Every civ has one real playstyle for every matchup and are leaning on whatever is the most OP.
Jeane d arc always goes melee - mass knight into ranged support
English same as always except in a mirror
Ayyubids is fast castle or bust in EVERY MATCHUP
Byzantines is Keshik mercs - melee brute force, everything else sucks
Japan is fast 2 TC in every matchup, always the same landmarks
I can keep going but yeah its pretty lame that instead of dynamically playing the game we are restricted to one build order per civ. Not a fan of this meta at all.
I am really not that much into AoE4 nowadays but that would have been exactly my prediction with six more civs to be released. There’s many different maps and a ton of match ups now and in order to keep the balance there’s sacrifices to be made in terms of strategic in game depth. Logically, with more civs, more and more parts of the strategic decision making should become round based, meaning that a pro finds out a strategy that works best against a civ on a certain map. Then that strategy tickles down to all other leagues. We have seen this already when the game was released with rus horse archers, mongol tower rush etc. At the same time the real time strategy depth should become way less important since the balance effort for the devs would just go through the roof otherwise.
Let’s assume we would watch a pro game and make the names of the two players invisible. Naturally people should use strategys and playstyles that suit their strengthes best. However, would it be possible to find out who the players actually are? I seriously doubt it. Might be limited to certain maps where cheeses could be a thing.
Yeah but that’s what I mean. If certain strategies against a civ and a map are meta people will just go for it because it’s most likely the strategy with highest chance for a victory. However, ideally you have many (or atleast three) strategies against a certain civ and map that all have a similar win rate. And even more ideally you can switch those strategies ingame when required.
Players make a lot of mistakes at medium/low levels, so it doesn’t matter if they try to imitate the pros, other players of the same level can win with other builds.
I mean, that’s more or less given due to the asymmetric nature of AoE 4’s design. Your civ will have 1-2 strong strategies to go for which in the long run (imo) creates repetitive matchups.
Ranked will always have this problem. Look at other RTS, MOBAS, etc. Ranked is where people will play the most easy and powerful strategies.
If you want fun, play normal. I have seen people going a very wide different strategy with Joan of arc, with ayyubids, with japanese. The games is more fun in quick match and more serious/repetitive in ranked due to what it’s at stake…
This is not the case and depends on the player. There are players who try many different builds, they are not professionals and they are on Conqueror III.
If you’re used to seeing the typical metagamer, it doesn’t mean there isn’t more variety.
There is no variety…
The strong builds just work. This isn’t warcraft or starcraft where theres like a zillion possibilites to create value with high APM.
Sure theres harass but its not that hard to deal with in AOE4. What it really boils down to is two civs smashing units against each other. And right now theres like 4 civs who do that well and big surprise theyre winning the most
Probably because feudal is a fake era meant to be skipped cuz it doesn’t have all the rock paper scissors elements until castle. Like abbasid being vulnerable to armored civs until crossbow.
This is what the game really is, a combat simulator with a very thin veil of rpg. The first two ages are not immersive or impactful, it’s just the same playstyle every opening until the combat starts.
But if you suggest any kind of immersion people complain like why would we want to waste time not smashing units into each other?? I guess they know their target market.
Yea they kind of ruined the game with this expansion and update. Haven’t played since about 2 weeks after it released, and I used to put in like 20 hours a week.
The collection rate is high so 2Tc villagers quickly recover their investment, so Non-landmark TC villagers should cost more, so that Fast Castle is more viable with most civilizations
Precisely fast castle is what people doesn’t like.
It’s ok that certain civs can do a fast castle but it also needs to be punishable. The game right now it’s like you have been demanding over and over.
Right now games don’t last more than 15-20 minutes because every game is a castle rush + all in or a jeanne lvl 3 all in but yet you are here demanding more nerfs to TCs whereas right now a TC itself is near as weaker as a tower and there are civs who directly get into castle at min 6 and get all the relics while spamming castle armored units.
In fact the game right now isn’t about strategy, is about who does the castle soon and get all the relics.
Without wanting to reveal my age , I’ve been playing Age of Empires since 1998. I’m a fan of the AoE series. I played all the games in the franchise and for me Age 4 is the best game.
To improve, I think they could reduce the time it takes to release balancing and QoL patches. If they do this, the game takes on a new look and feels like it is constantly being improved.
In today’s world, people crave new things all the time.
But I work in IT and I know the difficulties. The developers are doing a great job
I totally agree with you. The meta right now is much worse than what it was last patch and fast castle should be punishable by eary aggression.
2 TC meta used to be an issue, but now fast castle is becoming problematic too as its hard to punish, much harder to punish a FC than a 2nd tc boom now, specially with civs like ayubids that can entirle skip feudal without any issues and shut down any early aggression!
, I’ve been playing Age of Empires since 1998. I’m a fan of the AoE series. I played all the games in the franchise and for me Age 4 is the best game.