@UltimateTager said:
But how does the first AoE play out in a competitive setting? E.g are there dominant tactics or unbalanced units.
Personally, I think the game does fantastic in a competitive setting. However, i’m not sure how it compares to the other games in the sense that there are definitely dominant tactics and unbalanced units. It’s also heavily dependent on what game mode you’re playing.
For the “Random Map” setting, the game always favored mass archery and mobility so units like chariot archers which are available by the bronze age can be considered overpowered. That’s not to say that it’s impossible to counter players who use this tactic, but its a common one that usually produces good results. Considering this, the civilizations with good chariots and good archery tend to be the best ones.
Another flaw for the “Random Map” civilizations are those that are entirely dependent on gold. That means without gold, they cannot produce any viable units. These are the civilizations that usually don’t have the technology “the wheel” and it’s those civilizations that tend to be considered “bad” because they cannot:
-Benefit from the (30%?) villager speed increase
-Use chariots, a good unit that only depends on food and wood
So both Persia and Macedonian, gold dependent civilizations, tend to struggle when playing Random Map.
Ironically, in the death match setting, it’s the opposite in some cases.
Choson, a civilization that has poor archery early game, tends to do very well because they have excellent siege units and their Legions have DOUBLE HP compared to others. They also have great towers, a great stable, and great priests, units not normally used during Random Map.
tl;dr
Yes there are definitely dominant tactics / unbalanced units and civilizations, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t winnable strategies when facing them.
Some easy fixes would be to give each civilization the wheel, make certain civilizations less dependent on gold, and find a better balance between archery and infantry.