There is no better than saying
“aOe2 Is tzZhE BeSStZ gAMe aND EvRYThin ElsE SUuXXX weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”
I feel really really sorry for you not liking when getting punished for having poor micro and starting a fight with 20 skirmishers against 20 hussairs and hence losing every single match.
In aoe4 you can get away with it, it’s absolutely insane…
And that’s why you barely ever see big armies fight in aoe4, as long as possible you split off every single unit and try to harrass in 1 million places.
Because you NEVER get punished for getting outmassed in the mainfight and microing poorly.
Spam and multitasking is only important, good micro is absolutely not rewarding in aoe4.
That is just wrong.
There are people who wanted it, but they left aoe4 already because the game is boom-only and multitasking only compared to aoe3.
Many people didn’t voice their opinion and many just read on the forums but rarely/never write.
Visit the aoe3 corner, you’ll barely find anyone who doesn’t heavily support snare.
Aoe3 is just way more tactical than aoe2/4 and a reason for that is that you can hard-punish if the enemy makes micro mistakes or brings up the wrong army composition, because you engage, micro and slaugther the enemy troops and they can not run if they facecheck.
In aoe2/4 you can facecheck and just run away even from melee range engaged fight.
That is absolutely horrible and nonsense.
It only prmotes boom and turtle play with raids and no real fights.
No strategy variation, civs have mostly one main playstyle and matchups completely dictate the tempo.
Towncenters are machine guns and missing snare is another huge problems (archers can run away from any fight they want).
Not to mention the super poor pathing which makes it VERY hard to do anything against archers or even mangos/springalds with cavalry.
I like aoe3 but it is not more tactical at all. It has more options but you can win games staying in the first age for 8 minutes or just sit in your base and make 4 forts then revolt for easy win etc etc. It is a very fun game but not a competitive game.
These 2 heavily contradict themselves, did you notice that?
In aoe4 you HAVE to play meta and do ONE SPECIFIC thing to win in each matchup.
There is barely any room for variation.
Spam 1 million military buildings, spam out troops and if possible multitple tcs, try and raid and age age age age.
Build stonewalls, build keeps, raid, boom.
Wow, so fun!
The fact alone that Fast Imperial is one of the best strats for HRE is very very telling.
In aoe3 I can’t remember ANY of the many civs EVER going Fast Imperial.
Barely ever someone even reaches the final age.
Each units type already have their advantages. Cavalry is already very strong.
Mass archer are supposed to be countered by mangonel.
The counter system is just not what you think, its
spear > cavalry> mangonel > archer > spear
Cavalry are for raiding. They are fastest unit in the game so they can chose their engagement
Archer are slow, and can’t burn down buildings, and can’t decide when to fight cav, and are weak against outpost/tc. When taken out of position your whole army can die.
If you’re losing with cavalry vs archer it’s because you’re not taking the correct engagements…
I think it’s normal that the fastest unit in the game isn’t on par exactly with others in face to face battle otherwise people would make only cavalry and no archer.
How do you make mangonels in feudal? If you can’t??? Then your counter system appears to be imbalance in the earliest stages of the game. Also raiding in the earliest stages of the game isn’t a given unless you have knights. Horseman raid are either executed effectively in very large masses or picking off exposed food, mining, or woodlines*.
Usually you get wrecked by them only if they are castle and you’re not or if they are English.
Also you can defend with outposts against archer. You can fast Castle, there’s tons of strategies.
Much better than having overpowered horsemen that dont die to tc and outpost because of your increased ranged armor, and that you need to chase with spears…
If you let the opponent mass archer and you don’t have the same horse mass or you’re not aging up that’s because you played poorly.
I think knights are actually much better than archer in feudal.
But it all really depends of the civ.
Im diamond rank currently and rarely play archer in feudal unless im against camel archer or mangudai. Most of my matchup i prefer to have spear + horse +maa in feudal, i play mostly japan and hre. I have 0 issues with archer so i don’t understand how you have.
On paper/lower leagues, everything is doable. But at higher and higher skill brackets defensive BOOM remains supreme with niche exceptions.
Either you didn’t understand my suggested, or didn’t read it and just making a general rebuttal? I Suggested horseman units would gain range armor and in conjuction ALL static defense would gain the same same amount of range damage bonus against light mele cav, resulting in a net neutral effect from th static defense point of view. Meanwhile range unit themselves would be nerfed by said change.
You didn’t watch the video i linked of the 2 PRO LEVEL PLAYERS? and the one guy had 43 archers? I guess the mali guy is playing poorly?? No, sir, i disagree with this assessment. Mass archer in feudal is extremely extremely common.
Watch the clip i posted of the PROS? also watch pro tournament and tell me what units are most common in feudal. Lastly there is an old old old graphic that came from relic that had stat on which units were mostly made an archers were number 1? I wonder what could have changed since then to were archers would NOT be the most unit made?
Lastly consider your experience and skill bracket. HRE is one of the best civs and absolutely one of the best ecos all around? and its a heavy infantry civ that does really really well vs other infantries. Likewise Japan is another infantry emphasis civ, i can understand why HRE AND JAPAN might not have much issues vs enemy range units?
So what’s the issue then if using hre and japan as example is not valid?
Some civs are better with archer and some are better with infantry and some are better with cavalry. I think that works well. I was giving the example of 2 civs that don’t even have knights and are still doing fine in feudal so which civ has a problem against archer? Another archer civ? Since knight civs do totally fine against them in feudal, and the other ones are either archer civ or can fast castle very easily such as ayyubid.
All i’m saying is that im not too much agreeing on boosting cavalry as in my opinion they should not be equally strong in face to face battle because of the mobility advantage and also because they can burn buildings.
I’ve seen plenty of pro match where they go horsemen + spear with a non knight civ. But i wouldn’t dismiss the opinion of platinum and up as they understand well the game too. Archer are very hard to micro and making them weaker would just ruin the experience for gold and platinum. I don’t think the game should be made for pro only.
There’s tons of post about infantry mass being a problem. I don’t think it is but it would make the issue worse so everything needs perspective. Boosting town defense would make booming turtling too strong potentially
And that’s the whole problem.
The game can only be balanced towards the best players.
If you were to balance it for low/mid elo, thing would get MASSIVELY out of hand in the highest brackets.
Certain civs would be played ONLY in 1v1 high elo then and absolutely dominate everything.
The only way to fix this is making difficult things/civs more easy to use, so average players don’t have terrible winrates with it becaue they are unable to execute it adequately.
Making things more easy is quite a task though without making it too strong.
Except that its not the case at all right now and the devs are doing a good job at avoiding this.
By “not make it just for pro players” what i mean is that there should not be an emphasis on balancing based on optimal play. I think the civs should be well balanced without needing a perfect micro. And theres a way to do that so its both fair at pro and lower levels.
then what should the balancing team balance for?
nonsense play and absolute wrong use of tools?
that would be just chaos.
then how would it be balanced when someone perfectly micros?
he’d just break the game and smash everyone because it’s balanced for poor micro and people running their scouts into towncenters
which is a difficult task but the devs seem to be trying that.
eventually, whenever the conflict comes up, pro-play always has priority and it makes perfect sense.
