EPTAs for me, I like to play with the japanese and flood early game with swordsman/the lowest form of pikemen/scouts to harass their peon lines while teching heavy horseman archers with samurai.
Age of Empires II Age of Kings.
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Trowabarton756
United States870 Posts
As for me, I like to play with the japanese and flood early game with swordsman/the lowest form of pikemen/scouts to harass their peon lines while teching heavy horseman archers with samurai. | ||
|
NovemberZerg
United States58 Posts
| ||
|
seRapH
United States9806 Posts
| ||
|
Ursadon-n-Pals
United States928 Posts
From what I have seen from "pro" AoEII, it's all mass knights w/Franks. I really haven't seen very much so I could be totally off. | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
| ||
|
aokces
United States309 Posts
I guess I prefer doing feudal spear/skirmisher rushes, or Light Cavalry Harass as turks (free updgrades). Also, building placement is important like in SC (walling off your TC with houses so you have just enough room for a farm in between). The tips I learned that helped me the most was 1. Spam villagers early game (I usually get to 30 population before going feudal age) In fact, once you hit Castle, build extra TCs and spam more villagers 2. Scout with some of your early sheep : ) 3. Get a market early, sell off your extra wood => gold. Most maps have a lot of trees but Gold (and to some extent stone) become rare later on in the game. After I played Starcraft I just couldn't go back. The two main reasons I guess were: 1. Lack of Attack-Move (the closest thing is patrol) 2. All units cost 1 supply (so if you mass max pikeman against mass paladins you would still lose) 3. Also, it took kind of long to get the game started. | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
sgeng
United States78 Posts
Mongols and Goths are my favorite races. Mongol Mangudai are so fun to use, plus they get the hunting bonus and the super fast siege units. Goths just overrun you with infantry. If you can get to imperial age as goths and research conscription+perfusion you can make a champ in like 5/6 seconds which is just ridiculous. | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On September 09 2010 14:20 Ursadon-n-Pals wrote: Man, I loved AoE II. I was terrible and never played any RTS at all, but I was in that nooby bliss whenever I played a computer. From what I have seen from "pro" AoEII, it's all mass knights w/Franks. I really haven't seen very much so I could be totally off. Mass Frank Knights are actually a terrible strat even in horrible. (though throwing axemen are very underestimated) In AoE II, Chinese was by far the most dominant as their Feudal Time was way too fast with their bonuses till around 4th patch or so nerfed them to oblivion. After that I forget who's good in base but I think Mongols, Persians, Saracens were up there? In AoE II: TC, Huns and Mongols blew everyone away though. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
Or 3 hours into a Lan game we realized that for the last 2.5 hours we've been playing totally disjoined, separate games. I really wish they'd remake AOE2 just with better graphics and the typical UI / gameplay tweaks you'd expect from a modern RTS. AOE3 was a gigantic flop if you ask me. | ||
|
MrBitter
United States2940 Posts
Aztecs, fast tech to monks, mind control ftw! Was my favorite build. | ||
|
Tleaf
Canada181 Posts
| ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
| ||
|
Aylear
Norway3988 Posts
| ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
It also takes so long damn long before you're meaningfully interacting with your opponent unless one of you rushes. Random maps were a bad thing, they stunted gameplay. I think I like everything else about it! | ||
|
Nuri
New Zealand280 Posts
| ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6786 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I watched the pro games and pro-game tournaments with L_Clan (fav LClanRulzz) members and people like MyST IORI. It was every part as competitive as I see Starcraft II but it was markedly different in the pace of things. You couldn't fast expand until you teched to Castle Age. You chose from a ton of different civilizations with small variations, compared to Starcraft where you are limited by 3 races with wide differences. I still prefer Age of Empire II's approach to RTS, but sadly the sequel was quite a bit worse. So when I tried to become the best Deathmatch, Michi, Land Nomad, and Random player that I could, I looked at strategy sights like Age of Kings Heaven and MrFixitOnline (unsure of how many sites survived the sequel). Age of Kings: Heaven Site What I miss: (Compared to Starcraft II) 1. Subtle strategies and civilization advantages figuring into the first of battles. Ex. I'm Celts and you're Franks. Your cavalry is unmatched but my 20% boost to lumberjacks can be capitalized on to push a huge economic advantage with multiple expansions (Town Centers) to overwhelm you with Scorpions, Pikemen/Halberiers and Champions(Swordsmen). Its not that he didn't have the same units of similar strength, its that I played into a civilization's advantage to punish a lack of aggression. 2. You couldn't just expand when you felt like for comparatively little cost. You had to wait until the midgame. This made earlier clashes more fun because you couldn't sit back on an intense lead but had to defend from Feudal Age pushes or a large attack at the beginning of Castle Age. Fast expanding builds in Starcraft II feel like worse gameplay, but are part of the game's dynamics. 3. Less gimmicky units. I'm not saying Starcraft II is bad for doing a bit of this. I prefer the more upfront clashes. Units in SCII have specific roles, speed of movement, and costs. AoEII had swordsmen, archers, cavalry, and siege engines. 1 unique unit per civilzation. Cavalry army had mobility, archers had longevity and control, infantry were cheaper etc. There was no, "Oh but this unit is fast and can become INVISIBLE, UNLESS you have the special thing that beats cloak, unless he has the other thing that can beat him trying to beat your cloak." I go back to Age of Empires from time to time to remind myself of my love of standard units in complex strategies. 4. Maps were big and varied. Maybe this will change, maybe this won't. | ||
|
AmaZing
Nepal299 Posts
 | ||
|
hellsan631
United States695 Posts
kinda sad that they dropped any multiplayer support, as that was the best part of the game. playing the td's, and germs blood. <3 for aoe2:tc | ||
|
Brees
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
| ||
|
seRapH
United States9806 Posts
you can kite so much shit with just a squad of conquistadors | ||
|
bobbingmatt
Australia224 Posts
| ||
|
dronescout
Iceland246 Posts
| ||
|
FreezerJumps
Canada653 Posts
 | ||
|
oN_Silva
197 Posts
hills play a way bigger role then in bw (like +25% stonger and the guy below -25% ) castles on hills are awesome teamgames are way better than in bw ! (most imporant ) you basicly have like the same build orders you also have in bw (simulare), go to some pages and find them. friendships i made in aoc, hold still aaand, the grafic of AoC is much more pleasent than the comic grafic of wc3 (or blizzards atm ) i really enjoyed it. | ||
|
Cham
797 Posts
| ||
|
OoFuzer
Chile436 Posts
On September 10 2010 05:30 oN_Silva wrote: played aoc for 10 years, mostly multiplayer. for me aoc is specially comapred to bw because you have to adjust to every map every time you play (even though some things never change, like the amount of sheep, boars, deers, bush next to your base, you still have to scout them tho ) hills play a way bigger role then in bw (like +25% stonger and the guy below -25% ) castles on hills are awesome teamgames are way better than in bw ! (most imporant ) you basicly have like the same build orders you also have in bw (simulare), go to some pages and find them. friendships i made in aoc, hold still aaand, the grafic of AoC is much more pleasent than the comic grafic of wc3 (or blizzards atm ) i really enjoyed it. oN_Silva, like Halen! @OP, main AoC community: www.aoczone.net  | ||
|
drlame
Sweden574 Posts
| ||
|
OoFuzer
Chile436 Posts
| ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
You can use guides to find build orders or you can experiment yourself with how many vils to leave on wood/food during the transition to get your military buildings down, but your options when you hit feudal are pretty much spear/skirm or scout/skirm into scout/archer. Scouts can be used to harass most effectively out of these units, so the scout/archer composition is generally more aggressive. Get upgrades for your econ and units while constantly pumping your tc onto farms or gold (you should have enough on wood already if you had enough to plop down your feudal buildings right when you reached feudal) and constantly pumping from your military buildings. If you get the upper hand in army, just keep adding to it and lock down your opponent's eco completely. Its not uncommon to have 100 population in feudal, and many games are decided in feudal, but use your imba bw game sense to decide when to castle. Just stop making units for 2 or so minutes (you will usually have 15-20 farms when its time to castle) and click up. Now during transition you may need to keep pumping feudal units to stay alive. However you need to fix your eco so that you can pump your desired castle unit. This unit is the knight. It is the absolute imba monster of the castle age. Because you are Hun you probably want to make Knights and Cavalry Archers. Now you need to know how to "boom", which is the essential skill in castle age. Booming means pumping out of stables (or whatever) and TCs constantly, and allocating your resources so that you can add on TCs to up vil production and stables to up military production. The best advice is that it takes about 5 farms to pump each stable/TC plus 5 on gold for each stable/range with some wiggle room for upgrades. if you expand or add a stable but are not able to produce from that building, you have severely crippled yourself, so wait til you have 5 "extra" farms before adding on your next TC, rinse and repeat. This middle section of the game is where your imba bw apm will let you own, because you will be able to micro your army while constantly expanding your eco and producing and getting upgrades. Note that in the case of knight hoards, micro is pretty much running around his base to make his villagers stop working and picking off a few if you can. Engaging his army is a waste of the resources you invested. When you feel you have the advantage, go in for the kill. If not, you may get up to 5-7 TCs before its time to stop producing for a minute, and click imperial. Imperial is about attaining your desired unit composition with all their upgrades, and then beating your opponent into submission. If he's been holding you off with castles, you can now get trebuchets and destroy him. Congratulations, you are now a top tier aoe2 1v1 player... | ||
|
Odds
Canada1188 Posts
Goddamn I miss this game, it was like my childhood. I was only like 11, and a complete scrub. I still remember one instance where, after losing to someone archer rushing me, I typed "RUSHER" like it was an insult and quit the game in a rage. I want to go back and play this game again, but it would be for naught as it's long dead and, from what I'm reading in this thread, dead for a good reason. | ||
|
Zurles
United Kingdom1659 Posts
On September 10 2010 15:59 drlame wrote: I used to play a lot of AoE2, especially 2v2s. It got a little boring though, since the paladin and war elephant were so OP. Mass marmalukes! the siege units and trebuchets were also extremely op. | ||
|
Keyser
102 Posts
On September 09 2010 15:09 KissBlade wrote: Mass Frank Knights are actually a terrible strat even in horrible. (though throwing axemen are very underestimated) In AoE II, Chinese was by far the most dominant as their Feudal Time was way too fast with their bonuses till around 4th patch or so nerfed them to oblivion. After that I forget who's good in base but I think Mongols, Persians, Saracens were up there? In AoE II: TC, Huns and Mongols blew everyone away though. Actually mass knights(paladins actually) were -the- strategy pre-expansion, but only in DEATHMATCH. I used to play AoE2 deathmatch(2400+ rating), and franks rush beat pretty much everything else. Then the expansion came along and suddenly franks weren't that great anymore and a lot of races became viable. | ||
|
Fredoq
Sweden206 Posts
I really hate it :/ But its LOADS of fun ^^ when you play 6 hour long games becuase it always evolves into a macro game. More players= more epicness | ||
|
ZBiR
Poland1092 Posts
 | ||
|
_ContempT
United States35 Posts
They were pretty much the same thing though weren't they? At least, from what I remember, the engines were at least the same and a lot of the tech was structured the same way. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
On September 10 2010 17:44 ZBiR wrote: I only played the single player, so I could be uninformed, but weren't Saracen Mamelukes insanely overpowered? From what I noticed, they countered almost every single kind of units in some way (bonus damage vs cavalry, kiting vs infantry, ability to quickly get archers/scorpions/ballistas, no bonus damage from skirmishers, only camels and cavalry archers were on somewhat even terms with them, but definitely not favored). I know you had to survive to Castle to get them, and they were rather expensive, but still insanely cost-effective. Could anybody more experienced tell me something about why I'm wrong? Because I don't see everybody praising them, so I must be wrong Saracen mamelukes are very difficult to counter if they get massed up, but I mean MASSED up, and at 80 gold apeice, that is necessarily difficult. I think they are balanced fine. In deathmatch you can counter them with siege onagers as well. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
teamgames are way better than in bw ! (most imporant ) EDIT: I missed the "than" ... I totally agree with you man woah woah woah woah woah... I don't know if you read my post on 1v1s, but they tend to be pretty 1-dimensional for the most part. TEAM GAMES, however are LEGIT. To those who haven't played, imagine a 4v4 on a very open map (no ramps no high ground no real chokes can be hard to grasp I know), and rushes are prohibitively slow so that the 4 players on the flanks execute flushes (rushes in the feudal age [tech tier, if you will], which they reach at around 12 minutes) but the 4 pocket players are safe from rushes so they fast castle (so they get to the second age slower in order to get to the third age quickly). The pocket player can then save his flank, if necessary or go attack the opposing pocket player. This creates an interesting dynamic where each side is responsible for working as a team to win their side. Note that theres tons more viable flushes and several viable fast castles as well as limitless viable endgame armies in 4v4, all because your ally can cover your weak points, be it in build timing, map control, or a weakness of your civ/your civ's endgame army. I looooove aoc man thanks for making me realize I need to play that some this week. | ||
|
Mikkerthebhu
Denmark154 Posts
| ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
On September 09 2010 14:35 aokces wrote: I loved the game (guess what my ID is an acronym for) I guess I prefer doing feudal spear/skirmisher rushes, or Light Cavalry Harass as turks (free updgrades). Also, building placement is important like in SC (walling off your TC with houses so you have just enough room for a farm in between). The tips I learned that helped me the most was 1. Spam villagers early game (I usually get to 30 population before going feudal age) In fact, once you hit Castle, build extra TCs and spam more villagers 2. Scout with some of your early sheep : ) 3. Get a market early, sell off your extra wood => gold. Most maps have a lot of trees but Gold (and to some extent stone) become rare later on in the game. After I played Starcraft I just couldn't go back. The two main reasons I guess were: 1. Lack of Attack-Move (the closest thing is patrol) 2. All units cost 1 supply (so if you mass max pikeman against mass paladins you would still lose) 3. Also, it took kind of long to get the game started. 20-25 vils is your age up time , huns/aztec/maya are the best civ too btw | ||
|
Latham
9576 Posts
Also, janissaries were awesome for their cost. Good range, great damage and at a fair cost. | ||
|
Philip2110
Scotland798 Posts
| ||
|
Luperts
Sweden28 Posts
So far my favourite style is probably going goth and just zerg your oponent because of their very very short build time and low costs on infantry units. Issue with this style is if you let your enemy attack you with a maxed army because he will probably have some strong units like paladins which will make him win. We usualy play like 3v3 or 2v2 since we like playing together, and in those large battles the coolest unit ever is that scatter-shot catapul (can never remember the name), it reminds me alot of the reaver in sc1 and it can really turn an entire game around (tho they are extremely expensive). I also heard from one of those friends that people still play this online and had found a way to do so, if someone figures it out we should get some tl.net users together and play this. ^^ edit: I found out you can play online at a site called "Voobly". 1k players online as i write this, I'm so testing it out :D | ||
|
riyanme
Philippines940 Posts
| ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/age-of-empires-ii-hd-arriving-april-9-6404962 edit | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
Damn it I'm old... | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Uquu
Finland474 Posts
| ||
|
Lucumo
6850 Posts
| ||
|
ain
Germany786 Posts
| ||
| ||
