EPTThoughts about Age of Empires II - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
88.inspades
Philippines32 Posts
| ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On July 12 2010 13:46 Magus wrote: So general consensus (or loudest opinion, whichever) seems to be that AoE3 was really bad. My question, was it the deck, the explorer and treasure hunting, or the general Colonial musketry that made it bad? I'm curious now... The deck is probably the worst, followed by trading posts, and native colonies. Those things really don't belong. I personally don't like the musketry and the fact that age of empires 3' time got too close to modern time. Supposedly Age of Empires was about the "age of empires", babylonians, assyrians, romans, huns, etc. This path that they chose on 3, has nothing to do with the premise of the game... That being sad, the graphics are really good, specially on water, in some aspects it's better than SC2 despite being older. But graphics don't make a game good, so... If Microsoft decided to follow Blizzard's path, and remake AoE1 or 2 just with better graphics, and some new units / researches, it'd be a hit. I know a lot of people still playing both, but those are mostly oldschool. Unfortunately, nowadays a lot of young kids only want shiny things on their screen or they label it as boring, so even if they only improved graphics, it would already make it a success. Meh, enough dreaming  I'll post a video here later of my favorite player (Arch_Koven_) on a spotlight game, so you guys can nostalgia even more xP | ||
|
Magus
Canada450 Posts
On July 14 2010 19:40 Duelist wrote: + Show Spoiler + The deck is probably the worst, followed by trading posts, and native colonies. Those things really don't belong. I personally don't like the musketry and the fact that age of empires 3' time got too close to modern time. Supposedly Age of Empires was about the "age of empires", babylonians, assyrians, romans, huns, etc. This path that they chose on 3, has nothing to do with the premise of the game... That being sad, the graphics are really good, specially on water, in some aspects it's better than SC2 despite being older. But graphics don't make a game good, so... If Microsoft decided to follow Blizzard's path, and remake AoE1 or 2 just with better graphics, and some new units / researches, it'd be a hit. I know a lot of people still playing both, but those are mostly oldschool. Unfortunately, nowadays a lot of young kids only want shiny things on their screen or they label it as boring, so even if they only improved graphics, it would already make it a success. Meh, enough dreaming I'll post a video here later of my favorite player (Arch_Koven_) on a spotlight game, so you guys can nostalgia even more xP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_7vOXG2zQ To be fair, the British Empire was going strong during the time period of AoE3, so it still technically is an Age of Empire(s).  | ||
|
wxlancer
United States14 Posts
I used to play AoK/AoC competitively. The game is quite long and has a big learning curve, although the prevalent metagame strategy in 1v1 is currently a dark rush followed by fast castle, harassing with cav archers for a decisive economic advantage, then finish in Imperial Age or in Castle with 2/2 knights, siege, and appropriate counter units. You will also see variations like the standard flush to castle, or the Aztec fast castle (eagle warriors have no feudal age counter). Of course with the varying settings you could be talking about DM or any number of maps or settings, but I'm outlining how a standard 1v1 Arabia game is expected to go. If you're playing on a water map, it's usually a fast feudal galley rush for water control, followed by a landing. If you haven't played the game I would argue it is not worth your time to learn it, especially if your friends already know how to play...again, the skill gap between a noob (rookies as they are called in aok/aoc) and an intermediate player is HUGE. This is an apm intensive game with very refined bulid orders, and while the races aren't all that different, there is a huge crop of units to choose from, and buildings are not easy to destroy so completely killing someone off can take awhile. The predominant race in competitive games is Huns - they save a ton of wood, hassle, clutter, and villager work time from not needing to build houses, and stable units are a staple for raids and main army composition. Good luck! | ||
|
HazMat
United States17077 Posts
On February 18 2011 02:23 wxlancer wrote: I came across this thread while looking to see if anyone had made an oldschool age2 players thread. Have you succeeded in your quest? I used to play AoK/AoC competitively. The game is quite long and has a big learning curve, although the prevalent metagame strategy in 1v1 is currently a dark rush followed by fast castle, harassing with cav archers for a decisive economic advantage, then finish in Imperial Age or in Castle with 2/2 knights, siege, and appropriate counter units. You will also see variations like the standard flush to castle, or the Aztec fast castle (eagle warriors have no feudal age counter). Of course with the varying settings you could be talking about DM or any number of maps or settings, but I'm outlining how a standard 1v1 Arabia game is expected to go. If you're playing on a water map, it's usually a fast feudal galley rush for water control, followed by a landing. If you haven't played the game I would argue it is not worth your time to learn it, especially if your friends already know how to play...again, the skill gap between a noob (rookies as they are called in aok/aoc) and an intermediate player is HUGE. This is an apm intensive game with very refined bulid orders, and while the races aren't all that different, there is a huge crop of units to choose from, and buildings are not easy to destroy so completely killing someone off can take awhile. The predominant race in competitive games is Huns - they save a ton of wood, hassle, clutter, and villager work time from not needing to build houses, and stable units are a staple for raids and main army composition. Good luck! This thread is over 6 years old ^_^. Interesting post none the less. Played AoE2 for quite a while but never got to the competitive side of it. | ||
|
harDmug
United Kingdom116 Posts
| ||
|
cheeseyesplz
United Kingdom82 Posts
british longbowmen RAPE with ridiculous range teutons have the teutonic soldiers which are ridiculously OP when upgraded to elite - the counter to teutons are usually the byzantines as their cataphracts are good vs them i like the japanese even though they aren't that good i just admire samurai. my personal fave unit combo is having a 2:1 combo of knights:mounted archers (with 1 scout for better range) to act as a sort of "shock unit"...like mutas to harass the fuck out of things as they are extremely mobile, and they are very strong in this case (unless it's versus spearman) | ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
| ||
|
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On February 18 2011 02:51 cheeseyesplz wrote: france are good due to cheap castles etc and give knights additional HP iirc british longbowmen RAPE with ridiculous range teutons have the teutonic soldiers which are ridiculously OP when upgraded to elite - the counter to teutons are usually the byzantines as their cataphracts are good vs them i like the japanese even though they aren't that good i just admire samurai. my personal fave unit combo is having a 2:1 combo of knights:mounted archers (with 1 scout for better range) to act as a sort of "shock unit"...like mutas to harass the fuck out of things as they are extremely mobile, and they are very strong in this case (unless it's versus spearman) What ... lol all the races you mentioned are terrible except ironically the Japanese because they can dominate a map with fish and their unique tech is amazing with the best champion spam (arguably). British are passable but a complete joke against any top races. Tiers are Huns Mongols One of the Mezo races (I forget, Mayans or Aztecs) Chinese with 23940782384723apm Some other mishmash are right below but I forgot them since I pretty much only played Mongols. | ||
|
holynorth
United States590 Posts
| ||
|
iko
New Zealand137 Posts
Byzantine Goths Everything else pales in comparison | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On February 18 2011 03:38 holynorth wrote: Above tiers are ok.. but if you want to "cheese" just rush siege with the celts. That was the most common strategy to play in the competitive scene until it was banned from most tournaments. A Hun/Mongol flush will kill any attempt at rushing to siege easily. In fact, any well executed flush wll kill a siege rush attempt. Celts are decent still as they can get fast wood which gives them a decent feudal. And the only way I can picturing losing to turks would be falling asleep on the keyboard. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
As the thread name implies this is a general thread about AoE, what's the average apm of top AoE players? What's the most OP strategy you can imagine? I 1v2 my friends on lans and such, and it'd be awesome with some actual strategy to tip the balance even more in my favour ^^ I doubt AoE 2 is fully balanced, as it's been mentioned above. | ||
|
wxlancer
United States14 Posts
I do think the unique unit part of the game was cool, just too often not a factor in competitive games. Since the huns and the mesos don't have champions, you could easily go hundreds of 1v1 arabia matches without seeing a champ flood! Although I could see Japanese as a nice mid to lategame counter to meso. I actually wonder how elite samurai match up against elite jags. Barring any recent changes, IGZones still offers age2, a big lobby with many South American and Asian players. You can always get into those giant 4v4 LN games that are so popular these days. | ||
|
holynorth
United States590 Posts
On February 18 2011 03:52 KissBlade wrote: A Hun/Mongol flush will kill any attempt at rushing to siege easily. In fact, any well executed flush wll kill a siege rush attempt. Celts are decent still as they can get fast wood which gives them a decent feudal. And the only way I can picturing losing to turks would be falling asleep on the keyboard. How can the Huns or Mongols stop Ongangers / Scorpion rush from the Celts? I don't see how it's possible. The strategy was called broken and banned in tournaments / online play for a reason. Scorpions in mass are nearly unstoppable. The mangudal isn't going to do much especially with halberds or a few paladins near the scorpions. | ||
|
wxlancer
United States14 Posts
On February 18 2011 05:05 holynorth wrote: How can the mongols stop Ongangers / Scorpion rush from the Celts? I don't see how it's possible. The strategy was called broken and banned in tournaments / online play for a reason. In what tournament/online play are you talking about? And what game mode is this? Are you talking about 1v1 Michi, DM, or RM? The premiere public rated gaming league for Age of Empires 2 was the MSN Gaming Zone, and at no point was any strategy or race involving the Celts officially or unofficially banned, patched, etc. Look at any of the prestigious tournaments - noone played Celts. You'll see Celt at most in a water map team game, or a big 4v4, or Michi/DM. A standard flush gets to feudal at about 11:00 and starts hitting you a minute later, especially if you're fast castling. Even if you have a completely wallable map, siege is too slow and immobile to pose a serious threat to someone who has map control - this is essentially an age version of a one base all-in. If you're thinking of forward building workshops, forget about it - either your economy will be in shambles if you get forwarded, or your shops will simply get palisaded in with your workers killed. Even a scout heavy feudal composition destroys scattered siege. And no decent player is going to engage your onagers with archery range units. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
In the original AoK the best 1v1 civ was Chinese. You could also potentially play with Mongols, Brits, and Byz as well, though the strategy was different. The original AoK was balanced better than AoC. | ||
|
wxlancer
United States14 Posts
I think the Chinese had a smaller food penalty in AoK as well, so it wasn't as risky, almost a guaranteed payoff with 6 vil. The Hun houseless bonus is just ridiculous. As an econ heavy game before people refined their builds I feel AoK/AoC has alot of transferrable RTS skills to starcraft - composition and sustained macro are huge. | ||
| ||
