oops, apparently twitch failed to copy the correct time. The first link, beasty hits castle at 3:29:11 down 30 eco, but ends up winning at 3:36:50 because he is able to beat him with higher tech units. The 2nd was really just a 10 minute castle with some raiding before (timestamp 35:50) but neither player really is able to really punish the other.
“pure rush” or “pure boom” aren’t really a thing outside of very specific maps, since you have to build defenses or you die, but at the same time it’s hard to completely win in feudal.
I haven’t talked about pure boom, they just don’t feel like putting subtitles and watching the video
In your first video you both have 2Tc, in your second video there is no rush, there are no battering rams, he tries not to risk his units; In addition, military schools give passive resources in the form of units in a similar way to having more villagers (i.e. Boom)
You only show that there is no pure strategy, something that does not contradict my arguments, watch the video first
Rush in feudal doesn’t usually go for the kill at high levels. Heck in AOE2 and AOE3 rush never goes for the kill because you don’t even have siege to kill TC. My first timestamp, the French player went trade landmark and went heavy trade so was way higher on eco.
Really in AOE4, there isn’t ever strict boom/rush strategies, it’s more of one player commits more or less into eco/military than the other. Naked booming and 1 TC all-in are both strategies that just don’t work unless you are on mountain pass or glade or something.
The overlaying strategic layer of rush-boom-turtle-tech-whatever ideally isn’t rigid but changes quickly during all phases of a match.
Let’s say you do a rush, lose too many units to your opponent that has also produced units and as a result need to retreat. As a response you turtle up. As a response your opponent sees you going for a turtle and goes for eco expansion. As a response you try to pump out more military and interrupt the turtling because you think he’s vulnerable etc etc. That way the gameplay would be highly dynamic but with a TC that aids turtle and boom playstyles at the same time you wont have that overlaying strategic layer changing quickly if ever.
As a result people mainly pick a strategy at the beginning of the game that has a few rush elements (for map control, scouting and putting on some pressure if possible) and many turtling, booming elements, which gets slightly adapted here and there depending on the map layout.
That’s not really a rush, seems like a 2TC vs fast castle.
And yes i agree that tactics are not fixed and change during the game. Like if both players start booming, but later one switch to agression and the other keep booming without defending, the booming player will probably struggle.
So the strategy is usually to try to gain an edge (either tech or boom) while having enough military to not lose.
That was more of a French boom vs HRE fast castle where he failed to secure any relics and so basically auto-lost since he failed to accomplish anything with the quicker castle.
Tbh at high level there isn’t really a rush or boom strategy, it’s basically just how many TCs do you build (if any) and when do you stop producing to age up. Unless you are HRE or early game China, every civ just spams military units.
Quotes like these are what starts to demonstrate you likely play in a higher league. At least it suggest you can digest higher levels of gameplay IMO.
In regards to these quotes some factions are more flexible and can more readily adapt to what’s scouted. Meanwhile others have THE ONE OR TWO things they can do, and even if they scout, the latter factions can just hope to JUST optimally execute. Still some factions have insurmountable tactics like the rus kremlin TC or the Mongol tower rush vs everyone expect english and rus.
Meanwhile Delhi…sigh… is extremely rigid in its gameplay. It does the one thing; and not doing that one thing results in GG go next.
Eh Delhi isn’t that bad. Sure you need sacred sites to exist, but even if you aren’t capping the sacred sites, unless something went horribly wrong, the opponent has to invest super heavily into feudal military to contest you.
You have options to transition to castle age (their mid-late castle is super strong. Village fortresses is a crazy tech). Delhi is a civ that is very hard to win with if they fall very behind though.
Right? Explain the delhi vs mongols or delhi vs ottoman delhi options?
Theseaggro civs will force delhi off the map and out feudal military delhi, which means no sites. How is that not already GG? Where is the Versatility?
Delhi can fight perfectly fine against Mongols. Sure Mongols can slightly outmass them, but the advantage of double produced units is only a slight advantage compared to more efficient/fewer production buildings. That and Ghazi raiders get bonus damage vs Keshiks. They perform solidly in the matchup until conqueror.
Even still every civ has bad matchups, and Delhi’s bad matchups are still better than most civ’s bad matchups. Every civ has a worse bad matchup than Delhi’s bad matchups.
IE Delhi’s worst matchup at Diamond/Conq for example is 45% against Ottomans. Ottoman’s worst bad matchup is 43% vs English, Mongols have a 42% matchup vs Rus etc
Delhi isn’t so outclassed that minor outplays (very possible with mobile Ghazi raiders) is enough to turn the matchup in your advantage.
Looks like you got your wish and booming got nerfed. I like the change though, just reduces the safety of the strat without really reducing it’s power (mostly just makes rushes and raids more effective vs booming).
Personally I think that’s not a very good idea because its giving a buff to civs that are already strong but nerfing civs that play defensively without defensive landmark like HRE or Abbasyd.
This change is good for
English → because now longbow outrange TC
Rus → defensive landmark can be built near TC
China → defensive landmark can be built near TC
Ottoman → Can boom without tc, military school + fast imp
Mali → Can boom without tC, gold pit and cows
Mongol → Can boom without tc, trade + ovoo
But really bad for:
Abbasyd → Relies on making a lot of TC.
HRE → Now even more predictable, before at least you could either go 2 tc or fast castle. 2TC was good against french and english because of early agression. Now i don’t see myself making 2TC at all against english with HRE.
About Delhi or French i’d say it’s neutral change. Depends of the opposing civ and strategy you go for.
This is exciting, if they can give different characteristics to the Non-landmark Town Center; means you could make Non-landmark Town Centers produce villagers with different cost or different production time; However, I think that increasing the cost at least 15% would finally make Fast Tech beat the boom (with its range of variants).
Notice this isn’t phrase as an opinion but it APPEARS to be states as a measurable FACT. So IFF it is a fact it renders all previous/latter counter pontifications MOOT!
Now the NEW THREAD IS! SINCE META BOOM IS TOO DOMINANT? HOW DO WE CORRECT IT? IS THE DEV'S CURRENT NERF MEASURED ENOUGH OR?
As previously stated; BOOM META has been a thing for too long; so anything and everything should be done to negate said prominence UNTIL we find the balance.
