I can throw at them at this point. I can spend a ton of money on Dragoons to counter that, only to then get rekt by a group of infantry with a single cannon.
It's like if you allow an Ottoman to reach Age4, you're done. And Maltese are shit at early aggression, the only card you can realistically use to harass is the Totenkopf Allies and they're made out of paper. Alternative is much slower Fortress with 5 hussars, and that's hella expensive early-mid game when there's so much shit you need to survive later
There’s the idea of using Wignacourt to scale out of control in Age II and force them into a drawn out conflict with no Fortress shenanigans with unceasing waves of Crossbowmen and Pikemen that scale with every shipment. Order Hussars are expensive but training a batch or two to raid/get extra experience for your next shipment can help. Problem is that you’re relying on archaic infantry, when Sentinels with a few xbows mixed in are unironically better than spamming static defenses and help simplify your age up macro.
Still might not matter against Abusgays though, that unit needs nerfs badly. So so badly. And Malta can do nothing against a bottogay that decides to Abus spam early. You also probably lose long term to Leather Cannon spam.
Sentinels with forward Outposts and Depots for buffs is my jam, they get pretty ridiculous with the rocket upgrade if I get to industrial.
>Still might not matter against Abusgays though, that unit needs nerfs badly.
If abus appear before Fortress that's it for me, and even then I need Spanish Tongue AND wait for it to arrive. But honestly I prefer to play this kind of tricky underpowered civ over something like mindless French cav snowballing, much more interesting and fun to work for your wins
Against Abus you kinda need Auberges out ASAP to get your Hussar into actual fighting shape, since nothing Ottomans has will do well against monocomp heavy cavalry except the rare but disgustingly bullshit Cav Archer and Abus.
abus and cav archer isnt rare comp for ottto its their best and most common plays once the elo gets to the point that jan falc ff doesnt win every single game. it literally fricks most civs in the game these days, thx to absurd abus buffs and other otto buffs
Yeah for players who are maybe doing more traditional comps instead of bottogayging "ungabunga me love jannies", you'd see more Cav Archer/Abus/Culv vs. Jannie/Sipahi/Falc.
What would be an acceptable nerf for the civ as a whole besides further decreases to the Yöruk's build speed? Wait...how much more manageable do Abus Gunners become if you take away their target lock, lengthen their firing animation by 0.25 seconds, and reduce their base range by 1? Leave the damage alone and keep the unit in Age II. Leave the multipliers and LOS alone. Same with cost and train time.
>What would be an acceptable nerf for the civ as a whole besides further decreases to the Yöruk's build speed?
I wouldn't touch yoruks so much as abus and spahis. Less range and movement speed for abus, or make them much more expensive.
For spahis, either nerf the armor, HP and attack strength, or reduce the amount of spahi shipped with every card. As it currently stands, there is little in the way of amassing a small spahi army who get free upgrades with every age, and it's just about the strongest unit in the game knocking down your door beginning in Fortress. No other civ has such bullshit, I prefer early russian rushes for days. Spahis should be support cav or european civs should receive infinite winged hussars card to offset this homosexualry
>For spahis, either nerf the armor, HP and attack strength
age up bonuses by a significant margin*
someone whos half decent at this shit game here
>otto
for some fricking reason maltas worst matchup. you need to be on point and either rush hard and then gtfo before cleaned by abus (3vill 700w 600w 8 xbow) or you sort of ff. the ff is dorky but its the best you have. 3vill- german tongue-700c-hospitality- fixed gun. the goal here is to get the fixed gun out asap plus sentinels to defend vs falc pushes. from there can ship 1k wood and then wignacourt and outscale. need to place commandry and defend. vs the botto fi malta does great actually. do a greed play of 3 vills german tongue, make batch of huss 700w wignacourt 700c hospitality. then in age3 get steelbolts asap and start pressuring with order huss and xbow. with steelbolts cna rip houses down and brute through most their units, and your eco will outscale. once otto is in 4, try to not pressure too much just snipe units or houses and once the church pops, run back and either age to 4 and clap with order goons or boom and make culvs and grind it out. its not fun
>france
this is much easier. france tends to semi ff. just do normal malta things but i like to make 10 senintels and then age to 3, get 2 tcs and just outscale them till age4. france tends to go cuir so dont go full xbow pike, sentinels and order huss or lancers or goon works plenty. with adv arsenal, your sentinels can outrun all infantry too and the rockets in age4 rape skirms. its moreso not letting the 5 huss semi slow you down too much or france getting to win a few fights. not too hard
I kneel Malta-main-chama, you posted an actual build order. Well, three build orders/openings, even better.
thanks for the tips, I rarely play with archaic inf which may explain why I get btfo by ottos so much. I know xbows get royal guard but it's fricky for me to maintain steady wood income mid game due to harassment and lack of cav, and sentinels just perform much better only a while later (and there are better cards than cords of wood at this point)
you got to get better at herding and also tc placement from age3 should allow some reprieve but yeah, Kaiser himself fricked the whole ladder and caused malta nerfs just xbow piking everyone to rank 1 while smurfing to prove a point. it scales so well, but can be issue in treaty or super long games if trees run out, but for most the game they just nuke everything en masse
replaying the campaign, man i forgot how fun the story was
>the lake of youth is real
>the illuminati are after it
>you have to blow it up to stop them from getting it
what do we think about the new patch aoe3 bros? I keep getting rekt as Maltese and they're getting fricking nerfed https://steamcommunity.com/app/933110/discussions/5/3811781589723565241/?snr=2_9_100000_
I don't play them (don't even have the DLC) but seems harsh indeed.
>Basilisk culverins now inflict additional poison damage
Wut? How random.
I see they played with unique Guard upgrades, making them quirkier while mostly cheaper to upgrade and/or train (especially Besteiros). For me it's the slightly tougher Keshiks and more massable flamethrowers - meh.
Its the fricking chinese civ. I like russians for their hordes of infantry, but i cant do anything to these goddam chinese players. I go infantry, they roll up with meteor hammers and run around picking off villagers kiting my slowlets. I try to go calv, they show up with speedy archers and micro them till their dead. If i somehow manage to fight em back, the age 2 artillery rolls out and its gg.
I'm no pro by any means but I found hitting age3 counters chinese aggression pretty easily. Veteran muskets and dragoons/pikes wipe the floor with most of their unit roster at that point and even a small number of hussars can easily deal with the artillery
They're weak against cavalry and even worse vs shock infantry, they don't even have musketeers. Their cavalry is expensive, specialized and cumbersome. Flamethrowers cost a lot of wood and die to melee cavalry and falconets (but not culverins).
Brits and USA rape face against Chinese. Doesn't seem like it on paper, but why?
British can double card their Hussars in Age II, and NOTHING in China's roster can counter those. Just pop a couple batches of Musketeers to supplement your forces in case they go balls to the walls on Qiang Pikemen. Raid raid raid. 20 Hussars and 20 Musk is easily doable and can end the game very early before the Chinese deathball can come online.
USA similarly relies on hand cavalry play, but this time you'll be Fast Fortressing (ideally with Kentucky for the coal mines or Indiana for the free Industrial), shipping Uhlans and Georgia Hussars, and spamming endless waves of cheap Veteran Hussars, whilst building up to deliver the coup de grace with a MASSIVE shipment of either Carbine Cavalry or Sharpshooters. Like 20+. If you really wanna piss the China player off, hit Imperial as soon as you can with Florida, card your Georgia Hussars, and once again stall for time until you can ship 60 Cowboys with the other Federal Card. SIXTY FRICKING OUTLAWS.
What's the build order for cav start on UK? This seems out of date
Is it just me or do the non-Euro civs not fit the game?
I've reinstalled The Asian Dynasties (+ Warchiefs) again and after going back and forth I realized that the core gameplay of AoE III without expansions seems more... balanced? serious? idk what the right word for it is.
But it has a neat loop that is constant no matter what civs get picked. The focus seems to be a bit lost with the expansions, as much as I like them.
Haven't tried DE yet but the Italians seem fun.
It's even further away than vanilla though, almost like a different game entirely.
>I realized that the core gameplay of AoE III without expansions seems more... balanced? serious?
it was much more grounded in historical reality than samurais cutting down native americans for sure, but I really like the variety in DE. It's good to have redcoats vs redcoats but its fun to go beyond that sometimes
imho the issue is moreso the DE civs post release aka mexico, usa, and the african civs, are so stuff full of blatant powercreep and overvalue that they basically ruin the older unit balance. having 6+ unit types that are stronger and all with better value shipments fricks the older civs designs of age2 skirmishing, age3 main fight, age4 wrap up with each older civ typically having 3 units to choose from in age2. its made multiplayer often a joke, even if the most op civs are italy and otto unless you pump 300 hours into the game the new DE civs will smash you since they force older civs to stack heavily on the few options they have and play very cagey. Old TAD, sans japan and french cuir lamers, had a much more stable meta and allowed people to react properly. An African civ shitting out age2 super goon into some huge age3 unit shipment stifles creatively, whereas the older semi ff style created back and forth age2s of people trying to hit the right time to push or go age3.
that said, the decks of DE are far more creative and devs seeing dying multiplayer are doing their best to unfrick the DE civs (otto is honorary DE civ given how much shit its been given) and boost legacy civs, but outside of for funsies or the chaos, you kind of have to house rule many civs and strategies to have a dynamic fight or good team game. It's a toss up if really better, but at least its a bit less sweaty than iro rushes sub 5 min or opri cheese. I suspect a fan balance patch once the lifecycle is done a la EPL will be needed to make aoe3 able to be taken seriously tho.
The Javelin rider is no longer egregious and every Euro civ has two or more tools to melt an African army relying on them in Age II. The only African army comps that aren’t dangerously fragile tend to be endgame Akan/Lifidi masses (which themselves are cumbersome and lose to goons in cover mode) or the even rarer Oromo/Neftenya that most Ethiopia matches will never SNIFF because natives, Besteiros and outlaws are almost always better choices for the Roof of Africa.
Not to mention how entirely european the soundtrack is unlike other AoE soundtracks.
If you think Ethiopia outlaw+Somali timings or Jap Shogun and smoke bomb cheese is bad, try the current state of the Italian turtle FI…or the Ottomans in general. Those boys are STUPID.
Germans and Haudenosaunee will be better next patch and hopefully they now have the tools to punish Ottoman lamers.
I love aoe3, but as someone who played aoe2 semi competitively (2300 on voobly and did a few community events) to now aoe3 is that since de launched, there is too much bullshit. often the unit counter breaks down thx to poor designed balance between civs and units and it can become a game of combos where micro and macro are secondary to simply beelining towards your units win condition. It also makes 1v1 a chore and most the ladder is laming, to the point most pros don't even bother making the top 100 literally 1/3rd smurfs. Balance team is always butting band aids on lame builds or civs while adding new content often never asked for.
Of course most people are casual, but no matter the skill it sucks playing a game you lost due to choices at the civ selection screen or due to not catching your opponent's build out of possible combinations with no recourse. This makes it even more frustrating for new players as they often get screwed due to not knowing the "meta" worse than any rts i know. And most civs have to work 2x a hard to beat the "competitive" civs so new players just get fricked over and over. oh, you wanted to play germans? yeah half the new civs shit super dragoons in age2, rip your civ bonus. Oh you like rushing? half the new civs drop forts in age1-2. Oh you want to play slowly? half the new civs units scale for ever so your fricked now.
This rough learning curve has always been present, but its gotten more severe the weird super units and mercs they put into the game. Goons that counter skirms, musk that change stances, priests that gather coin and stunlock opponents with annoying fricking trumpet, etc is lame and not intuitive far beyond learnable bruh moments over say a xbow does ok vs a musketeer. It's become a hot mess and if a new player can spend their time quicker enjoying aoe2, why wouldnt they check that game out?
Again i like aoe3 and play it alot, but i cant recommend it in its current state until with get some qol and better design choices.
aoe3 is so good, i like it a LOT more than aoe2. i will never like how im somehow required to be able to lure a boar under my town center every single time flawlessly without losing any villagers just to be able to remotely compete
>i will never like how im somehow required to be able to lure a boar under my town center every single time flawlessly
Anon, spend the next 10 minutes practicing. It's not hard.
i did the art of war for that several times in 2. its not fun.
>i did the art of war for that several times
I'm saying to go into skirmish mode and practice.
>its not fun.
Again, play.
the art of war is actually great practice, i just didnt like it. its a me issue.
>the art of war is actually great practice
Skirmish.
Anon, luring the boar is ancient, unfun, needless game design.
The fact that AoE2 "pros" restart the match when they can't find their boar because it spawned too far away in relation to their opponent should say everything.
Just spawn the fricking boar near TC like in AoE3. It'd make the incredibly boring AoE2 early game a bit faster too
>its not fun.
>Again, play.
Again, its not fun? No? Not gonna waste my time on boring, unfun shit? Thanks
>Anon, luring the boar is ancient, unfun, needless game design.
It's a way to provide a food source that provides significant pre-mill food and isn't subject to the rules of the sheep contest or used for scouting. It's committal.
>The fact that AoE2 "pros" restart the match when they can't find their boar because it spawned too far away in relation to their opponent should say everything.
It says the devs should keep boars close to the Town Center.
>Just spawn the fricking boar near TC like in AoE3.
AoE3 covers the map in free food. You just have to sit on it. Completely different dynamic.
>Again, its not fun? No? Not gonna waste my time on boring, unfun shit?
Everyone has that phase. Just spend a few minutes luring the boar and it won't be an issue. Eventually, you'll understand the game well enough to enjoy it, and luring will become second nature.
i understand that some people like it. i just dont. im not gonna say people should not like it. i just dont.
>i understand that some people like it. i just dont.
A phase. Shut up and deal with it.
I've played aoe2 for years and I'll take aoe3 treasure creeping over the same boring ass scout and send house vill to lure jump into tc garrison fire ungarrison finish we got in 2. There's actually a reason to interact with the map early on thanks to various treasures and types of guardians making age1 not literal autopilot.
I don't know why you decided to troll about boar luring as peak aoe2, but it jjst makes you seem moronic since this is one of the few areas aoe3 actually improved on. Aoe4 is now doing so and likely aom will too.
>Inconsistent starts are an improvement
Wonderful bait.
>monotony is fun
Okay dude.
Don't feed the troll. If he was being earnest he's recognize 25w treasure or small xp boost doesn't affect openings at all, just allows players to work around openings for age2. Infact I know the devs for 2 looked for options in 2 before autoscout cause aoe2 players will scout frick all half the time and even pros don't do shit besides boar lame then queue spots up to scout and forget till age2 push.
Infact c&c, wc3, supcom, bfme, the CoH many clones all give some sort of interactive environmentals for boost early game. It's been a staple in rts long time now it's just aoe2 is long old.
>If he was being earnest he's recognize 25w treasure or small xp boost doesn't affect openings at all
And if you were being honest, you'd recognize that 120w from a camp does affect openings.
Both players have access to treasures. Treasures with higher rewards also have more guardians.
Yes, and this does affect build orders.
Good.
the only treasures over 80res have 3 to 4 guardians of a high tier on it. Youd have to creep it for at least 2-3 minutes, giving up scouting and other treasures and risking getting killed by enemy explorer or it even stolen. No transition tps, no map info, no mooks to scout with if native explorer. Also, 90% of maps don't have anything like that till 3v3 generations, which teaming up and focusing on the ones that boost your team is part of the strategy.
low effort moron is moronic, filtered by a map.
>the only treasures over 80res have 3 to 4 guardians of a high tier on it. Youd have to creep it for at least 2-3 minutes, giving up scouting and other treasures and risking getting killed by enemy explorer or it even stolen
Anon, use your age 2 military. Does your brain work?
>Does your brain work?
Are you trolling? Both players have access to treasures. Shut up if you're gonna say dumb shit like this.
>Are you trolling? Both players have access to treasures.
Were you paying attention? My point was that treasures do affect your early game builds. You're now saying both players can access them like that means something.
>My point was that treasures do affect your early game builds.
You're saying that as if it's a bad thing, drone.
>You're saying that as if it's a bad thing
It is, yes.
yeah last reply, clearly a troll but to anyone genuienly interested in how the creeping works in aoe3
so clearly you don't play this game. aoe3 is fast paced and the second age2 hits, assuming your at a skill level outside of pure noob age1 milling, there should be either an attacker or defender. unless you have a treasure right next to fb and a few seconds before the first unit shipment pops, there is no time to frick around. 120 wood is worthless if you miss the chance to punish a boom or don't have enough units to defend vs the uhlans or kanya raids that idle you. At best, you continue to creep with explorer in between timings if you don't need to use explorer to snare but (thx to DE unit speed power creep often needed at home, natives need to buff army, scout opponent comp (literally most important thing in game where shipments can spike armies fast) youll find there is little time in a competitive match even at mid elo. again, 120w in a game where age ups are 400res plus, crates of 700 or armies are usually attacking less than 2 min of hitting age2 at 5 -6 minutes its not viable and a classic noob trap to let your exp[lorer try to kill wolves while 16 xbow nuke all your infantry and run away from cav, or explorer opponent as they hit age2 to know if they FF, rush, boom etc. A few civs like france and dutch are set up to get a bit more out of map, but treasures are rarely much impact other than maybe early market techs or a 13 vs 14 vill age up. assuming you're not moronic (well others clearly not baitposter here) you should know how to use the map and adjust in age2.
>so clearly you don't play this game. aoe3 is fast paced and the second age2 hits, assuming your at a skill level outside of pure noob age1 milling, there should be either an attacker or defender.
And if your army comp is unsuited to offense, you can take treasures.
anything is an improvement over boar luring
starts are an improvement
Yes. How well you can do with an unfavorable hand is a skill.
Yeah, not the one we're interested in measuring. That's why we want balance in our games.
i dont want to. ill just enjoy aoe3, heck even 4 is more fun
I actually bought DE fairly recently, haven't played in quite a while. My main gripe with the game has always been how floaty and clunky everything feels, especially combat. There's no weight or impact to it, except artillery fire I guess. I love the new content though, and how they embraced ideas from mods and total conversions (similar to what AoE2 did with Forgotten). I'm still struggling to beat the hard AI because I haven't realized how build orders and timings work here.
>I'm still struggling to beat the hard AI
just remember you're not allowed to stop training vils until age 4 and you're golden. Hard AI tends to attack at pretty stable intervals, you'll figure it out eventually
They ruined the Amerindian civilizations
wdym sioux takes more than 2 braincells to work and iro is still iro aggro, aztecs slightly not shit anymore.
Do revolutions have any architectural changes from the civs they break off from?
>California revolt
>buildings become adorned with rainbow flags and BLM banners
I'm mostly asking because there are two Christian revolutions of the Ottomans, so keeping the mosques is on the silly side.
I'd say the revolutions represent the turbulent times of fighting for freedom rather than the end result such as a new independent nation. There will be time to redecorate the cities, adopt new uniforms, and convert to a different faith once the struggle against tyranny is finally over.
>and convert to a different faith
Or maybe the Hungarians/Romanians revolted exactly because they had a different faith. Do you think they were muslims under Ottoman rule? Knocking down the mosque and replacing it with a church is the first thing you'd expect.
It's pretty common practice to convert a mosque into church and vice versa without destroying the structure, like when the Crusaders took Jerusalem or what happened to Hagia Sophia under the Ottomans. Though, I don't know if it's also the case in Balkans.
The Mayan revolt for Mexicans goes full ham.
Literally replaces forts with giant sacrificial pyramids and so on.
They should expand it to other revs as well then.
All those statements are false
still, i rather play this that aoe4
>All those statements are false
explain how?
On that topic, there's also Egypt, a Muslim revolution of a Christian civ (Brits).
>multiplayer
miss me whit your shit
WoL's team does attempt to balance the game for MP.
Just posted a game related picture, no specific animosity against WoL, my dissdain for the multiplayer scene is general.
playing against extreme AI is more fun than playing against sweaty mp tryhards
You mean moded AI, techtree and proto
Emphasis on "my", the rest are free to enjoy as they will.
>Emphasis on "my", the rest are free to enjoy as they will.
Not what I'm saying.
forget that, JUST gave another try to the DE and got my shit kicked in singleplayer. I quit
Why be pathetic?
>my dissdain for the multiplayer scene is general.
You really can't justify this. All of the game's tools are designed for player use. Only players can fully exploit the game.
multiplayer isnt that bad. i myself dont play multiplayer that much, but the few times i did it was pretty fun.
I love AoE3 but I find it strictly pop limited. It doesn't let you build huge armies like AoE2
No huge armies? My man, the Mayan revolt for Aztec or the Indonesia revolt for Ports/Dutch can give you armies of Holcan Javelineers and War Elephants, respectively, that can number 300+ if the game drags on long enough. Hell, if USA packs enough infinite shipments into its deck, upcoming patch could theoretically give them, say, a one time shipment of like 90+ Cowboys in addition to any other military on the field. Nasty fricking treaty card.
not to mention native warriors dont count towards pop. Granted Im talking mostly about team games and FFA, but if you can capture 3-4 native settlements and pump out units until max, you end up fielding 2 entire armies worth of pop as 1 player
I hope if they get around to releasing a remaster of Age of Mythology, some madman makes a mod that combines both AoE3 and AoM and we get gunpowder warfare and mythological monsters fighting each other
it'd probably have to go through some kind of DE Roman civ shenanigans to translate everything from AoM to AoE3 mechanics and code
when is the new DLC/update?
>DLC
its gonna be another Cosmetic pack , there was several new explorer skins that were added but unable to use in the Pup
for new civs dont expect anything until a few more months
>this filters AoE2 friends
It doesn't. It just provides so little of a benefit to overall gameplay that AoE2's relatively simple system is preferred.
>Units with over 1000 hp
>Doesn't even matter because getting hit by its counter will chunk 300 hp in a single shot
>Units with 100 hp
>Will tank 100 cannon balls because that specific cannon isn't supposed to shoot units, only other cannons
yeah?
try to kill an elephant with a fly swatter or a fly with a rifle.
>noooooo I was supposed to win by only spamming one unit
>Buck the Wolf
>All the fricking units with 10 different modes now
tried aoe2 and it sucks, i want 3 instead. will steam refund it and give me aoe3? since it's not on sale anymore. also i have 8 hours of gameplay
thats not going to happen anon, but aoe3 goes on sale frequently. Try pirating in the meantime
yeah those frickers didn't refund me cause i played for 8 hours instead of 2. as if this game isn't fricking huge, i didn't even finish the tutorial. plus all the time spent idling in the menu. what can i do? it feels like the request was automatically rejected by a bot instead of considered by a real human. motherfrickers
its the rule anon, 2 hours is the ceiling for refunds. I wish I could refund pathfinder kingmaker, that piece of shit had a 20 hour tutorial
does anyone even play naval maps anymore?
>Devs dropping Vague hints
>Berries
>Now Pirates
what do they mean by this ?
Burgundians are getting Shipwrights, and we're getting a Cantonese civ.
Unless somebody does some steganography shit on the pics, I'd say it points towards Denmark for now, (straw)berries are Denmark's national fruit and the naval battle seems to be happening on the Gold Coast map, which had some Danish forts/outposts. Still, this shit has been really vague so far and for some reason the July PUP has not released yet.
AoE 3 is on a pretty good sale right now. Would it be worth picking up if I don't bother with multiplayer outside of a few AI games with a buddy?
Can't go wrong with that. It has tons of maps, civs, units and other things to keep it interesting for a long while.
yeah, and when you are done with the single player stuff you can always play the co-op missions or play vs AI games online
where was the sale in question?
I wanted to buy a new version for nostalgia sake, but apparently it's pozzed so I'm not going to give them money
is it really?
only changes i've seen is renaming native american tribes to make them more accurate
they renamed native american tribes to be more accurate and swapped the cartoonish building where they dance around a magical firepit to a community plaza
And it’s so, so, so much worse because of it.
well look like the "July" patch is gonna be an august one
update confirmed for August 2nd, details here
https://www.ageofempires.com/news/age-of-empires-iii-definitive-edition-update-14-43676/
>Each unique Church technology and Royal Guard unit now has unique visuals.
huh pretty cool
>Abus get a 2 (two) second build time nerf and a slight nerf to light cavalry damage multiplier
frick off.
>Otto artillery get +2 LOS buff
what the frick is wrong with you
>Sipahi hidden cost increased to 400 food
>that's it
terrible patch
Everything was simplified, from what I remember. Also the banks was OP (might have been a special bank though from one of the factions).
Because the multiplayer is pretty much dead and the community hasn't changed at all.
>Join game.
>OMG YOUR CIV IS TOO LOW LEVEL!!!!
>Get kicked.
>game was labeled 40 min treaty noobs only.
civ levels don't matter anymore, but it's the opposite for me
>make noobs only game
>150-200 lvl Ottos, Spanish, R*ssoids join in and quickly change to lvl 1-5 Inca or Lakota
you know the game. You're not noobs. For me, it's a waste of time to start the game. For you, it's predatory fun that will end with the game being dead and no one left playing it
try playing games vs AI or coop
no one gets kicked from those
>(Full game) dlc
i..what..are we free to play now ? whats going on im confused
f2p with a rotating schedule of civs, it looks like
maps are locked to Central Asia, Deccan, Great Plains ,Guianas, Northwest Territory, Malaysia, Mongolia, and Saguenay
An attempt to increase the number of players?. If so, I bet they want to test how successful it is before they implement it in AoE4.
playerbase won't increase even 5%, there's no marketing behind this... it's over bros
I heard you guys went f2p. My condolences.
>t. AoE2 player
>community challenge require 200k unique players doing at least one game to unlock the skin
LMAO
Lmao indeed. I can only imagine the face of the fricking morons in suits who came up with this target when they had their projected f2p installations meeting. Bet that google sheets wienersucker was worth the salary with dem charts
well i bet you homosexuals are embarassed now.
>give the game for free to hundreds of millions of subscribers to gamepass and steam
>player count stays at 14k peak
it's doing better, and I'm rooting for the game and more people to play MP, but there's nothing to be embarrassed about anon. These are still rookie numbers far behind compared to AoE2
the anons were acting like the goal of 200k was unreachable
can you blame them for doubting tought ? game was already free on game pass for a while and in term of popularity among other RTS , AOE3 is far from being in the top
What's so bad about the game going f2p? I usually don't play those type of games so I'm just genuinely curious what shitty things to expect to come from this.
f2p is where pay-to-play games go to die. It's just the current-time dystopian corporate practice of "EVERY GAME IS A LIVE SERVICE"
do you know what GAAS entails? primarily it means
>monthly/weekly new user quotas to meet for the marketing team
and what happens when these quotas are impossible to meet, like
?
The game, the dev team, and the financial support are all axed.
We went from 3,5k players to 7,7k players on Steam. It was free on gamepass already.
It's a matter of time now that it's official, and we can only hope they will leave single player / LAN functionalities intact instead of scorching earth
Didn't Starcraft 2 go free2play at some point? It didn't stop it from being one of /vst/'s favorites.
>definitive edition is pozzed
>no one can tell me how
how? what changed? why is it pozzed?
you morons keep saying this but then provide 0 evidence.
it isn't pozzed, that's just poltard speak. All they did was replace the silly main building for native americans where they danced around a fire pit, and renamed a bunch of shit to reflect real life and history. They also changed some ahistorical stuff like instead of mining gold they sell fur now.
How does that translate to white genocide, I do not know.
except for the andrew jackson thing, im okay with all of this. also, native americans actually deserve respect, unlike Black folk.
any essential mods i should look out for?
Yeah, Jackson's the weird one because they chose New Orleans for that scenario battle in DE, as in that it wasn't included in the original trilogy, but had to backpedal as if it's not Jackson, despite keeping his unique model in the scenario
Anyways, no real essential mods, but I use the one that makes the lighting always nighttime because the glare in the African desert maps is fricking blinding
pretty much what anon below you said , they also replaced one of the age name , the native civs names to the ones used by those natives , some changes in the act3 of the campaign with native character names.
the only one that was really kinda stupid was the historical battle one where instead of naming Andrew Jackson they just name him "the general" cause he is controversial
Didn't they also rename colonial age to commerce age? And remove Crazy Horse as a character?
Not really big, but kinda strange. You have colonists but "colonial" is bad?
And how is it better to remove a historical figure?
>Didn't they also rename colonial age to commerce age?
Yes, but to play devil's advocate, the name never made much sense because the final age represents the time period after we started getting colonies everywhere. It should be the previous age called that.
Plus, the term became kind of a misnomer because they keep adding in civs that were the colonized and not the colonizers.
It doesn't matter if you where the ones getting colonized or not, the fact is durring the time a lot of colonizing was happening so it doesn't make sense to change it. That's like saying we have to change the name of midevil times to something else because native americans didn't experience it and Celts where being massacred by midevil countries.
Yeah but then how would the devs be able to congratulate themselves on solving racism?
They also renamed Discovery Age to Exploration Age. Which you know, fair point, discovery kinda implies no one was already there.
Crazy Horse got removed not because of sensitivity but because he can only be put in games with the legal permission of his family which they didn't grant the DE. He's still in the scenario editor.
Colonial Age was changed because reaching it empowers your civ and if you're playing as a native tribe, it did the opposite of that for them irl, that's why. The plantation was changed because plantations were worked primarily by slaves, and you don't use slaves in the game, you use settlers who are not even remotely slaves.
>Colonial Age was changed because reaching it empowers your civ and if you're playing as a native tribe, it did the opposite of that for them irl, that's why
But diversity is strenght!!!
Anglo colonialism was the opposite of diversity because the saw the tribes as people to just remove and replace. It's not like the Spanish/Portuguese colonies which had the motivation of keeping the natives around to use as a labor resource (that and "mmmm, warm wet brown pussy")
We call that native flight.
They weren't fleeing, they were forced to leave by the government. It's obvious what you're attempting to do here, but you don't know enough about history to do it effectively, so you just end up looking like a passive-aggressive moron.
>was the opposite of diversity
In what sense is this term even used at this point? Isn't the opposite of diversity called homogeneity?
One can't bring any foreign variables on your board without paying some price, either way.
What diversity? Amerisharts kept forcibly expelling the natives westward. They weren't living among them.
The original game used to have a distinct focus on European civilizations and the conquest of the New World. With each addon the focus got less obvious, and by now there are even European maps to play on where colonies and plantations would be out of place.
um no, sweaty. Native tribes lived like it's 30,000 B.C. until the white man brought them to the modern era during colonization.
Anon plantation is just a industrialised farm that usually grows crops that aren't for food. It has nothing to do with slavery.
The whole Sioux thing got changed because it turns out what we thought was one tribe was actually 2 distinct tribes that didn't even speak the same language and are related only by ethnicity. To put it in perspective, imagine if you as a Canadian were told you're just an American and see how you feel about that. You'll probably tacitly accept that it's true but hate that fact.
there are Black person settlers now. There ain't no Black person settlers unless they're in chain, son.
>now
They were in the base game, perfect for representing Irishman, Polacks, and Moors joining the English, German/Russian, and Spanish colonial efforts, respectively, as well as the Portuguese, Turkish, and Dutch nationals (the French get their Métis)
Now the Swedes have Norwegians, the US has the Scots-Irish, the Mexicans, the Italians and the Maltese the Sicilians
ah yes, the Commercial Age
>Transition from Spanish silver imports, privateers, and crown debts being the main factors in the European economy, towards mercantilist exports in an inflated market giving Spain's neighbors the wealth they needed to begin importing Asian goods en masse.
Gonna call the Roman empire the Commercial Empire because they used slaves to make goods that were even sold in China.
>play as Gaul
>enter Roman Age
>technically you shouldn't exist but you're at max tech
>many years later your descendants rename it to Age of Conquest to make it more historically accurate and less moronic
>billions of unwashed poltards invade your homeland screeching AHHH LAWDY LAWD REMEMBER LE ROMAN AGE? AHHH MUH IMPERIUM ROMANVM AHH NERO BURNING ROME. THEY CANCELLED MY CARTAGENA AHHHHH LAWD REMEMBER THE CARTAGENA!!! I'M GONNA WRITE MY SENATOR ABOUT THIS!
>implying Gaul would exist without superior roman road technology
>even Gaul as a name is of roman origin
>Gaul wasn't even an emperor he was just a roman pet Black person!
3 bros??
we will be able to beat 2 for once?
>12k already
I wonder what's the ceiling, and how long will it last. Guess it's time to play some MP this weekend
>13.6k
it's over
Where can I see these numbers?
Looks like SteamDB
https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=age+of+empires
I still need the Mexico/African/Mediterranean dlcs but I'll wait until they're on sale.
Are there any plans to add new civs to the game? Idk who they would add, maybe Canada or some Middle Eastern countries?
two Revolution flags were datamined : Denmark and Poland , so either they gonna become full civs or Revolution options for either existing civs or a new one
Honestly if they just removed the card system it’d be a classic. As it stands it’s just far too meta and choosing the same cards every game is optimal and doing anything else will get you rekt.
entirely untrue, I very rarely use the "optimal meta" deck build order because the game never goes optimally.
>supposed to be doing fast fortress
>20 enemy units approaching base out of the blue
>I guess we're not boomin any time soon, gotta get 8 musketeers instead
>I'm outta wood due to raiding and defending all the time, gotta order cords of wood instead of muh meta 2 free mills
and so on and so forth, just play the game man, it's not nearly as sweaty as AoE2
What's the best civ if I want to zerg? America seems pretty decent since those musket guys get bonus health for grouping.
>What's the best civ if I want to zerg?
russians.
America is a gimmicky meme civ, you need to know pretty much all the game's mechanics to play them well.
Mexico and Japanese seem to have potential as well, specially since Japs have those units that can train troops. What would the reccomended style of those two civs be?
mexico is more a turtling civ but the insurgent rush is good too
while japan is more a fast industrial then they become unstoppable
>specially since Japs have those units that can train troops
they train very slow, sending Daimyos to spawn armies inside enemy bases isn't really a thing. Much more situational civ feature than you think
Russia, China has a bit on it too with the banner armies.
Aren't Lakota the designated raiders? They don't need houses, get some absurd cavalry especially the Rifle Riders, deal tons of siege damage, and get some mean-looking cards.
The multiplayer balance is kinda horrible in this game and since anyone can make a free new smurf in 5 minutes, you can never be sure if a 1000 elo player you're playing against is 1000 elo or 2000 elo. Depending on your time zone, ladder games can take upto 7 or 8 minutes in queue everytime and because there are so few people playing ranked, team ranked games are almost always mismatched in terms of elo rankings.
If anyone here wanna play comfy co-op against the extreme AI then let me know.
free players can't queue for ranked
Yeah but they can play lobby games in multiplayer and very often you will get a 900 elo guy in a lobby who will actually play like 1800 elo because he has 10 smurf accounts. Even if you are not playing ranked, you still want to look at the ranks when queuing up lobby games. Casual rank is meaningless btw.
the new ottoman spy skin looks really cool
>AoE2 fans have problems knowing the difference between musketeers and skirmishers
>the new update adds even more unique uniforms for each european civ
what did microsoft means by this?
>what did microsoft means by this?
"frick AoE2 fans and their gay preconceived notions of what an RTS is and how the genre works, learn a different game or queue for arabia, your choice"
>Queue for Arabia
>Have a satisfying match
>Go on Ganker
>"Go queue for Arabia, you jerk!"
I'm really liking these changes
Original version runs much more fluent on my system. Checked that both use dedicated hardware.
I forgot how over the top the campaign gets last time I played, it's been a fun ride, any recommendations on which historical battles me and a lad should start with?
I liked the one where you control canada against the us
the AoE3 campaign is literally Assassin's Creed before it was cool.
So ugly, I can't tell what are direction change depressed me more, this piss or the shit that is civ6, garbage.
get new eyes
What's the point of Revolutions if you are so close to finishing the game that you aren't going to be shipping cards anyway?
this isn't always the case, which is why there are revolution cards, and they're not terrible.
And revolution turns all your vils into soldiers so there's that utility too
It's not guaranteed to do the trick, though. If you save a bunch of shipments before revolting, you can use them to get an even bigger advantage right away. And if you screw up your assault, you can still get extra soldiers or restart your halted economy.
Depends on which Revolutions you are talking about. Some of Mexico's revolutions are moronicly cheesy, you might as well press a button to win the game. Among normal revolutions for European civs, some revolts like USA and Chile are stronger than the others and you are supposed to do an all-in push with them.
For example, with Chile revolt for Spain, all your Hussars automatically upgrade to Hussar of Death which have more attack than even Imperial Age 5 Hussars. So if you just do a fast industrial while training and shipping Hussars + some cannons and then you revolt, you can basically get an unstoppable army of overpowered cavalry + revolutionaries infantry + heavy cannons at about the 13 to 15 minute mark.
Hussars of Death are made of paper, they're not that overpowered. But they do deal a shitton of damage in melee
They have the same HP as Age 4 Guard Hussars. Not as tanky as they used to be but the devs decided to trade off HP for attack. It was a good nerf imo.
I like the French Revolutions.
Haiti kind of sucks because water maps suck, but Canada is strong if you've been going full on Natives, and USA is strong in general. True French Revolution is just so weird though with going up to Napoleonic France. It has so much more content than entire other factions. Like, Aztecs, Iroquois, and Lakota are still super underbaked and one trick rush ponies.
the gimmick of Napoleonic France is to have really strong units but shit economy
>Like, Aztecs, Iroquois, and Lakota are still super underbaked and one trick rush ponies.
Just like irl, huh?
Seriously though, maybe some civs are just meant to be straightforward to play without layers of complicated gimmicks? At least you can clearly tell when you're winning and when it's over for you.
I'm guessing they will keep adding more content to every Revolution faction just like how the USA Revolution got a bunch of new stuff in the latest update. French Revolution is kinda complicated though, yeah. You have to be actively fighting and earning XP if you want to sustain it.
>Aztecs, Iroquois and Lakota are still super underbaked and one trick rush ponies.
Kinda unavoidable, really. These civs were designed all the way back in 2006 and their design has been bad ever since then. Lakota (previously known as Sioux in the game) is by far the most controversial faction regarding its game balance. Even the devs today just straight up admit that Lakota is too sensitive to gameplay changes and they just don't want to mess with it.
Hope so. I was looking at Hungary or Romania last night and it’s just so fricking barebones compared to South Africa, United States, or Revolutionary France with basically no benefit.
Hungary can still be kinda fun if you combine it with Russian Age 2 Logistician Age up. Your Blockhouses with give you 15 population space each so you're gonna be maxing them out. When you revolt to Hungary, every Blockhouse will spawn Hungarian Grenadiers. It will also auto upgrade all your normal Grenadiers into Hungarian Grendaries and if you also get the "Grenade Launcher" shipment beforehand, then you end up with skirmisher-tier long-range rocket launcher type infantry that melt other heavy infantry. Pretty cool. The revolt also gives you free Age 4 upgrade for your Cossacks (Russian Cavalry). Magyar Hussars are also tanky af. I have used the Hungary revolt in some chill lobby team games before.
Romania is pretty bad right now though, yeah. No reason to use it.
So I can play Romania.
What's the best AI mod for classic AoE3?
I played the shit out of this game when it came out. Online was a lot of fun as well. It just didn't seem to age as well as AOE2 I suppose, but I really do like how AOE3 was it's own thing with all the features they added. I think it's much better than AOE4.
somehow we have Aztec, Spain and Mexico existing in one game
No less absurd than some of the overlap in AOE2 now
is the same than having Iroquois, sioux, brits and the us in one game
>inb4 but isn't the same because the us genocided natives
the first three are distinct factions. Aztecs, Mexico and (New) Spain are just one faction at different points in time. The U.S is similarly moronic since it was already included in the game as a revolutionary faction that replaced another faction before they made it into a separate civ
>Aztecs, Mexico and (New) Spain are just one faction at different points in time
Abbawdely not. Also, it's not New Spain, it's just Spain.
prior to knights of the Mediterranean all European factions are meant to just be the colonalization effort of that faction. That's why you get explorers instead of generals. That's why you get settlers instead of townspeople or villagers.
Exactly. Then why did you call Aztecs, Mexico and Spain one faction?
exactly what? My point is that Spain represents New Spain. New Spain was built from the corpse of the Aztecs, and New Spain later rebelled to become Mexico. It's one exact group of people at different point in times.
What you say in your first and third post completely contradicts what you say in your second post.
The Spanish faction represents the Europeans from Spain who conquer a bunch of stuff with explorers and settlers in Mesoamerica, the Carribean and South America. They settled Carribean islands before they ever met Aztecs. Why do you insist that Spain ONLY represents New Spain post the fall of the Aztecs? That makes no sense.
Besides, both New Spain and Mexico are only partially Aztec. But we weren't talking about New Spain, we were talking about Spanish conquistadores and settlers. There are many other native groups than just Aztecs in Mexico.
in which way do they contradict each other? Can you even read, Black person?
The only point you have is that Aztecs and Spain can co-exist, but that's a nitpick at best because I specifically disagree with all three factions co-existing at once. Aztecs and Mexico cannot co-exist because one is the evolution of another and occupies most of the other's territories. If they wanted to include Mexico, they should have made it an optional path for the Aztecs to choose. Likewise with New Spain and Mexico, which was already the fricking case before they splintered off Mexico into its own civ. That is about as idiotic as including the Byzantine Empire and the Greek Kingdom of 1832 in one game as two separate civs.
the fact that there were other ethnic groups in New Spain is irrelevant, because they are not in the game as full civs. If they ever are added, they should be given the same option to revolt/evolve into Mexico/whatever Latin American country they're in. I am only fine with Mexico and other Latin countries existing as revolt options, not full civs.
>Aztecs and Spain are just one faction at different points in time
Dude seriously?
I completely agree however that Adding Mexico was moronic.
ok you got me there. I was in a rush and didn't articulate fully what I meant back there. Nevertheless, it's moronic that Mexico is its own thing instead of just being an option for Aztecs or New Spain
i apologise , i really thought it wouldnt be possible , especially with the game having been free on game pass for a long time now
really surprised that 250k peoples played it at least once
I hope Microsoft keeps supporting the game with events and DLCs
I think the amount of love for AoE3 from the devs will be inversely proportional to the attention Retold gets (and I'm surprised by how much content we got already). And I wonder whether AoM will get mostly cosmetic treatment or, like AoE3, a complete overhaul with a ton of new gods, myth units, unique techs, mechanics and everything.
Retold is supposed to be a full remake using the AoE3 engine, so as long as they are familiar with AoE3's quirks then I guess it's fine.
If we do get new civs for AoM i really hope they just go all out. Frick "historical accuracy" I want
>Civ based off Pirate myths
>Voodoo hoodoo civ
>crazy African witch doctor bullshit
>Baba Yaga house unit
>Maybe even do American myths and legends and summon Paul Bunion and Johnny apple seed.
big huge games please go and stay go
they'll find a way to add more Black folk, they did it with both AoE2 and AoE3, probably would have done it with AoE1 as well if it didn't flop so bad
if they want Black folk so much they should just add the confederacy. Boom, all the workers can be Black folk.
>Noooooo! Le heckin nigeronies tots never had civilizations and culture!
Trump lost get over it.
Rittenhouse won and Black folk chucked spears while the big white man had Gatling gun get over it.
seeth more. can't wait for another 4 more years of a good president while Trump continues to cry.
>Muh stolen election!
When you gonna do shit hick? We already put half your boys from Jan 6th in jail. You gonna actually come to the city and break him out with all your guns or are you just gonna sit on /vst/ all day and b***h?
Nobody cares that you suck the reptilian wiener
low effort. Too blatant. No (you) for you.
Shut the frick up.
I can see it. I'm surprised with how hands off Microsoft seems to be with the AoE franchise in general. I feel oddly optimistic about AoM retold.
Looks like the Steamcharts' average number of daily players isn't an accurate metric of telling how many people play a given game in total.
all the game pass users aren't from steam and some people just don't like DRM
I hope this show interest for new content that isn't just explorer skins. But not much hope left for that....
How are you supposed to play Ottoman?
migrate all your units to Germany
get to fortress age
get spahis
get abus
win
Mexico, much like the US, should only be revolutions, not full civs. I fully agree. But we all know why they are separate civs: they are marketable to mutts and latinx.
Nah, they both desver their own civs. Mexico is fun as hell get fricked gringo.
no one cares what you think Juan Paco
clearly microsoft cares Black person
the paljeets at Microshit are not considered humans and neither are you.
The Indian bot has been giving me some trouble.
Which Curryboo on the dev team thought card-free skirm and goon in the colonial age was a good idea?
How about some grenadiers? Zamburaks also aren't much help against artillery.
Very hard,Supremacy, Colorado.
Randomed into it as Aztecs and it seems like a tough match up.
Also tried it as Dutch and I think I got into a winning position but just didn't manage to finish him off (probably needed better production, takes forever to remass ruyters)
>Very hard
I think you mean "hardest" difficulty. I'm assuming you play 1v1 vs AI "normally" with standard starting resources and exploration age start?
>Randomed into it as Aztecs
Random is very fun, I do it as well but you can try learning a few factions properly. Aztecs are very micro intensive early on and hardest AI tends hard rush most of the time. I would try to be in Age 2 before the 5 minute mark at most and focus on the two units costing food and wood to defend early on. You can try a deck like pic related. Most people tend to overstack eco upgrades and military without any villager and crate shipments. 5 villagers and 8 villagers are very good shipments. 2 Warhuts in Age 2 is pretty nice if you are having trouble defending early.
AI is best at playing Dutch and Portugal btw.
>AI is best at playing Dutch and Portugal btw.
Dutch maybe but Portugal is the first one out in every compstomp game of mine, a beat up cuck civ.
In terms of AI usefulness I'd say France is the most aggressive and competent overall. Then Germans with their war wagon spam, then USA with sharpshooter and gatling spam. Dutch are decent too, Ottomans barely ever utilize OPness of spahi, but
>Italians
does one big initial attack, then nothing for the rest of the game
>Mexicans
same thing
you could say "oh the new civs just aren't programmed very well for AI" but then Maltese come up with the most diverse unit comps including those fricking fire throwers that just wreck your shit if left unchecked.
>France is the most aggressive and competent overall
Yes, AI is pretty good at France as well.
>Italians
This was actually THE most broken civ in the game until very recently but AI genuinely does bad with them. Maybe they cannot utilize the Lombards properly, who knows.
>Maltese come up with the most diverse unit comps including those fricking fire throwers
Haha yeah, Malta AI loves those fire throwers. I just go cav heavy against Malta because of this.
I just play multiplayer team games vs extreme AI these days but I should probably just do 1v1s instead. You are playing the game "the right way" though imo. Most people tend to start with Treaty games vs AI instead of dealing the challenge of Supremacy so when they queue up against actual players they get BTFO'd.
>does one big initial attack, then nothing for the rest of the game
The Japanese AI does the same thing for me
Which difficulty bot is it and what rules are you setting for the game? I can try to offer advice.
I dont get why people play 40NR when they could play 10/20NR but start at post industrial.
they want to build up their base and army from the ground up like kids
treaty games are their own thing with it's own meta and use meme decks and cards that you never see in supremacy literally a different game, yeah require more time and planning but that is the point.
how does Germany even counter the Ottoman rush? Janissaries beat everything they have in age 2.
How about Mountain Troopers or Dismounted Infantry from the Royal Embassy?
needs a whole card just to get the building making them, not to mention that mountain infantry has a build limit while the Jannies don't. I have legit seen an Ottoman rusher build a 40-jannie blob right in age 2.
3 has more depth to it's macro but 2 has autism levels of micro meaning pros go nuts for 2 because they can constantly improve their micro. This leads to 2 being more developed competitively which strategy games rely on to go big. 3 was never bad it just never got the autism.
ah, native american civs, where the guys using fricking tomahawks are somehow anti-cav units.
Still more sane than this fricker with 5x damage multiplier against artillery https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Arrow_Knight
The bonus isn't that big when you realize the unit still deals regular ranged damage. Against most artillery the actual bonus damage is only x1.25.
Wish it had more proper campaigns
Do they even have custom ones?
The setting/time-period. Same reason I can't get into Cossacks despite the game having a comfy vibe. I'd rather play Rise of Legends and other fantasy stuff than gunpowder...
>play russia in 4v4 casual game
>age up 17 vils
>ship 700 gold
>ship cheaper vils card while aging
>hit age 3 and build 2 more town centers
>start pumping out vils until I hit 99 vils
>16mins and I havent built a single offensive unit
>If I survive then I dominate the game with an unstoppable eco.
>not doing the 20/20 that lets you skip 700 gold
ngmi
I will make this change to my strat and see how it goes.
>play Iroquois
>get the faster age up chief
>have a war hut built next to the enemy base before they even got to age 2
>get the 475 food town hall tomahawks
>get the 4 horsemen card
>start building archers
>rush before the enemy even has the barrack up
>get the town destroyer card while rushing to make war chief solo buildings
>win 5-6 minutes into every game
kino
Simple reason
I don't like how the game looks
Some units are pretty ugly and there's no blood/corpses, anything, it's like a mobil game, it really doesn't look like a PC game at all
AO2 DE looks more comfy tbh
>there's no blood/corpses, anything
Age rating agencies are a b***h to deal with.
aoe2 de also looks like shit compared to the original
>no resource dropoff point
Clown game.
>no resource dropoff point
and that's a good thing