i can explain aoe4 mechanics, you can not say a world about WHAT sc2 defensive structures are, that’s the difference
i’m an idiot. WALS there in sc2 walls?
I just named you quite some defensive structures on SC2. As for walling there’s no real walls but walling off bases on choke points with buildings is a key element for protoss and terran.
But can they build a castle in the opponents base in sc2?
probably not, cause there are no << castles>> in sc2.
Planetaries are basically castles. Here he drops one in front of the opponents base. It’s quite tanky as well. Walling aspect also comes into the play during the first minutes. He’s quite talkative and explains all the steps he takes from a strategic point of view. Just watch it:
towers, not castle.
aoe4 also have TC + towers. On top of that villagers can hide into TC.
We had it.
It’s named TC rush. In aoe4 it was mongols-TC rush. In aoe2 it can be ANY tc rush.
He dropped it at 4 minute mark, which is literally an early game even for sc2. Any large army will destroy it. So, in term of strength it’s TC.
Also another great part of your “example” shows, that Tactic worked == GG.
in aoe4&aoe2 - player would reposition vils to another resource and continue to play.
That’s the difference between tactic and strategy.
Great tactic from opponent == win.
This particular example, shows the limits of strategies. Could protos win? yes. He need just use better tactic\openning or just micro better.
but in turms of follow up strategy. He could not run as aoe4 players would do.
Your reasoning is very confusing. You asked for a castle-like structure on SC2 and you have seen one. But yeah, just keep squirming around so that you do not have to admit that you have made false statements.
Also another great part of your “example” shows, that Tactic worked == GG.
in aoe4&aoe2 - player would reposition vils to another resource and continue to play.
This particular example, shows the limits of strategies. Could protos win? yes. He need just use better tactic\openning or just micro better. but in turms of follow up strategy. He could not run as aoe4 players would do.
Didn’t you just mention that whenever a castle gets dropped someone needs to build rams or trebs? How is that supposed to have any strategic depth when your actually forced to build one or at most two unit types to deal with something? Protoss can teleport their units to a different nexus on any place of the map. So yes, he had the option to rebuild somewhere else and he has even better options than simply running to other ressources, lol. You should actually have an idea of both games if you want to compare them.
This is my last post that goes into detail with SC2 as that isn’t supposed to be the topic in this thread.
yes, i’ve asked for castle-ones.
Not useless structure which will be destroyed in 10 seconds against relevant number of army.
Or you could just say: “hey, SC2 have tanks. It can defend places” - It’s castle now. .
It’s your thoughts, but he resigned, which means pro-player decided that he had no options to win. I would prefer to believe judgment of pro-player, than some random. Running with units and hiding in the corners is not the “strategy”. So I believe pros knows it, that’s why he resigned.
I’ve seen thousands of same comments on any pro-aoe2 or aoe4 games.
Noobs come “why he resign” he could win. No, he could not.
You literally can not distinguish difference between sc2 and aoe4 in terms of pace, micro, macro, strategy.
thinking, that if one game is fast and successful the other should be also fast.
Ignoring provided details with defensive structures, which play a huge role in gameplay and game length.
for you maps in aoe4 and sc2 are probably also the same. Which does not affect gameplay.
just a map.
but in reality, in sc2 a player can prepair strategy\tactic & buildorder calculated and trained in seconds. to win.
you prepare tactic → execute it → win faster. All of it result in lower game length.
Bringing the thread once again back to its actual topic;
I wish they’d remake the Outpost/Keep/TC shooting animations. The sound effects for arrows feel whimpy and underwhelming, the animation looks way too comical and plenty of times the shots will be delayed or all shot at once from the exact same window. It is also a bit jarring to see only 1 window be used by a Keep instead of its multiple towers.
The “feel” just isn’t there. It just feels really pathetic. It is also quite awkward to see Springalds shoot a unit and have its arrow floating infront of them for about a milisecond before disappearing as well. And I think ships also struggle here, both arrow and springald ships just look funny in their battle–nothing at all like actual naval combat.
Maybe this is also partially due to balance, seeing as Keeps and Outposts take a very sad background role in AoE4 in contrast to its predecessors. Either way, animations, sound and art don’t do much to make them feel cool either. Except for the bombard emplacement I guess.
I’d be hesitant to call AoM a balance disaster when the civs in it are the most asymmetrical of any aoe game. And it seems like it’s actually got great voobly AND extended edition 3rd party balance patches for both deathmatch and supremacy. And it’s a more punishing AoE than the rest with how the population cap depends on access to settlements to place tc’s on. Besides, Abbasid are an exception to the rule of "7-10 rather than 10-15 unique techs), and Delhi isn’t far off either. Are they particularly hard to balance for in AoE4, considering the constant whining about France even when they’re the lowest winrate civ at the top level and with Rus performing better even at mid level ranked?
Point 6 is more akin to AoE3 and AoEO rather than AoM. Every civ in AoM ages up the same way using the same buildings as a prereq to unlock the age up (town centre upgrade, temple req for age 2, armory for age 3, market for age 4). In AoEO only one civ has a building prereq (house count) while another civ takes a different type of temple to reach each of the next age, and another civ makes a temple to hit age 2, then uses that temple to age up with an upgrade like what normally goes on at the TC. As Andy has pointed out, landmarks are inspired by the AoE3TAD wonder age ups system, while other civs in the game rely on the oldschool tc upgrade age up.
Personally I think AoE3 has the worst track record for civ balance and DE has actually inflamed the problems. Release AoE3 was pretty balanced, but Warchiefs and TAD civs were a bit of a shock to the system for a game that was once extremely symmetrical like aoe2. BUT I’d wager it’s more to do with differences in the powerspikes from Age up bonuses (the precursor to landmark bonuses) + home shipment combos differing between the NatAm, Asian and Euro/Original civs. Nowdays the new civs that come out are more imba than ever on release to encourage $ale$ and also tend to mitigate the importance of the counters system on their end but not their opponent’s to again appeal to more people for sales.
Ironically US, Italians and Maltese were all released pretty underpowered and they need several buffs to become good. And Africans were quickly nerfed into oblivion.
I have no idea where this comes from. AOE3 has among the most punishing counter system.
Not at all. The eco systems of the vanilla 8 civs were very diverse. It’s not just unit variety.
Incas and Sweden were op as hell, US and Italy got buffed too much and quickly enough that the hype for new civ was still there. Aren’t half the top tier aoe3 games atm Italy vs x? Plus all the new civs other than the African civs seem disgustingly good in treaty and deathmatch, US and Sweden in particular.
I will admit African civs in particular could’ve been played both as and against better by most players (incl myself lol), and the player base especially at the top seem to either meta-who-are like no tomorrow, or be sick of the game because x other players in their elo are only playing African civs/Sweden/Incas/Italy and they can’t be bothered to learn a new counter strat (kaiserklein is literally guilty of this and it wasn’t long ago most late esoc/early de players were calling him the goat)
Inca and Swedes came with DE for free so everyone gets them. There is no crossplay between DE and legacy.
Italy and US got buffed to good in more than 2-3 months so I wouldn’t consider it as “hype still there”.
Treaty is always a secondary balancing concern so that’s not surprising.
Or do you think they should not buff underpowered DLC civs? Only when they release a DLC and leave it aside then it’s not intentionally op to generate sales?
I don’t know why getting more sales is a crime in the first place either.
in that case coh3 is a disgrace. aoe 3 hold more player on its 3rd month compared to coh in this month or its 3rd month. 7k vs 4k. yeah imagine comparing a game from 2023 to one from 2006 …
company of heroes does not have the fame of age of empires, that all our acquaintances have played it at some time, while few know coh, it is a niche of a niche, the franchise made mistakes such as not allowing to configure hotkeys, only two factions, pay to win etc. etc , rather they should be ashamed to compare themselves with a niche of a niche
