Option to change victory condition? Sick of these Sacred victory game. worst thing ever. How about the option for conquest

Seriously, I’m sick of these stupid Dehli ele sacred victories

My dear friend, it’s either by sacred site or by elephant stampede. The choice is often harsh for the Delhi player. He must struggle between crushing you with the king of terrestrial beasts, causing you PTSD, or allowing you to go softly into the night by super sacred site ownage.

If you are playing only custom games, then you have the option for conquest already.


im tired of a lot of things but yes, this is one of those. I miss supremacy mode the original total conquer victory until the last collecting girl hidden in the corner of the farthest wood is dead

1 Like

I’d like to see the option in ranked games to have different victory conditions.

to find game “never”

The idea of ranked is to have a standard set of conditions for every game.

If the conditions were different, it’d be on a different ladder.

1 Like

conquest games would be very easy to fill. I’d say that most people would prefer not to have sacred sites at all.

that’s all needed, fix game, no need to divide ranked queue. (just extra work).
I mean it’s quite straight forward change, that wanted by almost everyone.
And we already have 2vs2 3vs3 4vs4 rating (for me it’s a lot really alot)
Why keep useless wonder victories which no one wants to play. get rid of that
Although SS are fine(imho). It’s add depth to the game and i never won/lost to SS.

1 Like

I do not believe that to be true for those playing Quick Match games or Ranked.

There is an argument to be made regarding Wonders, but Sacred Sites are a huge improvement to the series, as they can effectively force many slow or turtle players to do something or lose.

Conquest would mean longer match length for no good reason in most cases.


They’re stupid, pure and simple. Been playing AoE/RoR for 25 years literally. We’ve had sacred sites all that time and I cant remember 5 games in 25 years being won by that dumbass condition. Of the last 10 games I’ve played, at least 6 were some Dehli player going for site win. If it’s happening that often, the game is broken.

It’s interesting to me that they are two different games in a series a whole human generation apart and at the same time play differently.

Until after the villager boy hidden on a tree last’s breath.

But however, the game will take longer and waste a lot of time for people who just want victory and move on. Because there’s really no point in hiding if you’re already lost. Like 1 villager vs the whole civilization? Doesn’t make sense. But people like to annoy other team and waste their time by hiding their last unit somewhere and just go to sleep.

I suggest that, if ALL landmark are destroyed, then their presence on the mini map will be reveal :smiley:

1 Like

Exposing the vil works for me. Also, a big part of the problem is that Eles really shouldn’t be available until Imperial. Eles are too OP at early Castle, especially with a bunch of priests following behind. Another issue is that Dehli Keeps might as well be another TC. It’s just too much at an early stage of game.

Sacred sites are great.
If your opponent is able to hold different parts of the map while you are unable to contest him at any site or raid his base while he hold multiple positions - It just means you have already lost the game.
It serves as a way to prevent games who are already won by stretching another 30 minutes onwards. I like that alot, plus sacred sites are anythnig but easy to achieve, if you let your opponent win by sacred site it means he is just ni a better position than you by a large margin

1 Like

Literally this. Keeps the game moving in a stalemate, prevents Mongol from packing up and hiding buildings all around the map (looking at you, Terran SC2 players). Puts the onus on the losing player to not lose, rather than the winning player to find and destroy every single house. Also I have no idea what OP is talking about, you can still kill their base and win lol

The only reason to feel that way about sacred sites is to be a hardcore turtle. Everyone else is already running around in the field and able to contest. So, this is uncomfortable per design to mitigate the natural defensive advantage and keep games more dynamic.

I want to play Age of Empires, not Starcraft with new skins. Low pop limits and sacred sites feels more like starcraft. I’m OK with wonders and destroying landmarks, but being sacred site focused is just stupid. Other versions have RM rankings and deathmatch rankings without the restriction of being only “one way”.
Most players don’t make you hunt vils. I’m certain as you climb the rankings, people aren’t going to make u hunt vils. I’ve been playing the series 25 years now.

I am a big fan of RTS mechanisms that incentivize map control. In AoM it was town center sites; in AoE3 trading posts; in AoE4 sacred sites. It’s good to encourage players to prioritize controlling large areas of the map and not hide in their base, particularly in a series like AOE featuring walls.

I see a number of people complaining about Delhi and sacred site victories, is this because they can grab them early and more easily wall them off with infantry? I have no opinion as it stands on whether this is too easy for Delhi in particular, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater imo.

1 Like

Elephants are not op and should not be an Imperial unit, it is a debatable cost/effectiveness unit.

While it is true that the mechanics of the wall is toxic on the part of Delhi, that civilization is based on the Sacred Sites and gradually dominating the map.