AoE 1 is a very old strategy, and in such games a very simple principle was used - there is one unit that wins the game, and the rest are simply not needed. In AoE 1 and accordingly in RoR, such a unit is the hoplite and its variants. They are so OP that there is no point in other units at all.
I played my first game in RoR for the Lakviet, believing that this is really a civilization of archers… My army of archers did almost no damage to enemy army of hoplites, I was crumpled like paper. In fact, in RoR, any civilization is a civilization of hoplites, and other statements should simply be ignored.
In this regard, I would suggest 2 things:
Nerf the hoplites
For most civilizations, replace them with competitive unique or at least regional units
I am absolutely sure that one of the reasons for the failure of RoR is that there are almost no differences between nations. According to the established AoE tradition (which I don’t quite agree with, but it exists), a nation is considered unique if it has at least 1 UU. Even if RoR had 1 special unit for, say, 3 nations, it would have modernized the game and given it more chances in the eyes of players. After all, what’s there to lose?
Honestly, there’s a lot of things that are very OP in AoE1, check out the Heliopolis for example. Also Chariot Archers midgame, Priests, and kind of elephants can all be pretty OP as well.
I disagree that the hoplite line is OP, at least not at high level of play. If you look at any tournament (or stream of vietnamese players on stream/youtube), you will barely see them.
Since “rise of rome” (1997) were the armored Elephant unit upgrade was added, armored elephants win in mass battle against centurions, to the point that in Death Matches, it is all about heavy catapults, balista towers and armored elephants.
At higher levels, the hoplite line is known to only be effective as Macedoneans (due to pierce armor and conversion resistance) and Greeks (faster movement speed). And Macedonean hoplites got nerfed from +2 PA to +1PA in bronze age since AOE1DE.
Non Macedoneans/Greeks hoplites die in bronze age to:
priests
choson infantry
composite bowmen (30 hits to kill, can kite)
chariot archers (easy kiting, 40 hits to kill)
In iron age, they die to:
Heavy horse archers (32 hits to kill with alchemy, easy kiting)
balistas/Helepolis
choson infantry
armored elephants in mass vs mass battles
heavy catapults if you have great micro skills
Note that every civ except for Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians have either HHA+alchemy or helepolis as an easy counter. Phoenicians got cheap armored elephants, Babylonians got buffed towers and HA+alchemy, and Egyptians are kind of skrewed, especially when facing Macedoneans phalanx.
It us possible that you played as LacViet against Macedoneans hoplites in bronze age (with 2PA). So you needed to use composite bowmen (bowmen and imoroved bowmen wont work well) with a lot of kiting, then transit to horse archers (or balistae) once in iron age. Or in bronze age you have to use your own hoplites that do not scale in iron age (which doesnt matter much as you would have transited out of composite bowmen as well).
Well, this is a very high and professional analysis of competitive gameplay.
But I looked at it in a different context. First, we have a sword warrior in barracks. In its concept, it is the same, but it is many times weaker than a hoplite. It is hard to imagine that just two people with swords would be so unequal in strength.
When going through the campaigns, I started building only hoplites and won easily. I will not win if I build something else.
In high gameplay, I believe there are special subtleties of balance found by competitive players, but when playing with AI, these principles do not work. Playing with AI is just crushing with hoplites / centurions.
I would not include Choson Swordsmen, even if it’s easier to mass them and the hp bonus they have; to me seems impossible for them to beat Hoplites’ massive armor and attack damage, are sure about this?
I would also not include Ballistas/Helepoleis, it’s impossible to outmass Hoplites; Ballistas are super expensive too in comparison. I also doubt about the claim that Centurions die to Armored Elephants in any scenario.
I do agree in general tho, that Centurions belong to the tight group of the invincible units that need not support unit.
My bad, actually it does not work. Chosons BSmen win against hoplites 5v2 but lose 4v2. It is 30 hits to kill vs 7 hits to kill.
I would include them, they are really good against anything besides heavy catapults. And worst case, you put some cheap meatshield or walls in front of the helepolises.
And even if we assume that Horse archers counter centurions, then only Egyptians, Phoenocians, Romans, Greeks, and Minoean miss this counter. And 4 of these civs have their own Centurions (Phoenicians ones are subpaar against non Centurion melee units though). So only Egyptians and maybe Phoenicians would die to a ball of centurions.
Armored elephants lose in 1v1 but win in mass battle (like 10v10) assuming they make use of their trample damage.
Against AI sure.
But I struggle to find anything online where centurions felt broken in PvP. I found this video where Greek centurions are used along heavy catapults & towers:
And some old forums on aoe1 - Rise of Rome guides, which are hinting to the fact that Centurions can be countered (Not much changed since then besides buffs to Persians/Shang/Assyrians got Horse archer and nerfs to heavy catapults)
Not true. You have to improve your calculations, and also include the cost to reach the Centurion upgrade itself, as well as its upgrades. In pro scene Centurion doesn’t appear that much.
