Suggestions on why to buff sea

In fact, there is unusually phenomenon you will notice which is that of all the maps, some of the maps don’t have sea options. It reminds me of the old era where some maps didn’t have trade posts (lol). I know, it sounds funny, but there was time when map maker didn’t understand to give players maximum options for strategic variety with trade post on every map. That is why extra peculiar to see the repeated same mistake repeated.

All maps should have sea

Furthermore, a right approach to promote strategic diversity and give the players maximum options in each game is for every map to include sea. If we are interested to promote balance instead of bias it must be considered quite reasonable.

Sea is underperforming

I understand there can be some who worry about sea on all maps.

They might say: “It’s true that sea promotes more strategic depth and options, but most town centers (which is what a dock essentially is) cost 500 wood, and sea-town-centers (STCs) only cost 200 wood”. That’s not a correct analysis. Furthermore, it is a wrong approach. First of all, STCs while costing 200 wood instead of 500 wood have only 2500 hp compared to 6500 hp of land town center. This means STC saves 300 wood but loses 4000 hp. Personally, I value 4000 hp more than the ability to train extra villagers. Most top players agree.

Even less correct argument it’s where people say that other mini-town-centers (villager-training-facility) (MTCs) exist for same cost and hp. Like, Hausa berber native embassy, or cree native post. In fact, these buildings is heavily different as they only ability to train limited number of villagers (5) from 200 wood building. Thus, dock is not even similar to these, and is not correct analogy at all. It’s like compare apples and orange. Serious comparisons only please.

Sea promotes better gameplay experience

Furthermore, sea play is some of the best in aoe 3 de experience. I remember for example KaiserKlein vs Kynesie long new england game on New England. Kaiser adapted to sea map and fight long, slow, sluggish attrition game 40min + to contest sea while both players boom also on land. It was very impressed to see the excellent and correct sea gameplay.

In fact, most games currently finish without long sluggish sea gameplay and this makes the aoe 3 de experience somewhat 1-dimensional.

Sure, some will say, “Ok but like in your example, to counter sea it must be contested sea, and therefore sea maps generate long, boring, attrition games and force you to make sea to compete, usually, and this is boring for me”. Actually, this is not correct. A right approach it’s that competitive mindset and full-range of rts capability enjoys making warships and docks and sending advanced dock and making outposts and making culvs and making mortars and doing things like this. Therefore, we see that bigger more variety mindset enjoys sea, and one-dimensional complainer enjoys not sea?

Sea is easy to contest

Most incorrect argument of all it’s “Sure, but if someone wins sea or has sea uncontested, they have 40-70% eco handicap advantage, and this is way to strong”.

First of all, like I showed in my example game, sea can always be contested. Don’t want to play vs 50% eco handicap? Make docks and boats and outposts and culvs and mortars and walls and advanced dock and sea upgrade card yourself. Why it’s so hard? Therefore, this complaint is a wrong opinion and not a correct approach.

Second, don’t forget sea player/winner also has powerful warship what can secure land positions and win land army exchanges. Thus, sea player/winner is requires to expend almost double mental energy deciding where to place the warship, plus extra neurons devoted to threat-awareness in case the warship requires micro or movement. Land players don’t know how much it’s a disadvantage to have to maintain this much energy to control ships, but I can just say it’s similar to how much energy is used to build walls. It really is that difficult.

Sea is not even good currently

What’s the problem 50% eco advantage for winning a portion of the map? How it’s different to any other portion of map? For example, I send my outpost to middle of map and train me 35 unit of strong caliber and army comp of the best composition. So now I won middle portion of map. In fact, my advantage there is more than 50% eco handicap because (1) line of sight advantage (2) deny resource (3) access more resource (4) even more things. In fact, when combining these things, 50% eco handicap advantage from having sea (won/uncontested) is arguably too weak and should perhaps be buffed.


Overall, I hope the changes can implemented with the following:

  • All maps have sea option
  • Sea options made larger on all maps
  • Sea eco buffed to compensate for comparative inadequate benefit (see above analysis)

I generally enjoy the mostly forgotten art of water booming, but its hard to agree when you make statements like “this complaint is wrong opinion” or"double mental energy" “serious comparisons only” as if you are the only voice of reason ever. Who are you and why are you the only knower of true balance? Assuming you dont mean to be as such, fyi Its not very inviting style of speech for discussion. a better approach would be “this is my opinion, or this is what i think would be better.” It comes across condescending in tone.

As for every map must have water, that would limit variety. maps change so much of gameplay in aoe3 and given how stale some civs are on the same map (haude always goes dock on water for example same with ports) making water every single map is boring. i really like how devs have made map pool combination of land, hybrid, even water with shipment point and non-shipment point. It makes my experience different every game and one of the best strengths of aoe3 is the map variety. forcing water limits what players do when they always have the same option, they will only go for optimal over and over naturally.

and some civs benefit more from water than others, given your earlier crusade vs “op” germans and france" i cant help but feel all these complaints are very much agenda or bias yourself driven as most people i talk too in aoe3 care less about forcing water fights but would like a bit more engaging water. the balance for water isnt that bad and its a great investment but for most players its a bit boring since its usually simply “person who invests first vs person judging how much to invest to idle/push off water via mass of ships since thats the only metric that matters.” If this was forced every game i dont think the game would be a richer experience but would be less counter back and forth.

Again, given how some civs benefit much more and many players not enjoying water combat much, for the sake of balance as is the variety of hybrid vs land maps seems to work. I hope they redesign it to be more rock paper scissors as they have in aoe2/4 in the future tho to make water booming not so 1 dimensional.

1 Like

There’s all sorts of theories around why water maps aren’t popular. From my time modding I’m starting to think it really just comes down to these, in this order:

  1. Lack of truly good and diverse water maps
  2. Barely any AI support
  3. Lack of tactical depth between ships
  4. Limited interplay between land and ships