If the game ends at 7 minutes because you lost from a rush it means that the player who was rushed was clearly inferior and unable to defend against a rush. As for a player who rushes and loses everything under the opponent’s base, the wrong and opposite concept of rushing.
The issue was that 8 of 10 games were rushes
3 Likes
si, claro que era inferior si apenas era nivel 15 y los desgraciados eran de nivel 80 o 90 por lo menos
Mothers city level you mean? Never counting that level is useless to say if he is a strong player or not.
pues claro, mejores cartas y más tiempo de juego, en el vainilla jugaba con portugal ya que podia responderle a sus rush con cazadores y ribadoquines, y despues de que les ganabas te llamaban lamer por ser defensivo
I thought you were referring to the DE version, there it was a good problem but I think this situation has passed for many years, unfortunately they had put this mechanism in place to encourage the player to play a lot and unlock the necessary cards. I would have complimented instead of offending or flaming.
ah no xd si, me referia al aoe 3 original era muy jodido ser nivel 15 y enfretarte a un nivel 80, las posibilidades eran bajas
Now it is the opposite because it is more difficult to rush and keep it constant and recover the economy invested in the rush, if the opponent rejects you and you have not lost so many units if you can you have to keep him constantly under pressure by turning around and catching colonists, troops etc. Basically it is more complex to master than a boom / turtle where you play defensive and have a free defense. Also remembering the map factor on Vanilla compared to the DE version this favored the aggressive game because you took him for “hunger” but now all this is still practicable only more complex to manage because he will play you defensive but will have more hunting and stay longer sitting in base but you should not (as I always say) take a rush as an all in which are two different concepts. It must also be said that on DE compared to vanilla there are many civilizations that need little map or do not need it and civilizations that defend themselves better with unique buildings or cards so for this reason everyone tends to play defensive with these civilizations.
However with Portuguese or Dutch you could play defensive but for a while you had to gain map, it was just more complex the concept of defense while on DE the concept of rush is more complex (in some cases) and people go where it is easier to play. (This does not mean that the Vanilla version is simpler, rather it is more complex than the DE version).
2 Likes
In my humble opinion, I think everything is working as it should. 
Turtle 
Boom 
Rush 
1 Like
yo asi lo veo, es obvio que una tortuga deberia vencer a un rush, ya que si el rush vence tanto a la tortuga como el boom al final se jugaria solo rush
1 Like
Yes, but some boom can still beat a turtle
I just started playing again. Yes this FF play is getting old. Virtually nothing going on in age 2 and players aging to 3 before you have any chance to stop it.
What ELO are you getting these games? My last 100 games all were below 30 minutes.
This game is busted with the combination of super fast age ups and op units. Soldado,gatling, hacks,deli. They really need to clean this mess up.
1 Like
I dont mind the game period is long or short.
But if the game is preferred for long period, please buff those rush civ for mid/late game, not only keep nerfing their rush, in the current patch rush civs are trash only.
To be honest I dont see why many people have problems with turtling civs. I mean, if you always rush they are kind of anoying, but if you play something with somewhat flexibility instead of just centering in early agresion you could easily take over the sittuation by taking map control and harashing when they try to expand.
In my case I play spanish so is true that I never rush (I am more of harashing in age 3) but the problem that i have seen in a lot of rush strategies is that people normally dont adapt their strategy to the situation, they just mindlessly rush to a oponent that may or may not have seen the rush coming and it has already prepared to defend against it. I mean, if I see a rush incoming Im not gonna age 3 with 1 tc wagon and send spanish gold immediately, Im going to send 2 outpost and age up for xbows and that normally defeats 90% of the rushes.
What Im trying to say with all this rambling is that the problem of rushes right now is not that they are weak and outmatched by all the other strats, the problem is that they are too predictable. You can predict that certain civs with certain decks are going to go with their rush no matter you turtle, boom or rush, so you can adapt to them and fend them off easily most of the time. Is the fact that you can predict them and prepear what makes them weak.
Pd.: sorry for my horrible english, Im not the best as explaining myself in it.
2 Likes
The game is horrible with op units and turtling strategy. Hakepelit, soldado, deli cav. Terrible
Unless this is a troll,This post is a bit shocking to me as well. I’ve played at the highest level of AOE3 and have always been a player that aims to turtle and even in these scenarios. My games end most of the time very quick or I often get rushed. if you want examples here are my 2 most recent VODS and in no way or form the games presented here, go to late game
Also no game in RTS is just done extremely fast, in a balanced game where both players are equally good, it goes past the RUSH point and when players are good, rushes are less effective
These are VODs and contains many 1v1s. Most of them end quick
VOD 1
VOD 2
I agree with you,Its too easy to defend rush