Actually, this game is more suited to 4v4—trust me on this. Of course, before playing 4v4, players need to know how to play 1v1. When 4v4 encounters inescapable flaws, players will return to 1v1.
Each of the following flaws is extremely fatal to 4v4. But I won’t list them all—I’ll only list the most important problems.
1. Players cannot quickly convert a slight advantage into a rapid expansion and near-elimination of one player. (I even suggest reverting to an elimination mechanic.)
Players can use Horse Archers and perform stutter-step micro even at low ELO to kill cavalry and then further kill villagers. At low ELO, I’ve already seen large numbers of players using Rus and Lancaster Horse Archers. Horse Archers have an advantage that shouldn’t exist: they can suppress all four opponents, forcing every opponent to produce Archers.
You might not understand what I mean yet. For example: I use 3 TCs and plan to fast-boom, then burst out and defeat a player using 2 TCs. In 1v1, high-level players understand this principle well. But you need to understand: developing with 3 TCs is only slightly better than 2 TCs. You might disagree with my judgment, because in 1v1, 3 TCs is clearly superior to 2 TCs. But in 4v4, it’s different—your advantage gets diluted by multiple opponents. (Why do LoL and other MOBAs keep reinforcing the possibility of a single player becoming a hero, even when they’re already extremely hero-centric?) Because in 4v4, you have to deal with Knight raids and Horse Archer harassment. And opponents will always raid your villagers while you’re attacking. This happens in almost every single one of my games. My rating has even dropped to 1000.
2. Civilizations lack elasticity—not all civilizations can grow into “invincible nations”; nor can all civilizations conduct Dark Age harassment. Only the Mongols can.
1v1 players all know that Dark Age harassment and disruption is an extremely important tactical option. All civilizations must have this possibility, even if not as intense as the Mongols. Once this option is lost, all civilizations must lean toward economic growth and development. This makes all powerful economic civilizations highly favored in 4v4. But! Some civilizations that cannot become “invincible civilizations” or achieve “rapid expansion” will be directly eliminated from the meta.
What is an “invincible civilization”? An “invincible civilization” is one that can infinitely scale certain mechanics to a point where no other civilization can defeat them. For example: The Holy Roman Empire’s 100 Hussars, or the Knights Templar’s 20 castles. Other civilizations will have no possibility of defeating them! These situations don’t exist in 1v1!
3. Gameplay is rigid! Players who both go for 2 TC development have economies that grow at exactly the same rate!
And unorthodox strategies are completely unviable in 4v4, because of the existence of Knights and Horse Archers! This directly leads to gameplay being monotonous and identical every match! In contrast, Age of Empires IV has a large number of economic development operations, but they’re all the same! Compared to Age of Empires II, this is a step backward. Because the depth of economic allocation isn’t enough! Players can easily learn it, and after that, there’s no room for further improvement! You might as well play Warcraft III or StarCraft II—they have far more spectacular combat visuals! Where is the joy of economic simulation and management in the Age of Empires series?