Scouts and MAA meta

I was watching Hera yesterday, and he was saying that the MAA meta is dead because it’s so easy to wall these days, regardless of map. People have gotten far better at walling and MAA upgrade isn’t worth it anymore, and Archers don’t come fast enough particularly how Fletching-less Archers don’t really do well vs Skirmishers and Fletching is locked behind an expensive building.

I remember, time ago, Hera was also saying how 20 pop Scouts isn’t rly good anymore, you need to do 19 pop Scouts these days because it’s so easy to, again, wall and get a Spearman out. Some civs still play Scouts, but you need to do crazy shenanigans such as go up with 17 pop (possible as Mongols or Lithuanians only, generally).

I wanted to discuss this topic, since openings are what allow to gain a lead and set the pace for the game. Yet Scouts and MAA being countered this easily makes the game very Archer-focused, normally even Knight-civs open Archers these days and transition into Knights, or Crossbow, or defensive Skirms in early Castle Age.

Scouts into Knights is a natural transition, but you can’t do Knights if there is no reason to ever open Stable on OPEN maps.

There is a fine line of nerfing walls into the ground to the point they are useless. You have to find a balance.

But you must nerf them even more just make walls take ages to build. Then you can rush your game.

Siege in real life.


MAA Archer is one of the counterplays to full wall, so…
What is Hera even talking about?

I think Hera is just too opinionated on these things. He’s an insanely good player and it probably helps him there to be so conscious with his opinions and conclusions. But I think he also often misses the bigger picture because of that.

Hera has a tendency to exaggerate

this is your go-to sentence isn’t it. the moment someone says something you don’t like you claim they are 800 or 900 elo to invalidate what they are saying


Maybe you should try wall and boom in the ladder first yourself before you make this kind of claims.

drush FC should be a valid strategy
if you think there should be fighting in all ages, are you also upset that scouts or MAA can decide a game in feudal? ie skipping castle and imp
(not to mention that fighting in dark age is hardly the norm)

In High elo drush isn’t that viable of a strat



The meta has evolved into two militia drush because it allows you to harras while having a really fast feudal time, where you can then decide to drop shatever building you want (usually an archery)

This is a relative problem, since most 22 pop men at arms build let you afford both a blacksmith and fletching. Hera knows that very well, since he has one of the smoothest man at arms into one archery + fletching in the game

M@a have always been an opening that leads to archer anyway, just like scout opening usually led to an archery range because of the need to counter spears.
Man at arms are by far the best way, with drush, to keep someone open atm

What are you talking about lol, there are reasons behind adding stables during a castle age transition, like adding knights to counter massed skirms

Back to the walling topic, walls are simply the most efficient way, to play the game by far and always will be, because it avoids raiding and makes defending easier.
Walling has already been nerfed several times, yet everyone still fullwall if they can.
Whether you like or not, walling is part of the game and it should remain relevant

You are always shaming other players for their elo, but you have never answered my question: what is you elo? Because either you are 2k+ (and judging by you topic on arena and laming, you are not) or you are not that better than him.
Either everyone is allowed to discuss about balance, or only 2k+ can, and in that case you should be the first to shut up


Just a little addition to my other post: literally the whole KOTD theme was how strong the pre-mill two militias opening is.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?


i dont think he even knows their elo. just claims they have <1000 elo, maybe as some attempt at an insult?


Have a look at the stats. I only include 2000+ elo, but feel free to change these numbers. MAA and scouts are still used frequently. MAA was even the most used strategy on Arabia.

Note: data is from the patch before the DLC. There isn’t data of the last patch, yet.

1 Like

do you even read what you write?


Drush into m@a is one of the most uncommon opening ever probably. The reason you get harrassed early by militia that then turn into man at arms is because to get the most out a man at arms opening you units have to be on the opponent’s base when they get upgraded. It is a man at arms opening, not a drush into m@a.

No, it’s not. It is still one of the most common openers at 2k+ elo

Pre-mill drush is literally the best opening in the current meta, especially at 2k+ elo

Pre-mill drush was a thing since voobly, just not as common

No, the pre-mill two militia drush is done because is strong because it gets to the other side of the map real fast and because it does not require you to mine 10 extra gold in order to click loom. Drush has been a strong opening for more than a decade, this is just the extremly optimized version of it. And no, making loom early does not change the effectviness of the opening, since all you are doing is:

  1. Making your opening less efficient via early loom
  2. You still get harrassed and remain open for the potential follow up

Great, so we’ve established that you are not at high elo

Goths default strategy on arabia is loom into forward vill laming + drush/m@a - archers, since they need all the advantage they can to be in the position where they can start adding eco/drop a castle, but whatev

This made me chuckle

Funny, literally no one does wall into fc, since you can be hardly punished. With the exception of some particularly good generation, drush-fc has fallen out of the meta

No offense intended, but the one sounding full of presumption is you

1 Like

Even on runestones naked fc usually dies to maa archer. But you can go drush fc quite easily. Or simply go fast feudal full wall and then adapt and defend with one range or even wall behind with market and houses. And I dont see why that’s a problem. It’s an easily wallable map so walling is obviously a good strat there.

It’s a video game, there aren’t any rights associated with that. 5 tc boom probably won’t work either way if the aggressor plays properly but booming on 3 tc and defending with mango monk and then castle is just a strat that can work on a map like runestones. I didn’t play the new arabia too much but on the former one that was rarely possible.

That’s why we have different maps. You just see what you get and play accordingly. There aren’t “rights” to have aggressive play work if the map doesn’t favor it.


No, you don’t 11.
If you are doing a three militia drush most of the time the man at arms upgrade is not worth anymore because the man at arms are heavily relyong on specific timings to do damage and be worth the cost of the upgrade

Man at arms yes, opening drush and doing man at arms no

I am arguing openings. Drush assumes an early racks and militias, man at arms does not

It still does not make you an high elo player though. We are back at the “either everyone is allowed to talk about balance, or only 2k+ players can”


Being higher elo doesn’t mean your opinion is more valid than anyone else’s. If you are so good and don’t care what anyone else actually says, why even bother posting something like this somewhere you know you most of the replies might be lower elo? All you do is alienate people with this kind of attitude, it’s pretty toxic to be honest.


I wanna quickly mention that green4u is also the person that smurfed got curbstomped and complained im the forum

Also everyone has a validation to talk about balance some more some less but people who only critizise 900 elo player or player who like bf and especially people who smurf loose and complain shouldt


In real siege, there is general assault to castle like every 3-4 days. Average siege continues 30-60 days. 2 years siege exist yes, but it is because attackers not being able to break defence.

The Siege of Ceuta lasted 26 years…

And there are many sieges that lasted years, or months, since the defences were so good they tried to starve them out. Part of the reason was the men suffered horrific casualties trying to attack the fortress. Humans tend to pull back in retreat when things look bad. They don’t tend to scratch on walls like zombies.

Some castles stood years against siege without starving because it remains links between castle and outside, thus food is brought from outside troops. Normal castle can endure 5-6 months to starvation according my research. Castles generally resist 30-60 days against repetitive enemy assaults. Resisting more than 60 days is called “heroic defences” in history books. I pointed out this “I sit out here for two years” meme is total nonsense.