I only do team games so not going to comment on 1on1. But… in team games… I don’t think i’ve ever seen a coordinated rush NOT work. If all team members rush, and just 1 of the other team is NOT going full rush, then game over. Every time. If you gang up on 1 it’s almost impossible to not win, unless you really mess it up.
There should be some strategic ways in this game to stop a rush, some defensive measures. Currently, walls do not cut it. Way too easy to break down. Might get flamed for this but, rams are also way too powerful in early game. Even if you manage to stop them with villagers, usually your economy is so screwed it’s very hard to recover. Meanwhile the other guys just keep spamming units into your base.
And i’m not talking about harassment, i’m talking about full on 2on1, 3on1, 4on1 rush strategy. In current state it’s pretty much a big fat win button.
I think it’s map specific, at least in 2v2. On choky maps where you can palisade easily ( Mountain pass, Hill and dale, Mongolian Heights, Danube, Conflux) I almost never lose when me or my mate go fast castle, and we almost never win when the opponent does the same and we feudal allin. This has been my experience in the top 200-400, as well as against some of the top 40 players. You gain an unbelievable momentum if neither of your teammates need to worry about the initial knight prescence/ longbow resource delial. Rus Walls + a strong Fast Castle civ is especially strong. Especially since rus’ scout advantage keep the walls high HP until feudal.
Im really interested to see how much more viable fast castle defensively will be on open maps now after the mangonel became viable against archer spam again. Pre mangonel reintroduction, I’d agree 100% with your statement on open maps.
Balance wise, I believe we’d need team-specific civ bonuses if we’d want to have the early game less monotonous in terms of, at least, civ pics, without nerfing 1v1 aggression out of existence.
With the current balance, I’d prefer addressing the “full on aggression” as bare minimum aggression/safety investment. Just as we don’t call continuous villager production “full on greed” in 1v1s. The metas are different and will always have to be as long as the civs are the same in 1v1s and team games. Without adding “team only” bonuses, making all civs equally viable in team games in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 would likely make all civs boringly equal to each other, especially in 1v1.
On open maps, the 2v1 power in terms of favorable trades, resource denial, forced anti-raid investments, safer resources at home as well as enemy reinforcement cutoffs( you generally target the cavalry civ to have the infantry reinforce if the map allows it), not going full aggression for the first 7+ minutes is greedy in the current matchups. Sadly this affects many lesser feudal civs balanced around 1v1s but with nothing to bring to the table team-wise.
I think fast Castle will be a good choice, but only if you have the know-how on minimizing loss during a fuedal push with minimal production available. My teammate would have been wiped before his castle was up if I hadn’t already had a good chunk of units to send to his aid.
This is why map size for 2v2 was perfect. Because you can by rushed by 2 players and having that just a little bit more time can prepare you for pushes. Of course you cannot repel push if they are fully committed but that will be enough time for your teammate to arrive for help. I
AOE4 has the problem that defensive buildings are by far to weak. Stone walls get destroyed by far to easy. This is especially sad because of the weak stone walls most people never use on of the new features of AOE4: Placing units on stone walls.
I mostly play treaty mode with the awesome mod advanced game settings. I don’t like rushing and the harassment early in the game.