There are currently three other AoE2 threads. Do we really need another one?
>>1050851
>>1044170
>>1038170

I hate anime women that spam my board so goddamn much

>>1051672
Yeah

I fucking love anime women, keep posting them.

Donjang

>>1051656
Cute

I'm ambivalent towards anime women but I hate Sicilians.

>>1051906
>I hate Sicilians.
Why?

>>1051672
One is archived and the other 2 can't be found by searching AOE2 or Age of Empires on the board. Learn to make better OPs if you're upset about your thread getting passed over

>>1051672
Age of Empires board, yes.

File: 1632082387094.png (169 KB, 682x490)

169 KB PNG

Who is the big winner out of each DLC's civs in terms of fun factor in your opinion?
>Lords of the West
Burgundians are way more fun than Sicilians due to 19 pop scrush into castle age cavaliers, being able to do fun builds with early eco bonuses, also Coustillier and obviously the Flemish Revolution.
>Dawn of the Dukes
Double Castle Hussite Wagons just fucking instant locks in this slot over the poles. Even IF the Poles were actually fun to play (Hussar floods are meta, but they certainly aren't any fun to do or fight against) the Bohemians would still just plow over them in appeal. Houfnice are just a nice (heh) bonus on top of the UU.
>Dynasties of India
Gurjara easy. Feudal camels, shrivs, cheap food costs once you hit castle, fun and flexible start, and chakram throwers absolutely SHRED even massively superior infantry packs.

Anyone even disagree with this? I feel like there's been a clear most fun civ each DLC so far.

>>1052037
Dravidians and Bengalis are just UU spam. What's wrong with devs?

>>1051928
They shouldn't be a civ in the first place. They are Normans and Normans are French. 100% faster built castles is a dumb as fuck bonus and makes their castle drops nearly impossible to stop. Units receiving 50% bonus damage completely goes against core mechanics of the game where you have to be smart about choosing your units and your counters instead of brute forcing everything, particularly now with hauberk. You can play Sicilians just spamming knights because they are immune to spears and arrows. First crusade. Serjeants that can build Donjons and Donjons that can train Serjeants in the feudal age.

Also coustiliers are annoying as fuck. Flemish revolution. And Burgundians are also just French. These two civs should be removed.

>>1052148
>t. Got Donjon'd, First Crusade'd and FLEMISH'D

>>1052148
>They are Normans and Normans are French
The civ is specifically referencing the Normans ruling Sicily. Here is a dev explaining their thought process behind their bonuses:
https://old.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/szi468/about_sicilians/hy4aegy/

>>1051676
They're cute though.

As for the game itself, replaying the Indian campaign as the new Gurjaras doesn't make the missions any less AIDS. Poorly designed campaign IMO.

>>1052148
>Units receiving 50% bonus damage completely goes against core mechanics of the game where you have to be smart about choosing your units and your counters instead of brute forcing everything, particularly now with hauberk
t. Only plays archerfags civs and gets rightfully stomped
Sicilians are only good vs counter civs and counter units, but pound by pound Sicilians have weak unit composition, militia-line spam alone can utterly mess up a Sicilian
2-3 Barrack Supplies MAA spam on feudak, longsword and rams on castle, and lastly, champs and SOs will utterly mess up a Sicilian
Donjons can tank a lot but have low damage output, can easily get overwhelmed, and they may have tanky cavaliers but at the end of the day they are just that, cavaliers

Viking spamming Zerks, Burmese or Aztec champs or even fucking Teutonic Knights will fuck up a Sicilian if you constantly treb down their donjons

>>1052176
>Donjons can tank a lot but have low damage output
Serjeants*

>>1052037
Burgundians probably but no big prefference here
Bohemians
Hindustanis

>>1051937
Neither of those were mine. I just don't like board spamming by people too lazy to even open catalog.

>>1052148
Ban all americans

>>1052219
Kill yourself kike

>>1052176
>t. Only plays archerfags civs and gets rightfully stomped
No I don't. Fuck you.

>>1052226
Americans are kikes slaves

>>1051656
Is this Poland?

>>1052229
Trump is your president. Cope, kike.

File: talichad whips ameriturd.png (525 KB, 594x431)

525 KB PNG

>>1052235
You can't even point to my country on the map

>>1052237
AOE4fag on copium again lol

File: 1643137958262.jpg (101 KB, 1000x1019)

101 KB JPG

>>1052250
Oh no no no

Not this schizo again

>>1052037
Original Indians got buffed bigly
>>1052039
Dravidians is an archer civ

>>1052260
kill yourself

I just want to say that I bought AoE3DE to play the campaigns and I hope it will provide me with a cheerful week!

>>1052279
sneed

File: screenshot-ageofempires.f(...).png (18 KB, 98x106)

18 KB PNG

>>1051656
What do I even open with, scouts? Average archer rush will wreck me most of the time.

>>1052301
Scout rush harder then, or get a better build, or just lure deers lmao

File: 1652204186545.jpg (11 KB, 250x250)

11 KB JPG

>age of archers
>age of build orders
>age of knights

>>1051672
This isn't /vg/ you retard
One thread specifically about the new campaigns
One of the threads is by somebody complaining about lack of campaigns for the original civs becaues the OP doesn't understand the development history HD and DE
Third one is just previous archived version of this thread

>>1052283
Based. Have fun anon and try campaigns like Genghis Khan even if you don't like Mongols

>>1052456
>>age of build orders
This is a RTS, strategy and execution are equally important, you could have done all your homework, study all civs, units, mechanics, strategies, maps and have a proper plan for your civ match up, but if you suck at carrying out your plans you will get wrecked anyways, because things like rushes, timings, scouting, micro, macro and mindgames are a thing in this game that are also very fucking important.
If you cannot deal with the execution part then RTS is not for you, play a turn based strategy game instead.

>>age of knights
QUITE LITERALLY skill issue and scrub talk. Knights are no longer dominant like they were in AoC (looking at you, Huns), there are so many things that counters knights, pikemen, longswords, critical mass of crossbows, microing cavalry archers with husbandry, camels, battle elephants, monks, walls, castles, 1/3 of UUs can beat knights, 3 mangonels firing at ground predicting where knights will go. Over the years with subsecuent DLCs and changes knights have been losing power and relevancy (see janky melee pathing), if you die to knights you UNIRONICALLY have to get fucking good. No excuses.

>>age of archers
The only valid claim, archers so easy to micro, mass up, and are extremely cost efficient for their cost, seeing 30 crossbows easily one handling a group of 15-20, or at the very least taking cost efficient battles fucking hurts my soul.
The devs will never fucking nerf the archers since pros will throw a bitchfit, but if you really want to neuter archers, give them the CA treatment they got in the forgotten, increase the frame delay, so it will be much harder for people to micro them.
Also buff CAs, reduce their frame delay, unlike crossbows, mounted archers are MADE to be microed, otherwise they fucking die.

>>1053059
>If you cannot deal with the execution part then RTS is not for you, play a turn based strategy game instead.
NTA, but I have a question: Why does this opinion keep popping up? Micro is effectively just a bonus legacy feature at this point, like with fighting game juggles. If the genre was getting started today, with a fresh and innovative Virtua Fighter, would that really make sense to add? Same thing here. If Age of Empires 2 was just being made now, why would small-scale micromanagement be necessary? It detracts from actual strategy and just slows down the game unnecessarily.

>>1053059
Age of Knights and Archers is a valid complaint for team games IMO. Team games have a way more boring meta than 1v1 to me.

>>1053121
>If the genre was getting started today, with a fresh and innovative Virtua Fighter, would that really make sense to add?
Why not? Juggling is fun and detracts from nothing, while allowing strategic options like resets and different combo enders for different purposes like corner carry, meter gain, meter spent and so on. Any game that lets you stun the opponent for a longer duration than another attack's startup ends up having combos, including things like MOBAs. I think that people who think like you get too hung up on the name of the genre having strategy in it and start thinking it's something like chess or a general simulator. Instead, look at how the biggest games in the genre are actually played. It's more like an action game where you fight with multiple characters but at the same time you have to manage resource allocation. If anything, if something like that were made today the units would have more active abilities and "ultimates", since everything has ultimates nowadays.

>>1053153
>Why not? Juggling is fun and detracts from nothing
The aesthetics and playability of the game. I'd recommend playing the re-released Virtua Fighter 5. Try Aoi as a character and notice how much more weight the characters have there. How the moves follow through, and how the match's progression changes. Forced crouches, high + on-block moves, stomps, and sabaki attacks exist in virtually another world from juggles. One has you putting your opponent in an uncomfortable situation to control his options and dictate the flow of the engagement, and the other is just a way to tack free damage on the end of a regular hit.
>while allowing strategic options like resets and different combo enders for different purposes like corner carry, meter gain, meter spent and so on.
You could do all of that via neutral without deactivating one player's controller. I switched from playing an evasive Eddy to playing Steve, and I was able to throw out most of my character and mixup knowledge just by betting I could b1 my way into an easy CH, and conditioning them not to crush. Juggles just detract from the fighting experience.
>I think that people who think like you get too hung up on the name of the genre having strategy in it and start thinking it's something like chess or a general simulator
No, I just think it involves being able to rely on certain constants, such as units being reliable at all times.
>Instead, look at how the biggest games in the genre are actually played. It's more like an action game where you fight with multiple characters but at the same time you have to manage resource allocation.
What does the word "Corruption" mean to you?
>If anything, if something like that were made today the units would have more active abilities and "ultimates", since everything has ultimates nowadays.
"It's bad, but not as bad as it could be if it was designed worse, so it's fine"?

>>1053121
>Micro is effectively just a bonus legacy feature at this point
No, its not, the reason why regular archers so fucking strong it is because they ARE microed to death, making them hard as fuck to kill.
I don't know where you got that opinion but for some units micro is still very prevalent and almost meta defining.
I know you dislike gookclick but thats how it is.

>>1053153
Oh yes you're right, but in reality the crossbow knight meta is only prevalent on Arabia team games, which is why I ban arabia on ranked team games, and I opt for unorthodox open maps, nomad-like maps and arena

>>1053170
Talking about fighting games, I get the fun from games with smaller combos like Samsho or Virtua Fighter, and I get that you could accomplish much of the same thing in other ways. But the fact that combos keep showing up in other games and genres means I don't think there is anything inherent about them that would mean it's a legacy feature that wouldn't exist if the genre was new. And the aesthetics are great and one of the main draws, otherwise there would be no such a thing as a combo video or games like Devil May Cry that have combo video competitions.
Talking about RTSs, I legit don't understand your argument. Corruption? I'm talking about some of the oldest games in the genre, that is how the genre is, if AoE2 and Broodwar are a corruption of the genre then it was born corrupted. Units are reliable, but things aren't robotic. You shouldn't be able to win just because you have the better unit or more units, there should be the potential to play badly and lose because you couldn't use those units as well as the opponent.

>Sir, enemies at the gates! What do we do?
>I'm going to take a shower and fuck off to my quarters for a little bit men, just hang out until I get back
This is what dumb niggas who insist games are more strategic without micro ACTUALLY believe.

Micro adds onto strategy, having to correctly execute your strategy is a massive component of any real life strategy.

>>1053188
>No, its not, the reason why regular archers so fucking strong it is because they ARE microed to death, making them hard as fuck to kill.
EXACTLY. It's a legacy feature that's currently ruining the game.
>I don't know where you got that opinion but for some units micro is still very prevalent and almost meta defining.
Reread my post. You've misunderstood.
>>1053189
>But the fact that combos keep showing up in other games and genres means I don't think there is anything inherent about them that would mean it's a legacy feature that wouldn't exist if the genre was new.
They came with much of the game engine and proved themselves in the market early on, but I doubt they'd be so pervasive if developers had the ability to make games that could fully function without them when they first began. Competing models would've had better footing, and could've lent more criticism to what's now just the "norm".
>Talking about RTSs, I legit don't understand your argument. Corruption? I'm talking about some of the oldest games in the genre, that is how the genre is, if AoE2 and Broodwar are a corruption of the genre then it was born corrupted.
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
>Units are reliable, but things aren't robotic
They aren't reliable. They jump at the chance to kill themselves. If you send our a pack of archers to kill everything between your base and the enemy's market, they'll harmlessly walk back to you because a skirmisher walked to your base. If you leave knights on the edge of a safe area as your siege rams make their way to their position, all it takes is one scout running near the knight to convince him and his men to attack a castle.
>You shouldn't be able to win just because you have the better unit or more units,
No, but it should be because you knew where to direct your resources and what to attack.
>there should be the potential to play badly and lose because you couldn't use those units as well as the opponent.
Why?

>>1053196
>"Sir, enemies at the gates! What do we do?"
>"We already have an established set of instructions for this exact scenario. You've been a guard here since we were just a village. How do you not know already?"
>"Got it, sir. We're opening the gates now! For the King!"
>Micro adds onto strategy, having to correctly execute your strategy is a massive component of any real life strategy.
There's a reason we have professional regiments. If the king has to micromanage every single unit on the field, there's not a point in paying for all of the expenses that support them.

File: 1595503634961.png (32 KB, 925x711)

32 KB PNG

I main Dravidians now because their voices are funny

>>1053206
>>>>>>>>>>>We already have an established set of instructions for this exact scenario
There is no exact scenario retard. Because RTS have more variables than any other genre in vidya. War is about deception and if you have a cookie cutter response to military action any military worldwide is just gonna exploit that and win.

In real military it's a job split between an main leader and generals and other leadership down on the field. But in RTS you take on that role entirely by design, don't like it? Go play Fire Emblem or something and stop flailing around like a retard because the world won't cater itself to your sensibilities.

>>1053201
>EXACTLY. It's a legacy feature that's currently ruining the game.
Well... Yeah, I kinda have to agree, micro crossbows are fucking obnoxious, tho I still believe cavalry archers micro is fine, because their whole gist revolves around that

>>1053213
>There is no exact scenario retard. Because RTS have more variables than any other genre in vidya.
This is untrue.
>War is about deception and if you have a cookie cutter response to military action any military worldwide is just gonna exploit that and win.
Also untrue. This relies on them being able to muster the resources and actually defeat what you've built up, which is rarely actually as simple as you claim.
>In real military it's a job split between an main leader and generals and other leadership down on the field.
Yup.
>But in RTS you take on that role entirely by design, don't like it? Go play Fire Emblem
And now you've completely undermined your argument. A pointless appeal to the status quo.
>>1053215
>tho I still believe cavalry archers micro is fine, because their whole gist revolves around that
Agreed. Cavalry archers really should be a dedicated poking tool.

>>1053201
>Yes. That's what I'm saying.
If you think the main games that come to mind when someone talks about RTSs, and which are some of the oldest and most popular, are a corruption, doesn't that just mean that you don't like the genre? It's like saying Doom and Quake are a corruption of FPSs, even if you don't like both you have to admit that what they do is the template for what the genre is. What you want to play then is not an RTS, it's something else, and you're looking to get your fix from a genre that doesn't deliver what you want because it never even promised to.

>>1053196
>>1053206
Shit comparisons. You aren't a king barking orders at units and waiting for them to be completed. You are a player directly controlling multiple characters. It's more like:
>Sir, enemies at the gates! What do we do?
>We execute the strategy we practiced!
Then you as the player control the soldiers and actually do it perfectly, or you do it half-assed because it was more important to look at the sneak attack at the back of your base.

>>1053237
>If you think the main games that come to mind when someone talks about RTSs, and which are some of the oldest and most popular, are a corruption, doesn't that just mean that you don't like the genre?
No, it means I dislike an aspect of the genre. I like Real-Time Strategy, but I don't like incompetent unit AI, or wide gaps between default and potential power on a unit, absent upgrades or other modifiers. These things aren't mutually-exclusive.
Think about it this way: Is it impossible for the oldest form of any government to suffer from corruption?
>>1053237
>We execute the strategy we practiced!
And then your knights run straight into the pikes, because they have no sense. Do you get it? If you have to choose between organizing units to put out fires in the back and telling your units in the front the basics of survival as their unit class, you're not playing a strategy game. You're playing a babysitting simulator.

>>1053258
>No, it means I dislike an aspect of the genre.
But it's a big aspect, one of the main ones. It's like saying you like FPSs but aiming is boring. Babysitting different units all over the map is core to the genre. As in, the actual genre as it exists and as it is exemplified in the biggest names of the genre, and not the genre as you want it to be in your head.

>And then your knights run straight into the pikes, because they have no sense.
Babysit them and avoid that.
>If you have to choose between organizing units to put out fires in the back and telling your units in the front the basics of survival as their unit class, you're not playing a strategy game.
"if you're doing some basic thing that happens in every strategy game, you're not playing a strategy game". Again I just think you're too stuck on the name "strategy" that we got stuck with to describe those fast paced arcadey action games like AoE2 or Starcraft. It's like complaining that Smash Bros should be a MOBA because it is a multiplayer online battle arena.

>>1053269
>But it's a big aspect, one of the main ones. It's like saying you like FPSs but aiming is boring. Babysitting different units all over the map is core to the genre.
It's how you maximize effectiveness, but you could easily change it with a change in ranged minimum frame delay, and the addition of a new mechanic that causes units on a "patrol" to avoid certain units or structures.
>As in, the actual genre as it exists
Another appeal to the status quo.
>Babysit them and avoid that.
No.
>"if you're doing some basic thing that happens in every strategy game, you're not playing a strategy game". Again I just think you're too stuck on the name "strategy"
Words have meanings for a reason.
>It's like complaining that Smash Bros should be a MOBA because it is a multiplayer online battle arena.
That's just a change in classification to better suit the reality. I'm not proposing we change the "RTS" label, just the most degenerate characteristics of the games.

Actually, if I were to make a macro to control my units for me, but didn't change any of their properties, would that change anything? Since it's just a control scheme change, it can't be argued to be a change to the genre itself.
If I then went and spread those macros among the players, and many used them without getting banned, could an argument be made that I'd transformed the RTS genre?

in the Total War series for example there isn't a lot of "micro", or at least the "macro" is more important than the "micro". units are grouped up into large battalions (often 240 or sometimes more on max unit scale). battles mostly come down to having the right preparation before the battle even starts (having good army comp, making sure your units aren't exhausted, deploying them in the right formations, etc.).
in something like a Total War game, you couldn't have an AOE2 situation where 20 crossbows are able to just run around forever and kite 40 knights to death, basically.

Thread ruined by autists arguing about the same shit we are argue about in every thread on /vst/

>>1053281
>That's just a change in classification to better suit the reality.
Great. So again, if those games were called something like Multiple Units Based Action Games would you come here asking them to remove the action to add more strategy? Because this whole discussion is basically you arguing that the way things are is bad and that they should be different because "strategy" that is only a marketing term that doesn't reflect how the games are actually played, with a focus on fast paced arcadey action.

>>1053288
If I use an aimbot to play CS:GO for me, would that change anything? It's still an FPS after all and I would still have to move around, buy weapons and such. I unironically think this and your suggestion would be fun experiments, but the games would feel and play way too different at that point.

>>1053293
>Great. So again, if those games were called something like Multiple Units Based Action Games would you come here asking them to remove the action to add more strategy?
Yes, since it improves gameplay.
>Because this whole discussion is basically you arguing that the way things are is bad and that they should be different because "strategy" that is only a marketing term that doesn't reflect how the games are actually played
Then you haven't paid any attention at all.
>If I use an aimbot to play CS:GO for me, would that change anything?
Depends. Is aiming the point of CS:GO, or just an aspect? I don't play that game, so I wouldn't know.

Actually it's called an " 'Aeon of Strife' Styled Fortress Assault Game Going On Two Sides "

>>1052037
>Flemish Tumorution
>Cancerlliers
>Cavaliers in Castle Age
May the LORD inflict upon you all the sorrows of Sodom for this nonsense.

>>1052301
I mean Turks are just a poor open map civ. Their trash is garbage and their massive powerspike comes from being able to fast Imp into Janissary and instant Hussars.

>>1053121
>If the genre was getting started today,
Doesn't matter, because it's not. Things existed before you, zoomer, and we do not live in an eternal constantly-updating present. Big shock, I know.

>>1053308
You've missed the entire point of the argument. If you want to participate, start by reading.

>>1053310
>you have to read my garbage and pretend it's legitimate
No. I wipe my ass with your posts. Another 23 years from now we'll STILL be playing Age of Empires and your spawn, if you lamentably have any, will be trying to parasitize another game. Not a single thing you type is worth reading to me just like it wasn't in the past two decades I kept playing AoE2 instead of the garbage games 'developers' tried to push.

>>1053289
>where 20 crossbows are able to just run around forever and kite 40 knights to death
By Knights you mean dudes on horses? Wow, I personally never got a real urge to play it but is this super popular and legendary game really that stupid? That sounds more like a balance problem than a micro one, since no amount of clicking should allow footmen to outrun cavalry.

>>1053328
They can't, he's a retard.

Archers can get a bit of extra damage done against knights than normal if they run away and shoot, because the knights have to close the distance over and over. But if you start tasking knights to specific archers it breaks the whole thing up faster because they stop bumping into each other in autopathing.

If he's losing that many knights to that many archers he's probably forgetting his blacksmith upgrades. The only time that many archers can take out that many knights is if the knights cannot get to the archers.

>>1053395
>The only time that many archers can take out that many knights is if the knights cannot get to the archers.
To be fair, there was a bug with attack-move in the last patch that made it so that archers were way too effective against everything else when retreating, so maybe that is what that was about. It's fixed now though.

>>1052201
Applies to Donjons too. They look formidable but their stats are heavily skewed toward increased defense rather than damage. Their base damage is identical to the watch tower line and they only fire a single arrow unless garrisoned like a tower. Still really effective in a feudal age donjon rush since they're that much harder to take out, can create serjeants in your opponent's base, and can garrison 10 units to make it easier to protect your forward units.

>>1053437
You can simply bumrush the donjon with villagers, or swarm the serjeants with massed MAAs, in castle age 2-3 mangonels will bring down a donjon just fine

>>1053453
>You can simply bumrush the donjon with villagers
Bad idea unless the Sicilian player fucks up and leaves it unattended.

Your best bet with these types of forward plays is to drop an equivalent tower/castle of your own so they can't use theirs as a staging point to keep pushing, and move your vills to a secondary tile of the same resource that got denied. If you defend with vills you're throwing away a built-in advantage which is the fact that he sent vills forward and might have lost a couple whereas yours are still working.

>>1053289
>n the Total War series for example there isn't a lot of "micro", or at least the "macro" is more important than the "micro".
I strongly suspect you don't know what these words mean because what you just said makes absolutely no sense with regard to how combat works in Total War. Total War combat usually comes down to shattering the morale of the enemy as quickly as possible, which is a factor of positioning and timing, which the player influences through directing units with specific commands (i.e. micro). In those less common fights where the enemy won't retreat (usually because they can't, such as when they're defending a besieged city), micro is still important as a way to prevent your best units from being chewed up in the meat grinder.

>battles mostly come down to having the right preparation before the battle even starts
Uh no. Battles come down to positioning and timing. Your "preparation" is limited to deployment of troops in a limited space on the battlefield and creating unit groups. This is helpful, but it's not at all decisive or as important as positioning and timing once the battle starts. What ends the battle most of the time is successfully breaking the enemy's morale and this is largely a function of maneuvers after the battle starts.

>you couldn't have an AOE2 situation where 20 crossbows are able to just run around forever and kite 40 knights to death
Knights are faster than crossbows and with bloodlines and their armor upgrades crossbows only do 3 damage apiece to knights, meaning it takes 20 crossbows two volleys to kill a knight, assuming they all hit (they won't). The only way you get "kited to death" with 40 knights vs 20 crossbows is if you're an absolute moron.

>>1053453
Well yeah you don't usually see games ended with feudal age aggression unless it's a very low ELO where players can't deal with early game pressure. The point of it is to be really annoying, take vills off of resources, and forcing the enemy to put resources into feudal age military and techs that slow them down. Sicilians aren't really an all-in early game civ, looking at their win rate states. Their winrate goes up the longer the game lasts, so if anything, it's the opposite.

>>1053454
Or simply MAA rush.
Donjon rushes in feudal only works against archer, scout rushes and fast castles, but if you MAA rush then the guy cannot trush you
>If he brings villagers alone to donjon rush you, simply attack the donjon, vills or walls
>If he brings his own MAAs and vills, fight his MAAs with yours and pull villagers to destroy the donjon while the infantrymen duke it out

Like I said before, an infantryfag will easily best a Sicilian, brute force him and it will be ez

>>1053462
A Sicilian player does have options against an infantry civ, in that their archers are actually pretty decent in the early game thanks to reducing bonus damage by 50%, making small numbers of skirmishers less of a deterrence to a harassing archer army. But it's a terrible long-term investment for them due to missing some crucial upgrades, despite getting arbalest and bracer, so you know the Sicilian player is going to tech switch if you can just ride out the archers in feudal and early castle.

>>1053490
>in that their archers are actually pretty decent in the early game thanks to reducing bonus damage by 50%
Scout rush or commit to more archers than him.
Or just wall up.

It's not that hard. MAA and Archers is very common in two infantry civs in 1vs1

>>1052301
Open archers. Most people will assume Turks opening scours and forget that they have a immediate boost to gold gather, so you can get archers out faster and without disrupting your food income for scouts you can go castle and have light cav+CA to use.

>>1053306
>their trash is garbage
yeah, that's why they're called "trash" :^)
i laugh at dumbass civs that actually use those units hahahaha
scissors paper rock is the lowest form of strategy

some ideas for civ bonuses

>scout cavalry archer
>hp 35 (dark), 40 (feudal)
>attack 2 (dark), 4 +1 vs spear (feudal)
>range 3 (dark), 4 (feudal)
>accuracy 40%
>armor 0/0
>speed 1.2 (dark), 1.4 (feudal)
>los 4 (dark), 5 (feudal)

>elephant scout
>hp 140 (dark), 185 (feudal)
>attack 5 (dark), 8 +2 vs buildings +2 vs stone (feudal)
>armor 0/1
>speed 0.85
>los 4

>fishing ships attack with arrows starting in the feudal age (attack 2, range 2, accuracy 90%, no blacksmith upgrades but gets +1 attack and range each age)

>food from hunting doesn't require drop-off

>hunted animals never decay

>wolves can be hunted for 100 food

>food can be gathered from animals even if they are lamed

>villagers can convert boars

>outposts attack with arrows starting in the feudal age (attack 2, range 6, accuracy 90%, benefits from blacksmith upgrades)

>villagers can attack with bows starting in the feudal age (attack 3, range 3, accuracy 50%, no blacksmith upgrades but gains +1 attack and range and +25% accuracy each age)

>fortified outpost available in the castle age
>hp 1000
>armor 1/5

>fortified palisade wall available in the castle age
>hp 500
>armor 4/7

>palisade walls deal damage to melee units attacking them (1 melee +5 vs cavalry)

>stone walls deal damage to melee units attacking them (2 melee +5 vs rams)

>start with 6 outposts in wide area around tc instead of a scout

>start with 2 militia instead of a scout

>ram garrison can attack with arrows (attack 5, range 2, accuracy 100%)

>trade carts can garrison 1 unit

>trade cogs can garrison 1 unit

>fishing ships can garrison 1 unit starting in feudal age

>trade cogs can suicide-attack like a demo ship for 80 damage starting in castle age

>fishing ships can suicide-attack like a demo ship for 60 damage after chemistry is researched

>trade cogs attack with arrows (attack 4 +4 vs ships, range 5, accuracy 90%, no blacksmith upgrades)

>transport ship garrison can attack with arrows (attack 5, range 2, accuracy 100%)

Tell me about Konniks
>Stirrups is almost mandatory for them because they attack slower than an unbuilt Battering Ram
>Infantry Konniks can be easily picked off and will slow down the rest of the cavalry if they try to catch up
>Less pierce armour than Knights means they're more susceptible to archers
They can be easily massed, they're almost as strong as Cavaliers in CA and their design & gimmick kicks ass, but I feel like I'm missing something.
What makes them such a good UU?

>>1053836
>dark age scout cavalry archer
Plese don't.

File: 1593875865631.jpg (57 KB, 736x717)

57 KB JPG

Newfag here again, still need big help. I thought that if I settled a dropout point in them iddle of the enemy's base the troops would spawn and attack anything in their path, however what they do is walk forward even if they get attacked on the way. Is there any way of fixing this or should I just spawn them in a big group and walk forward later?
Also I can't get used to hotkeys yet, but is there anythign that I should change from the base hotkeys?

>>1054061
The rally point is a move command, not an attack move, so its better to set the point nearby and then attack en masse

>>1053840
https://youtu.be/OEzeu5wO4d4
Konniks priorize damage output over tankiness, and they have 2 forms, cavalryfag and then infantryfag when the mounted konnik is felled, combining these two factors you have an unit that is extremely well versed at melee combat, mounted konnik hits like a truck, and when killed the guy stands up again and keeps hitting like a truck (for infantry standarts), they are bad vs archers, but good vs other cavalry and infantry since they are extremely cost efficient, since you're getting effectively 2 units in 1.

>>1054061
Use patrol, patrol is the most commonly used unit command to makes them go nuts on anything the find and fight

File: 1609878007761.gif (491 KB, 220x165)

491 KB GIF

>Check out Hera's stream because I've burned through all of T90's recent content
>mfw
I have no clue how someone playing at such a high level can shill so aggressively at the same time

So I ask, is there anyone else I should be watching for DE? I'm very bad at it so I find watching it less stressful than playing

>>1054063
>>1054084
I see. I barely used the army comp and movements because just setting the villagers to work right is hard
It's normal to get absolutely wiped in ranked online right? I'm taking this like it's a fighting game, currently on a 8 game lose streak

>>1054144
>It's normal to get absolutely wiped in ranked online right? I'm taking this like it's a fighting game, currently on a 8 game lose streak
Yes, usually you get beaten down to your correct ELO placement and then you will be matched up with players of equal skill as yours

>>1054109
Daut is the most likeable pro imo, so I like his stream the most
Viper's stream is also ok, he should be back by the end of this month
Nili is a charisma vacuum, unwatchable imo

Survivalist's stream is also worth checking out, he's not quite pro level, but pretty close. Does coaching of lower ranked players and has a pretty good youtube channel

>>1054259
I'll check out Daut and Survivalist, thanks

>>1052037
>Lords of the West
Burgundians even though I really dislike Flemish Revolution and I'm not really sure about the coustillier either. Early eco bonuses are a good idea though.
Sicilians just feel a bit off in their design. They're supposed to be centered about Donjons and Serjeants but it just doesn't feel like a good strategy in 99% of games. They're still a pretty strong civ but just a bit dull in their design without serjeants or donjons (which is how theyre played most games) imo.
>Dawn of the Dukes
I think both civs are excellent, Bohemians have a slight edge because of cooler UU though
>Dynasties of India
Haven't bought it yet so I'm not sure. Ratha's and shrivamsha riders look pretty cool though

>>1054293
>Haven't bought it yet so I'm not sure
This indian DLC is pretty much a '6/10 - It was okay.'

Who is the highest 1v1 ELO poster ITT?
I'll start: ~1700

>>1054419
That's pretty good, how much do you play and did it take you a long time to get to that level?

>>1054061
Change idle village to tab and change select all TC to .
Use attack move R
Fight on hills use numbers to your advantage and play the art of war campaign

>>1054406
I enjoyed it for the campaigns. Don’t even really care about the new factions though the Hindustani rework is very cool.

>>1054419
Around 1600

>>1054419
Was 1700 but I'm completely inactive

>>1054144
Ranked queue is the best way to find people at your skill level but it needs to figure out what your ELO is. Eventually you should start having more evenly matched games.

will spamming the "go to TC" button make me a better player

>>1054509
If your problem is vill production it probably wouldn't hurt to make checking your TC queues regularly.

File: 1652228876888.gif (1.39 MB, 498x277)

1.39 MB GIF

I won't play this game again until they nerf archers or make infantry more resistant
it's fake warfare otherwise

>>1054509
i went from “new to RTS” to “better than everyone i know” just by setting a select all TCs hotkey that i could reach with my pinky

>>1054109
Whats he shilling? The game itself? Seems weird he quit the game for awhile to play fucking LoL.

>>1054419
1200 BVLL reporting

I’m doing my reps on Hera’s guide to 2k though!

>>1054580
They literally just nerfed archers though? The attack move nerf was absolutely gigantic at the low-mid ELO level.

>>1054762
It wasnt a nerf, it was a bug fix, unless you consider archers phasing throught knights something legit and proper of archers.
Or if you refer to the attack move reaction times, it doesn't matter, archers microability still makes them stupidly microable, very damaging and cost efficient

>>1054670
It's just the constant flow of usual Twitch bullshit

File: file.png (132 KB, 1280x910)

132 KB PNG

Sirs, I need to know: did Microsoft do the needful and rename the poo faction to what they're supposed to be called?

why doesn't anyone play with 75 pop anymore

>>1054875
It's the devs fault for making extremely specific civs like "Burdundy","Poland" and "Lithuania" but also continuing to make umbrella civs like Dravidians which correspond more to something like "Slavs" or "Celts"
The civ as it is depicted in game is literally tamils/chola+Urumi UU (urumi is from the southwest of india)

>>1052148
i agree, im not a fan of that DLC in particular. civ bonuses are gimmicky and charge attacks should be removed

>>1052301
Your options really open up around Castle Age so just rushing there isn't a bad strat- from there you can do silly comps like janissary-magonel-monk or LC/CA. Your gold bonus is probably the best gold bonus in the game but it requires you to really try to leverage it.
Still turks can struggle on open maps where there isn't enough gold or if they're up against a civ with a strong early game eco (like Franks) that can get to pumping out knights before Turks can build up enough janissaries to deal with them. Camels can help but they're not actually that good at countering knights-they trade pretty evenly but cost less.

>>1054884
So they didn't do the needful? Bloody basterds!

>>1054875
This is really a minor amount of seething compared to what would happen if they added Tibet or split China in any way.
Which is why it will never happen

>>1054914
It's not even seething, most of the comments are just respectful requests for a name change.

>>1054885
>charge attacks should be removed
Your opinion stinks. Why did you post it?

What even is the difference between a Chola and a Tamil and a Dravidian
I always thought a Chola was a type of Tamil, and a Tamil was a type of Dravidian
like how a square is a type of rectangle, and a rectangle is a type of quadrilateral

Celts pretend to have options but in reality they don't. They get Paladins, but they're literally the worst Paladins in the game. They get Heavy Cav Archers, but they're literally the worst Heavy Cav Archers in the game. Their monks are shit. Their navy is theoretically alright, but they're missing Fast Fire Ship which is tragic.

File: 200bc.png (1.52 MB, 1019x597)

1.52 MB PNG

>>1054923
First two are simple, Tamils are an ethnic and language group. Cholas are just a dynasty like Hapsburgs , their empire is named after them, there are also rivals like the Pandyas and their territory generally overlaps with sometimes one being dormant because they got subjugated.
The controversial one is Dravidian which has a bunch of baggage attached to it including with the caste system and honestly I can't even really explain it. It's supposed to be a language group but some people use it as a racial or ethnic grouping either positively or negatively.
The devs probably picked the name to be inclusive.

>>1054932
Yeah, they really are all about infantry and siege. They can in theory do other things, but I would only use those weaker parts of the tech tree to beat someone that's playing a civ with major deficiencies, like Turks (bad skirms and pikes) or Koreans (garbage cav). Even then you can just spam woads to more or less fill the same role as eagles in a meso civ (but worse).

>>1052148
>They shouldn't be a civ in the first place. They are Normans and Normans are French.
I agree in principle but it's fairly clear the devs wanted to focus on the Norman conquest of Sicily, rather than Normandy in modern-day France.
>>1054877
75 pop is reached very easily while halfway through castle age. It's an awful limit that arbitrarily inhibits growth and resource collection. It also makes knights that much more powerful since they're the most pop-efficient unit in the game barring elephants. With higher pop limits it's:
>Harder to protect your eco
>Easier to mass up counters like halbs to individually powerful units like paladins

>>1054942
>Even then you can just spam woads to more or less fill the same role as eagles in a meso civ (but worse).
Yes and no, take them as pretty fucking fast champions, yes they are fast as eagles but they are nowhere as tanky as them

why celts get hca
why franks get hca
why goths get hca
why spanish get hca

hca without partisan tactics is useless, plus none of these civs were cav archer civs historically

>>1054959
The reasoning was probably "why not" given that they probably won't use them anyways but it could be a meme option. No one will expect Spanish cavalry archers because their archer line is shit and they have Conqs but really there's nothing wrong with their CA until mid-Imperial where they miss out on Parthian Tactics.

>>1054959
spanish heavy cav archers are perfectly usable although unlikely to ever be seen in a real game just because they have many other options. lacking parthian tactics makes basically no difference at all against massed cavalry and non-pike infantry like eagles or champs and those are two of the most common situations where HCA shine.

with regards to the other three civs, all three existed in the age of kings 1999 edition. notably, teutons are the only civilization in that version of the game without access to the HCA upgrade and was probably singled out to lean in to their identity as a slow, grindy civ without strong raiding options. which explains why all three other civs have access - not a matter of including it for them, but excluding it for teutons to make them feel more uniquely limited in their options.

also, notably, before the conquerors expansion in 2000, three of the most important cav archer upgrades didn't exist yet: bloodlines, thumb ring, and parthian tactics. so, funnily enough, goths had fully upgraded heavy cav archers in 1999.

>>1054959
Spanishand Goths probably are referenced to mercenary moors and mercenary huns respectively

>>1052148
I agree that the Sicilians are a badly designed and inbalanced civ. The 50% bonus damage reduction basically circumvents game mechanics, and makes a lot of their matchups stomps.

I like Burgundians on paper, tho admittedly I've rarely met them in the game so far.

>>1054980
>also, notably, before the conquerors expansion in 2000, three of the most important cav archer upgrades didn't exist yet: bloodlines, thumb ring, and parthian tactics. so, funnily enough, goths had fully upgraded heavy cav archers in 1999.
They also had 3 range and the same low accuracy as today, but without thumb ring to fix it. And they were more expensive.
Man, AoK cavarchers must have sucked ass.

Map vote time, bitches
In-game map voting soon.tm
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/vote-now-1v1-ranked-map-rotation-may-17/203525
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/vote-now-team-game-ranked-map-rotation-may-17/203526

>>1055050
Don't have an account to the forums, hope mega random and nomad make it

File: beyond anger.jpg (79 KB, 528x396)

79 KB JPG

>>1055090
MegaRandom is pretty much confirmed on both solo and team, with Nomad on solo
I just wish Nomad would become a permanent addition to the pools so Nomadscrubs stop voting it in every time
There's a ton of interesting options out there but NOPE Nomad Nomad Nomad
Yes I mad

What are your favourite civs to play? Mine are
>Tatars
>Malians
>Bulgarians
>Huns
>Saracens

For me it's
>Slavs
>Malay
>Vietnamese
>Indians
>Japanese

File: AoE II civ rate.png (516 KB, 988x491)

516 KB PNG

>>1055103
Pretty much the top row

>>1054406
Agreed.
LoTW 7/10
DoD 9/10
DoI 6/10

>>1052148
I like the Sicilian bonuses of building TCs and castles quicker and the transport ship team bonus. Feels like they're the only naval civ with the emphasis on landing as opposed to winning water like the other naval civs. Although I do prefer to win water than attempt landings desu. Saracen galley spam into canon galleons is just so satisfying

>>1055094
They should take arena out and put mega random and nomad permanently in, create an arena only queue for clowns

>>1054406
I think this might be the first DLC I won't buy. Out of the 3 new civs Gurjaras seem to be the only one that really has something unique going on. Dravidians seem kind of dull and I'm not a big fan of the charge mechanic UU. Bengalis have a cool UU and that's it. I feel like Elephants are still kind of shitty even with the bonuses for them. Hindustanis seem like the best change in this dlc and they were already in the game.

>AoE 3 had new dlc announced yesterday, Malta and Pastas
>I check /vst/ today
>Still no thread up on /vst/
Is this /vst/s fault or is it AoE 3s fault?

>>1055340
It's FE's fault for taking the woke direction when they made DE

>>1055340
There is one, but it's riding off the coattails of the Italian announcement from earlier this week >>1051200

>>>>>>Siege Elephants don't take bonus damage from Mangudai
Hahahahaha get fucked Mongorian

How is 1v1 ranked in DE? I got tired of Starcraft 2 and want to pick up a new game. How long does an average match last? How powerful are cheese strats? Does meta change with time?

>>1055399
>How powerful are cheese strats?
11/10

>>1055159
>Celts on 'k' tier
Bitch I will fucking gore you

>>1054959
>plus none of these civs were cav archer civs historically
For Goths and Spanish they were probably representing Genitours, which weren't a thing back then even though they planned it to be the Spanish unique unit at one point. Genitours were used by the Spanish IRL and Goths before Conquerors were probably representing the Visigoths who would become the Portuguese and Spanish (also explaining their hand cannoneers).

>>1055419
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it doesn't really make sense to equate associate with Portugal and Spain. They are completely different people. I don't know if this was the game's reasoning.

>Daut goes light cav on arena
>Countered by triple monastery siege push

What are some AOK/AOC civs that you think would be drastically different if they were released today (which is to say, made from scratch by the current dev team, using current civ design philosophy)?

>>1055465
Goths because they are just so incredibly one sided, also wrong period.
Maya because there's no reason why they should use so many archers.
You know, perhaps Aztecs as well. Besides no horses/no gunpowder, the American civs are barely convincing in AOE2.
Huns because they vanished before the middle ages even started and we don't know anything about them. How did they even get away with it?
Maybe Koreans because they were only added at the last minute.

>>1055480
>wrong period
Are you retarded?

>>1055494
No. Why?

>>1055495
The Goths were present through the early Middle Ages and settled into other prevalent civilizations.

>>1055499
>The Goths were present through the early Middle Ages
They were only relevant during late antiquity.
>settled into other prevalent civilizations
Then why do we need Goths?

File: Hand_cannoneer_aoe2DE.png (79 KB, 256x256)

79 KB PNG

Should hand cannoneers get a tech to increase their accuracy and rate of fire? I like them but it seems like in most cases arbalesters work better than them even tho they're cheaper. In what other way could they be buffed?

>>1055532
Hand cannons don't need a buff, Crossbows and Arbalesters need a nerf.

>>1055538
This

>>1055480
>also wrong period.
I get the feeling they made AoE2 to be a direct sequel of AoE1. So it starts when AoE1 ends which is the fall of Rome, and all the civs start there to become their more well known medieval selves. So you start the game as barbarian Franks in the dark ages before becoming the French in the imperial age, Goths in the dark age to become Spanish/Portuguese/Italians/Poles/Whatever in the imperial age and so on. I think they broke that mold with the Spanish in the Conquerors expansion but all the original civs are from that time period.

>>1055465
Maybe Persians. They were supposed to be an umbrella civ for anything remotely Asian and Muslim that is not Turk. Now we have a bunch of Indian civs with Elephants and we have Tatars representing the Timurids. So if they were done today they would probably be different somehow since they could focus on making them only represent the Persians, but I know little about that area of the world so maybe they're already a perfect representation, who knows.

>>1055159
Swap Malay and Byz with Italians and Khmer or you're a shit-eating hyper-faggot.

>>1055538
Again, increase the cost to upgrade to crossbows. It's that simple.

>>1055556
No, increase the frame delay of the attack animation, thats how the devs neutered CAs when forgotten was released

How many times i have to say this

>>1055595
That also works. I propose we do both.

>>1055556
>>1055595
I suggest both, plus Longswords get +1 pierce armour, and the Archer line now attracts Mangonel shots like a magnet.

>>1055604
All four would be overdoing it. Drop the LS portion and just make mangonel shots fly faster.

File: 1644193450583.jpg (273 KB, 1242x1063)

273 KB JPG

>>1055554
No.

>>1055548
>I get the feeling they made AoE2 to be a direct sequel of AoE1
Indeed, but Goths fit neither perfectly. It's a civ that has one foot in AOE1 and one foot in AOE2.
>barbarian Franks in the dark ages
If you mean Germanic Franks, I disagree, but I get your point. The thing with Goths, is that they didn't become Spanish or whatever. They were assimilated into Romance culture, who would have evolved on their own (just like Franks).
>I think they broke that mold with the Spanish
The Spanish came from Romance Iberians (formerly Romans), not Goths.

>>1055595
I would agree to this. Crossbows shouldn't fire quickly anyway.

>>1051656
Did he/she? draw Indian UU girls yet?

>>1055754
But what about arbalests

>>1055776
Even slower

>>1055776
More or less the same

>>1055465
if britons were released today everyone would despise them for being immune to mangonels in castle age so long as you aren’t literally retarded, and for having a unique tech that’s just exactly the same thing as their civ bonus, and for having a unique unit that has no significant advantage over the standard arb line, and for having a completely dominant and almost unfair team bonus, and they would be correct

>>1055872
Yes, and we do despise them for exactly those reasons, so I have no clue what you're trying to prove here.

>>1055554
>the civ who has five bonuses that are just “percentage discount either too small to matter or too niche to affect most games”
>fun

>>1055878
can i not simply post something without it having to be directly addressed to (you)? they’re the second-most picked civ after all

>>1055887
They're picked because they're strong, not because everyone picking them agrees with the design decisions.

Why are the Byzantines so cucked? cataphracts used to seem so good back in the old days.

Theres a few civs like this that have kind of been neglected over the years. Burmese seems like a lame civ as well their unqiue unit is just awful.

>>1055885
>Best water eco
>33% off the most expensive techs outside the monastery, which has everything but Heresy.
>Flat 20% discount on all gunpowder
>Food and gold savings in the early game to make for more flexible builds and faster age-ups
>Access to BBC
>Mostly-useless Imp UT meaning a wider tech tree, but also vastly improved cost-benefit ratios from all trade
>Castle-age crossbow with 100% default accuracy (+ discounted ballistics) and an extra 1 armor, 1 attack, 10 HP, and Pavise, with no need for an archery range.
>Ranged counter for everything
>Instant Imperial-age switch to fast, durable infantry
>A ton of discounts at every point in the game to make your eco more flexible in general, with unique counter-options
>Not fun
I can't imagine having such a terrible opinion. You're truly hopeless.

>>1055159
franks are way better than the byzantines, you get faster stable production and throwing axeman ranged counter

Also celts having 20% faster infantry speed is a pretty good bonus.

>>1055916
It's talking about how enjoyable the civs are.

>>1055916
>Also celts having 20% faster infantry speed is a pretty good bonus
Finally someone realizes this
Faster moving MAAs in feudal can easily chase down archers, vills, other MAAs, get thru quickwalls faster and dodging TC fire better

>>1055921
>He doesn't enjoy going all in on speedy infantry and spammy siege
Bet you main an archerfag civ

>>1055926
I main Khmer.

>>1055878
He was just answering the question.

>>1055933
Oh I'm sorry.

>>1055922
yeah its a great bonus, also watch how fast pikemen go with the speed upgrade too, its fucking hilarious, good luck with your opponents early knight rush.

>>1055937
I misunderstood. My apologies.

File: -UQIi3qf_400x400.jpg (31 KB, 400x400)

31 KB JPG

>>1054472
>play the art of war campaign
Came back to give an update, this shit is straight up impossible. Been trying to do the battle formation one for an hour and I can't even clear it. Confirmed as microlet

>>1055933
...Meh...
Got nothing to say about that.

>>1055952
>Confirmed as microlet
You can still play with low APM, stick to michi, black forest or Arena (beware of clowns tho), and stick civs with good siege, trash, strong paladins or elephants, and good siege, mostly scorpions
Avoid cavalry archers, monks and if going to use SOs make sure to send waves of disposable halbs

If you need encouragement, Fastlob is a thing, or rather, an old fart that refuses to play anything but vikings mirror on AoC on BF

File: 4533.jpg (68 KB, 699x485)

68 KB JPG

>>1051656
I only play singleplayer and every game I just turtle until all my enemies kill each other, then I take out the last guy.

Also what is a good pop limit? I like 200 because I like expanding a lot, but the AI doesn't seem to ever build a ton of units so I wipe them out way too easily

>>1055944
No problem man.

>>1055964
>Also what is a good pop limit?
25, and play as Goths.

>>1055964
>but the AI doesn't seem to ever build a ton of units so I wipe them out way too easily
Maybe stop playing on easy

>>1055964
The AI doesn't like to max out unless you're on Extreme but makes up for it with insane micro and macro, since it has theoretically infinite APM.
I routinely get swamped by the AI on the second hardest difficulty because of how good it is at controlling its eco and production.

>>1055964
The AI is pretty good at pressuring in feudal and castle age on higher difficulties, and will bring siege if you wall up. So turtling can be hard to get away with unless it's on maps like Black Forest where you have easy choke points to defend. Even in larger FFA games you're not necessarily safe, since the AI seem to prefer picking off militarily weaker targets first.

>>1055952
Don't worry about the battle micro ones, the important Art of War missions are the eco ones, which are the backbone of pretty much every build order. If you can nail Dark Age eco and the progression up to castle age, the game really opens up and becomes more fun.

>>1056038
>>1056043
I should add to these that the AI doesn't play like a human- it's micromanaging each unit individually instead of moving in control groups and formations like a player would use.
Honestly the best way to get better at the game is to play against a decent player and be able to see what you did wrong (or have it pointed out to you) when you lose.
Unless you win, then good job.

>>1055952
Yes the battle formation one is very difficult. Don't get discouraged even the Viper gets beaten by the campaigns sometimes. Move your Xbows out of the way at the last second by hitting the hot key right as the mango fires. Then bring them back together in staggered formation to dodge the second shot. By then your Xbows should be right next to the mango so that it can't even shoot. In the next part use hot keys against the longswords and fight on the hill. For the scorpions close the range and again they won't be able to fire at you. For the last part YOU MUST use the control groups. I recommend using a gaming mouse.
If you get bronze you can be proud because that one is really tough.

File: Spoiler Image (3.9 MB, 1650x1404)

3.9 MB PNG

NEW DLC CONFIRMED

>>1056351
Made me chuckle but then I realized that if someone'd shown me DE's civ list back in the AoC days I would've laughed

>>1056351
>Wankas

>>1052148
Seething french dog can't handle the BVRGVNDIAN BVLL

>>1056351
only civs that even remotely deserve to be here:
>Armenians (definitely)
>Assamese (but could just be left as Bengalis / Burmese)
>Basques (but could just be left as Spanish / French)
>Dutch (should replace the ridiculous Burgundians, honestly)
>Finns (but maybe not relevant enough during the time period)
>Georgians (not as relevant as Armenians but would be cool)
>Khitans
>Nepali (would make a good substitute for having a Tibetan civ if nothing else)
>Serbs
>Swahili (but maybe not relevant enough during the time period)
>Swiss (but could just be left as Teutons / Italians)
>Vlachs (deserve to be here perhaps more than anyone else because there's literally a Vlach campaign in the game)

>>1056351
I really would like to read the thoughts of whoever made this.

>>1056433
>>1056433
the other way around, Armenians were irrelevant in the middle ages and didnt even have a kingdom from 11th century but Georgians were the regional power at the time and had incorporated much of caucasus into their lands, including armenia

>>1056491
Not him, but I'd love to have Armenia as it's one of those civilisations that has been around since antiquity and is still around today, like Persians and Greeks.

>>1056491
>>1056499
Both are good additions desu

>>1056351
Where did you get this?

>>1056507
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/new-civ-icon-idea/203451/216

>>1056507
>>1056509
Incorrect. I swiped it from someone who posted it on the main AoE Discord server
It's a pretty shit place so I wouldn't recommend going there.

>>1056511
>It's a pretty shit place
lmao. why?

>>1056514
Because it's Discord.

>>1056351
>no Tanguts
>no Ghana
>no Afghans
>no Zapotecs
Would not buy

>>1056351
>Habsburgs
What are their bonuses?

File: xi.jpg (87 KB, 498x568)

87 KB JPG

>>1056351

>>1056547
Royal Bloodlines Unique Tech: Villager HP ,walkspeed and workrate is halved but they now generate gold in addition to collecting the resource they're tasked to.

>>1056632
That sounds more like a tech that would be used by another certain European dynasty

>>1056433
>Only
>This shit
You don't even know half of the additions.

>>1056537
>No Ghana
...You mean the medieval Wagadu state? That one might actually be covered by Mali.

File: 1425746734747.jpg (66 KB, 528x792)

66 KB JPG

Rajendra mission 3 sucks so fucking bad guys.

>>1056719
Why?

>>1056351
>toltescs

>>1056433
Gib Polynesians
>B-But
Gib Polynesians

Just give them a wood/stone Krepost statted castle instead of a normal castle.

>>1056719
Filtered

File: 1428004082429-1.gif (2.2 MB, 357x238)

2.2 MB GIF

>>1056731
>>1056739
>One of the start routes is easy, the other is damn near impossible (taking damage in deep water vs pirate route)
>Giant fucking map
>Functionally no stable because dravidians and you're stuck in castle for most of the mission
>Enemies buttfucking you from 4 different directions all trying to fuck with 10+ different objectives you need to complete
>Once you take cities and make them on your team said cities wont even fucking defend themselves from even one siege elephant and will be retaken 5 minutes later
>Main enemy has imperial age Gurjara units, meaning Shrivs to shred your archers and chakram throwers to shred your pikeman defending your archers so you can only win engagments by massive number advantage
>Typical AOE2 campaign problem, maxxed out defense techs on towers and castles, and you get castle age rams/siege elephants and fucking nothing else
>Your coast is also getting fucking destroyed by navy this entire time
>Armies not fast enough to cover ground, not strong enough to split up, and pop split between land and mandatory 40 navy for objective
It's the most infuriating map I've ever played. AI undoing an objective should never be in another campaign jesus christ what were they thinking???

File: 20220501150752_1.jpg (1.02 MB, 1920x1080)

1.02 MB JPG

>>1056750
>>Functionally no stable because dravidians and you're stuck in castle for most of the mission
You dont need stables, you only need archers elephants and siege elephants
>Enemies buttfucking you from 4 different directions all trying to fuck with 10+ different objectives you need to complete
Keep your north castle alive, build a castle near yellow, build towers near the coastline, you will be fine.
>Once you take cities and make them on your team said cities wont even fucking defend themselves from even one siege elephant and will be retaken 5 minutes later
...? You mean yellow? if he dies then good, he will betray you later, you should keep purple alive, and he easily goes down siege a few siege elephants
>Main enemy has imperial age Gurjara units, meaning Shrivs to shred your archers and chakram throwers to shred your pikeman defending your archers so you can only win engagments by massive number advantage
They dont actually send masses of shrimshamya riders, also dravidian elephant archers are stupidly tanky, regen and fire super fast. You will be fine.
>maxxed out defense techs on towers and castles, and you get castle age rams/siege elephants and fucking nothing else
And? Siege elephants still trivialize the whole encounter. Stop complaining.
>Your coast is also getting fucking destroyed by navy this entire time
Tower spam.
>Armies not fast enough to cover ground
You're not supposed to do that, have a castle on every important location and a few mangonels or pikemen to handle siege elephants.
>mandatory 40 navy for objective
Why the fuck would you go navy? Ignore water completely until you have taken out teal, or until the enemy fields cannon galleons.

Skill issue/10

>>1056865
Played on easy/10

Cannon Galleons did not have a delay. They start on the field.

>>1056921
>Played on easy/10
Oh sh-
What the fuck, I have all my campaigns on Hard
Dont tell me I have to replay this shit now

File: 1651941907886.png (42 KB, 204x215)

42 KB PNG

How would you change the nations you dislike the most to make them less bad or frustrating without completely removing them?

>>1056956
Apply the Khmer farming bonus to Spanish hunters.

>>1056956
Rattan Archers move like Plume Archers

File: 1652516497250.webm (2.72 MB, 480x854)

2.72 MB WEBM

>be LordBasse
>Use Lord in your name you use on the internet that you probably made up when you were a kid
>Continue to use it for many years while never dropping the Lord
>Create excellent Build and Destroy style missions that make clever use of triggers without straying too far into the realms of RPG or gimmicks
>Become one of the mappers for official AoE2 campaigns
>Your well designed missions filter out the shitters and cause them to seethe on /vst/ and elsewhere exposing themselves
>"T-the best n-new campaign is Babur... Nooo I'm not saying that because it's a 2 sword and I'm not good enough to clear Rajendra. I j-just like Babur okayyyy"
How can one man be this based?

>>1057019
Go home Basse. You're drunk.
Babur is best, Rajendra is the definition of overdesigned. Still much better then Devapala tough.

>>1057054
Ok Goldilocks

>>1057019
More like LordBassed
iirc he has a Youtube channel explaoning the steps to make a cool scenario/campaign from zero

>>1057313
Got a link to the video? Or is it a series of videos or something?

>>1057430
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS96-b-SOGyc_v0Jowu1TNJYItc-ExfVZ

>>1057432
Cheers.

>>1053059
>seeing 30 crossbows easily one handling a group of 15-20, or at the very least taking cost efficient battles fucking hurts my soul.
Yep, that's Lanchester's Square law at work, where the power of the outnumbering side grows exponentially the greater the gap.

For a practical example, say you have a hero that can kill a soldier in 1 hit and a soldier that deals 10 damage. The first soldier deals 10 damage before dying, the second deals 20, the third 30 and so on with the sixth dealing as much as the first 3 combined with total damage of 210 with only 6 times as many soldiers.

You can't expect a squad of 15 crossbowmen to defeat even near half a squad of 30.

>>1053059
>if you really want to neuter archers, give them the CA treatment they got in the forgotten, increase the frame delay, so it will be much harder for people to micro them.
Why not go all the way like in Age of Mythology? Where archers need to complete a full loading and attack animation before moving again with any time spent moving directly delaying the time between attacks, eliminating micro entirely.

>>1053059
>pikemen, longswords, critical mass of crossbows, microing cavalry archers with husbandry, camels, battle elephants, monks, walls, castles, 1/3 of UUs can beat knights, 3 mangonels firing at ground predicting where knights will go.
half of those "counters" are rendered invalid by the simple fact that they cannot force an engagement vs the knights

>Yeomen changed to "Allows longbowmen to be trained at the archery range" (no more extra range for archers)
>Non-elite Longbowmen get +1 base range
are longbows now worth building over crossbows/arbalests?

>>1057496
Longbows are trash, arbalests still fire faster, are more accurate, and they are cheaper

>>1057503
What if the elite longbow got +1 range as well? then it would have +2 range and +1 damage over the arbalest with these changes to yeomen, it would compensate the lower accuracy (they actually have the same RoF with 2.0)

>>1057510
Then I guess they would more viable
but still you can mass archers starting in feudal, while you would still have to invest in a castle and a unique tech to make longbows, against a player making knights as soon as they hit castle age it's going to be a losing battle

what if they had the same range as a treb

>>1057123
>>1057432
Jadwiga is great. 10/10 capaign but Rajendra... Maybe the problem is in the source material.

>>1057491
If you attack the other players base/Castle you can force engagements with slower units though. TC's + pikes also works fine as defensie VS knights of you position well

>>1057527
What if they just replaced crossbowmen with longbows at the archery range. AoE3 does that with unique units instead of needing a special building.

>>1057460
If knights have +2, husbandry and an open field they win pretty easily vs pure xbow

>>1056433
>>Vlachs (deserve to be here perhaps more than anyone else because there's literally a Vlach campaign in the game)
While I agree with this I assume sales figures don't look hot enough to justify it.

I want the militia line to get +1 pierce armour each age, and double speed if within 10 tiles of any enemy archer line unit in any direction even if not currently visible.

archers just need to have more frame delay, maybe a slower rate of fire,
and maybe infantry could get the ability to run faster for a short time every so often so they can rush down archers easier
if we're going to have Total War stuff like charge damage attacks and projectile evasion mechanics, we might as well go all the way with it

honestly think it wouldn't be out of line if sword infantry just had a button you could press that doubled their move speed for 3 seconds, and took a minute to recharge

>>1057641
>I want the militia line to get +1 pierce armour each age
Look no further than the Malians, one of the most fun Champion civs because they can actually take on Archers with 'em despite missing Blast Furnace

>>1057653
>maybe a slower rate of fire
Absolutely a slower rate of fire. They attack just as fast as swordsmen and even faster after thumb ring. A crossbowman and a swordsman are standing face to face and the crossbow shoots two bolts somehow before the swordsman can stab a second time? wtf?

>>1057672
Does attack rate really matter if the crossbowman is walking away? Since the gap created is likely to cause enough of an interruption that the benefits of an increased attack rate would be lost. Of course that doesn't apply if they're not actively kiting but it's the kiting that causes the biggest problems.

>>1057675
It does, doesn't it? He reloads during the kiting.

>>1057678
Sorry, I misread. I thought it was about swordsmen attacking faster.

File: 1629568928398.png (1.27 MB, 1024x768)

1.27 MB PNG

>>1051676

File: average tranime fan.jpg (54 KB, 685x767)

54 KB JPG

>>1057700
>

>>1057460
>Yep, that's Lanchester's Square law at work, where the power of the outnumbering side grows exponentially the greater the gap.
Yes and no, it's the avdantage of being ranged over melee, you can easily abuse your range advantage over melee, this is why units like mamelukes, TAs, Gbetos, kamayuks are excellent vs other melee units, since they can abuse their plus melee range to deal even more damage.

>>1057464
AoM also did archers well, so this is also a good option

>>1057491
Contrary to popular believe, this is a meme, if you got pikemen and knights cannot harass, they are useless, and by attacking the knightfag base with infantry, you're enforcing an engagement, so it literally doesnt matter

>>1057932
>if you got pikemen and knights cannot harass, they are useless
Okay, but the problem doesn't go away, you have to keep your eye on them, and they may eventually run around your spearmen or something. It's a lot more practical if you can just send camels and force the engagement.

>>1057981
>Okay, but the problem doesn't go away, you have to keep your eye on them, and they may eventually run around your spearmen or something
Attention problem, if you have a decent attention span, have town watch and keep track things of them, it wont be an issue

>>1057464
That would require devs to recognize AoM.

Real games last 1:53 minutes

>>1057019
I don't like the hero mechanics he put in Jagwida and in Rajendra.

>>1054959
King snipes, basically

DLC sale when? I'm too much of a kike to pay full price for all 3.

>>1057653
>infantry getting to kill archers
Absolutely not. Defeats the entire purpose of archers.

>>1058936
nah, infantry should be able to kill undefended archers. Get those mixed unit tactics going anon. There's good reason why when the front line broke all archers could do was run away.

>>1058936
Good. Archer civ mains should be dragged outside and shot.

>>1056865
>He didn't increase morale
What a cuck.

File: anime website.png (26 KB, 511x162)

26 KB PNG

>>1051676
>>1057706

>>1058956
*stabbed

>>1058936
Dont make me call the Huskarl gang

File: petra_happy_face.jpg (195 KB, 1170x1446)

195 KB JPG

I've been practicing for 3 hours already and I can't beat the Hardest AI. Even if I don't succumb to his initial aggression in Feudal, I still fold up in Castle. Is it unbeatable without a proper build order?

>>1059262
Just abuse the AI's particular idiocy. All it has going for it is mindless aggression. Punish it for it with clever use of garrisoned towers and mindless aggression of your own.

File: 💢.jpg (253 KB, 967x1070)

253 KB JPG

>>1059149
>

>>1059268
But I'm practicing against AI in preparation to ranked. I want to nail my macro for at least the 800-900 elo.

File: Anime website.png (94 KB, 777x441)

94 KB PNG

>>1059294

>>1059294
If you don't like anime, I recommend the AoE2 subreddit. I'm sure you'd fit right in!

>>1059312
>But I'm practicing against AI in preparation to ranked.
Entirely dissimilar. Not worth doing.

>>1059312
Seriously this >>1059328
If you want to prepare for ranked, play the Art of War campaign on economy, and learn a (generic) build order.

File: 1598927415110.jpg (122 KB, 1280x720)

122 KB JPG

>second ranked match ever
>Everything going well but can't find the boars
>Whatever, I'll go slower and mill early I guess
>Other guy surrenders 3 minutes in
>Check replay, he pulled the boar with the scout and it got the last hit instead of a vill
Like I get that it sucks dude but I'm 1000 elo, you can recover from that shit lmao

>>1059402
>Mine Scout slew my boar so no food could be gained.
>No wonder thou were victorious!

>>1059402
>Lose 400 food and all hope of preserving momentum against someone of the same skill level
>Decide you don't want to waste time on the match and just proceed to the next one so you can recover
>"Nah bro recover lmao"

>>1059402
Lamers are usually weaklings and mentally frail, surprises me not

File: 1627675184737.png (101 KB, 645x970)

101 KB PNG

>>1059313
>
>>1059324
>If you don't like anime, I recommend the AoE2 subreddit. I'm sure you'd fit right in!

>>1059420
But he didn't even waste his own boar if I understand the other poster correctly. If he takes his own boars he'd still be ahead.
Besides even being one boar down isn't the end of the world. 1-2 vills killed or one good clean up with your units and you're more or less even. Resigning at literally the first setback you get in a game is a bitch move

>>1059437
I dont like anime either but basedjack posting makes you look like a massive outsider faggot

>>1059451
Says the outsider faggot kek

>>1059442
>But he didn't even waste his own boar if I understand the other poster correctly. If he takes his own boars he'd still be ahead.
Oh wait. I thought he was talking about the other guy failing to take his own boars.
>Besides even being one boar down isn't the end of the world. 1-2 vills killed or one good clean up with your units and you're more or less even.
Depends heavily on your civ and build order. Berbers or Japanese? Go nuts. Mongols, Khmer, or Spanish? Just surrender.
>Resigning at literally the first setback you get in a game is a bitch move
If your first setback is losing 400 food in a game where you can run out of huntables/herdables before making it to castle age, it isn't. It's just how the game is. Better luck next time.

>>1059328
It's less fun than practicing against real players, but playing the AI is still a good way to improve for lower ranked players. Even though the AI plays completely different from a real person it's still good practice for multitasking, hotkeys, scouting and getting a feel for the eco setups you need for the different units. I was fed up with ranked when I was about 1250 elo a few months ago. I then just started playing a few games a week against 2 extreme AI's until I could reliably beat them with different units and strats, also started using hotkeys. When I came back to ranked a couple of weeks ago I climbed to 1500 pretty easily. Playing the AI is definitely a viable way to improve, so if you have fun playing the AI then go for it I would say

File: 693A2FB4-7760-4586-8E1E-7(...).png (725 KB, 680x911)

725 KB PNG

>>1059451
>I dont like anime either but basedjack posting makes you look like a massive outsider faggot

"You can still get food from the deer/boar even if it's been lamed" needs to be a civ bonus for somebody. I'm thinking maybe Mongols, Huns, or one of the African civs

>>1059496
>t.Firaxis employee
Game fixes shouldn't be programmed in as civ bonuses. Just fix it in vanilla.

>>1059479
At 1000 elo the chance of either player making a big mistake before castle age is pretty high though. Civ matchups also matter less at lower elos. If your opponent makes common mistakes like running units under TC's, holes in a wall or playing too passively that could easily allow you to recover from a missing boar. At higher levels it's probably a bigger deal. Coming back from a disadvantage in this game and then winning is also way more statisfying than just steamrolling the other player

>Villager shoots boar
>400 food
>Same villager shoots boar from inside the TC
>0 food
Boar laming shouldn't even be in the game, it makes no sense

>>1059502
>Coming back from a disadvantage in this game and then winning is also way more statisfying than just steamrolling the other player
I've never enjoyed that. My contest is against myself, using my opponent as a measuring stick. If I set myself back and win, I just feel like I could've done much better, and the match is tainted for me.

Boarman civ that gets food from villagers
rise up pigbros

>villagers actually hunt with chemistry rockets if you have chemistry
kino

>>1059507
Don't be ridiculous. That should be Chinese bonus.

>>1059506
You're going to inevitably get behind in some games though, wether its by yourself or your opponent. You'll probably learn more and improve faster if you keep playing after a setback

>>1059519
>You're going to inevitably get behind in some games though, wether its by yourself or your opponent.
Yes, and I do practice rounds with the AI to ensure incidents caused by my own misclicks are rare.
>You'll probably learn more and improve faster if you keep playing after a setback
I just recorded my matches and practiced the things I got wrong until they were habits. I take boars early, produce M@A, and quickwall as necessary.
Your advice is a meme. If you want people to stop surrendering, get them to stop messing up their dark age eco.

>snowball effect basically means that the first 5 minutes of the game decides the next 2 hours and playing it out at all is just a formality
any games where this doesn't happen

>>1059524
>I take boars early
This is inefficient, and you can still get lamed if your opponent goes forward immediately and your boar spawns in the front. Call it a meme if you want, you'd still have a better winrate and become a more flexible player if you resign less early

>playing starcraft
>misclick my minerals at the start
>resign

>playing aoe2
>misclick my boar at the start
>resign

augh gwawd i love rts games soooo much it's such a GOOOOOOOOOD genre

Really can't my head around the fact that, despite the Byzantines possibly being the richest civilisation in terms of history and iconic historical figures with a whole wealth of ideas to inspire a campaign, the devs decided to make the Byzantines about a fictional family of mercenaries fighting wars in Italy.

>>1059507
*Snort*

>>1059538
When two players are evenly matched a slight advantage only matters as long as the player who gains it is able to exploit it. The late game in AoE2 is the great leveler, so if you don't press your early advantages you will wind up facing a fully teched opponent regardless.

>>1059543
>This is inefficient
I know. I make up for it with the rest of the build.
>and you can still get lamed if your opponent goes forward immediately and your boar spawns in the front
In order for him to get the boar before I do, he has to send a villager forward at the beginning, find my base, find a boar which happens to be forward, and make it back some distance with it, despite my having seen the boar, since I always start my scout forward. If he's doing it with a scout alone, then he's both lucky and playing above my level. If he waits or just doesn't get lucky, he's wasted resources.
I don't mind this setup.
>Call it a meme if you want, you'd still have a better winrate and become a more flexible player if you resign less early
That's just it. I don't resign early often. It's in the rare case where I absolutely fuck up my boar that I do. And neither one of those means anything in this case. I'm not desperate for elo, and games where I've fucked up my boar on my own hold nothing for me. It's just a waste of time, win or lose. Best to start fresh.

"oh no I'll have to go to farms/fish a little bit earlier, this is a DISASTER, i will NEVER recover from this"
meanwhile i see games won by players that are literally thousands of resources behind, just because they make better strategic and tactical decisions in the clutch / have better micro / etc
a single good mangonel shot can literally make up hundreds of resources on its own if for example you kill 10+ archers with it

>>1059590
>oh no I'll have to go to farms/fish a little bit earlier
Delaying age-up, permanently fucking up your castle-age transition, and praying your opponent doesn't notice the fact that you're making dark age farms. It's not a question of whether or not you can recover. It's a question of whether or not you even want to recover.
>meanwhile i see games won by players that are literally thousands of resources behind, just because they make better strategic and tactical decisions in the clutch / have better micro / etc
You see games where the better player had a handicap. Coming back from behind isn't enjoyable. Matching and out-thinking an equal is.

>>1059557
>misclick my minerals at the start
How?

>>1059590
>meanwhile i see games won by players that are literally thousands of resources behind
Economy and booming doesn't make you win low elo legends. Its the player who makes blacksmith upgrades or doesn't run into castles who wins

>>1059420
Oh no I lost one villager. I guess you win have fun queuing up for another game for 15 minutes!

>>1059670
Retarded nigger. That's the equivalent of deleting 8 vils.

>>1059673
No it isn't

>>1059670
This but unironically

>>1059674
>>1059685
About two weeks ago it seemed like everytime I played a nomad team game a bunch of people just immediately resigned. If they didn't want to play nomad then they shouldn't have joined the game to begin with. Going back to the queue was super annoying.

>>1059690
Nomad was in rotation and I banned the closed maps already.

>>1059692
I wish people weren't afraid of nomad. If you put your TC with two vils next to your allies and use one vil to make a dock and a house then you should be in a good starting position.

>>1059670
>Oh no I lost one villager.
This, except it's 400 of your food resources.