Help a newby!

[AttilaTheHun]

Thanks for all the input. In the game against the goths I was just booming on Arabia, since my enemy did either and his score was pretty low. So i tought i would win the imperial battle. I was byzantine, so this time is was completely my fault. I just didnt look at the civ of the enemy. Otherwise i wouldnt go arbalest. It was too late to switch to another units. Huskarls completely destroyed my base. If i was Britons it was another story. I really dont know what to do. You want going archers, but you cant. Britons vs Goths is just a bad match up. There would be more bad match up. So i am looking for an overall rule of thumb of how to deal with this kind of situations. Like being Turks in a 1 v 1 seems also pretty bad (almost everything cost gold). In team games with trade gold is never an issue. In 1 v 1 it becomes an issue.

It also happened multiple times both boars were in the same spot and i just missed them. I first scout my own base untill i have all sheeps / boars. So i was around 16 vills and didnt found the boars. Pretty bad. In another game however i had 3 boars: One boar was from the enemy. He just wanna lure the boar and i could block the vill with my scout, so he lost the vill. Then i send my one vill and lured the boar to a mill (made it for berries or deer). Luckily my base wasnt on the other side of the map, otherwise i would lost the vill too. I think in that game i milled his deer too. In the end i did won that game too.

 

[woot]

Thanks for all the input. In the game against the goths I was just booming on Arabia, since my enemy did either and his score was pretty low. So i tought i would win the imperial battle. I was byzantine, so this time is was completely my fault. I just didnt look at the civ of the enemy. Otherwise i wouldnt go arbalest. It was too late to switch to another units. Huskarls completely destroyed my base. If i was Britons it was another story. I really dont know what to do. You want going archers, but you cant. Britons vs Goths is just a bad match up. There would be more bad match up. So i am looking for an overall rule of thumb of how to deal with this kind of situations. Like being Turks in a 1 v 1 seems also pretty bad (almost everything cost gold). In team games with trade gold is never an issue. In 1 v 1 it becomes an issue.

It also happened multiple times both boars were in the same spot and i just missed them. I first scout my own base untill i have all sheeps / boars. So i was around 16 vills and didnt found the boars. Pretty bad. In another game however i had 3 boars: One boar was from the enemy. He just wanna lure the boar and i could block the vill with my scout, so he lost the vill. Then i send my one vill and lured the boar to a mill (made it for berries or deer). Luckily my base wasnt on the other side of the map, otherwise i would lost the vill too. I think in that game i milled his deer too. In the end i did won that game too.

Brit vs goth isn't so bad in arabia. Both can win. Brit have very good economy, champ + longbow is pretty strong. Early feudal and in castle, brit is clearly better.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

Okay. And how to play Saracens? I really can't get that civ working at any map. I just loose. Nothing seems to work well. At this moment i just want to resign at the start of the game if i random the saracens.

 

[Rayne]

Thanks for all the input. In the game against the goths I was just booming on Arabia, since my enemy did either and his score was pretty low. So i tought i would win the imperial battle. I was byzantine, so this time is was completely my fault. I just didnt look at the civ of the enemy. Otherwise i wouldnt go arbalest. It was too late to switch to another units. Huskarls completely destroyed my base. If i was Britons it was another story. I really dont know what to do. You want going archers, but you cant. Britons vs Goths is just a bad match up. There would be more bad match up.

Byzantines vs Goth sounds like it could be tricky in some situations, but Byzantines should be better. Map will say the rest. I wouldn't let Goth boom unless there was nothing I could do.

Britons vs Goths sounds quite scary, for the Goth player. Goth player should have trouble surviving against Britons early, especially if map assists the Briton player.

So i am looking for an overall rule of thumb of how to deal with this kind of situations.

Aside from just knowing civ strengths, weaknesses and playing with and against them, the key thing you likely haven't grasped yet is how map aides your play. It was one of the most difficult things for me to learn. I am not sure how tough it would be for you on Arabia.

Map should be the 'primary' (key word here) guide for your play and decisions (especially early on). Usually before you have learned this, you are doing trush or maa (or both) for instance 'just because', or because you like it, or because you are fan of [insert expert] and see them do it often. That'll work for only so long. Its things like placement of golds, hills, and stones as well that can make say, a trush a mediocre one, or an absolute knockout. Or make a mediocre siege push into a fatality.

Understanding situation matters too. Things like enemy is slower than you to hit Castle Age (speaking of an actual difference of 1 min+, not like a 20 second difference), or carelessly loses military are things you should play against as much as possible. Mistakes are what can create opportunities to win for whoever can take advantage of them. Making something out of it efficiently comes with experience, lots of it, and being on both sides here, meaning winning and losing. Both are needed to know how to succeed with this particular case (and actually every other subject matter).

If you are reading the map and situation right, you should do well in general, even against bad civ matchups (whatever your definition of bad is with certain matchups).

Tl; dr version here --> Let map guide your play and then let everything else follow after was my experience. Plan by map, and if random civs then figure out strengths and weaknesses and how to play them, then be aware of any mistake that your opponent makes. Know that you have to prove whatever opponent did is a mistake, and a win says you were right.

Like being Turks in a 1 v 1 seems also pretty bad (almost everything cost gold). In team games with trade gold is never an issue. In 1 v 1 it becomes an issue.

Turks aren't super special, but they aren't bad, especially in early Imperial Age (depending what civ you are vs with random civs these days).

 

[Faultier321]

Okay. And how to play Saracens? I really can't get that civ working at any map. I just loose. Nothing seems to work well. At this moment i just want to resign at the start of the game if i random the saracens.

Saracens are seen as a low tier - you could say pretty bad - civ for arabia. But that is because of lacking any economy bonus, not because a lack of options. They have an excellent archer line, fully upgraded arbalest, fully upgraded cavalry archers (both with bonus vs buildings, which can be usefull to kill palisades faster in feudal age), Hand canoneers. They also have great Cav: Full Upgrades, Hussars, some of the best camels in the game; only thing to remember is that you cannot upgrade your knights in imperial age.

Also their market Bonus is very underestimated: Instead of paying 130 gold to buy 100 of a ressource, they only pay 105 gold, same goes for selling (get 95 gold for 100 instead of gettimg 70 gold). Also the market itself is cheaper. This helps a lot of balancing the economy, because using the market hurts you much less. Because of that, Saracens arguably become the best civ in the game when they are cut of a certain ressources, like when you get towerrushed and dont have access to gold, stone or wood anymore.

Mamelukes, as cool as they are, are very difficult to use in a 1v1, and usually saracens have better options. They only become strong when fully upgraded (including Unique Tech), and cost so much gold that they are most times only viable in team games with trade.

(Im not saying you should never use them in 1v1, every unit in the game is situational, but most of the times there are better options)

 

[AttilaTheHun]

Thanx for all the answers! There is not 1 kind of 'best strategy for every time you play as civ x on map y' and that is really depends on the map. These answers are usefull to me.

Turks aren't super special, but they aren't bad, especially in early Imperial Age (depending what civ you are vs with random civs these days).

Aren't Turks not heavily gold dependant? So no gold = gg? You have no real options. So in teamgames with trades, Turks can be really strong. In 1v1 they pretty much such, isn't it?

Saracens are seen as a low tier - you could say pretty bad - civ for arabia. But that is because of lacking any economy bonus, not because a lack of options.

That could be the issue, the lack of eco. I just fall behind in eco with this civ.

Just another question: How to play as pocket as Huns on BF. The lack of siege really sucks. In a 3v3 i was Huns as pocket and the lack of siege really hurts. I ended up fighting in a choke point with Paladins and cav archers against arbalest, elite skirms and halbs. That's not really the fight you wanna take. Siege would really helped the fight. So how to play Huns on BF. Probably the answer starts with 'Hun are low tier on BF', like saracens are low tier on Arabia.

 

[Rayne]

Aren't Turks not heavily gold dependant? So no gold = gg? You have no real options. So in teamgames with trades, Turks can be really strong. In 1v1 they pretty much such, isn't it?

They do rely on gold to have any power. No gold and they are pretty bad. That's once they get to that point though.

Turks power up very fast the second they hit Imperial Age. Free hussars and free chemistry are some very sweet upgrades. Jans are pretty good as well as long as you aren't vs any civ with strong ranged units like Britons, Mongols, Mayans, and probably one or two others that I am missing. Paladins are good vs Turks as well if you can get them.

But, Turks should do well vs a good deal of civs once they hit Imperial Age (if they get there). Just because of how quick they can be.

Just another question: How to play as pocket as Huns on BF. The lack of siege really sucks. In a 3v3 i was Huns as pocket and the lack of siege really hurts. I ended up fighting in a choke point with Paladins and cav archers against arbalest, elite skirms and halbs. That's not really the fight you wanna take. Siege would really helped the fight. So how to play Huns on BF. Probably the answer starts with 'Hun are low tier on BF', like saracens are low tier on Arabia.

I don't think its a Hun player's job to really make siege on bf as a pocket. That would be more your flank's job to do some sort of siege. At most you could do some siege ram assistance if your flank has only capped rams (as long as you aren't vs Mongols or some strong SO civs). Even that shouldn't be needed I think. Seems like a waste somewhere.

Just boom and paladins is your best bet. Maybe HCA aren't a bad option in some cases as well (can strike enemy trade easier at some point) depending on what civs you are vs and what your flank's civ is. HCA could compliment their army well.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

I don't think its a Hun player's job to really make siege on bf as a pocket. That would be more your flank's job to do some sort of siege. At most you could do some siege ram assistance if your flank has only capped rams (as long as you aren't vs Mongols or some strong SO civs). Even that shouldn't be needed I think. Seems like a waste somewhere.

Just boom and paladins is your best bet. Maybe HCA aren't a bad option in some cases as well (can strike enemy trade easier at some point) depending on what civs you are vs and what your flank's civ is. HCA could compliment their army well.

On that flank i was against Japanese and Mongols. Siege rams were useless: It was a little choke point. So siegerams never will reach the castles at the end. So we needed ranged siege. My ally was Byzantines. There siege is good enough, if they wanna make siege. In the end i think i helped this flank a bit late, so he already took some damage. Maybe he didn't had the resources to build siege / lots of units. I was too busy on the other flank. If he did ask for resources, i could send them some...

My logic behind the paladin / HCA combo: A full paladin army can't all attack in a choke point. HCA can give a ranged attack at the same time. So i deal more damage at one moment. Also Paladin fail against halbs, but the HCA can kill them before the halbs reach the paladins. The skirms wanna attack the HCA, but first needs to destroy Paladins. Paladins aren't really afraid of skirms.

Just another question: What will be better in most cases: We won the game easily on one side. So i started to raid all enemies. They were fully open from one side. Raiding all enemies from one flank or helping your other flank to not get killed? What would be the best option. After the first raiding party i helped my flank and let the raiding be done by the other flank. I think the answer start with 'It depends on the situation'.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

I already watched some BO on youtube, but today i started with St4rk's BO. Wow. They are really really great! It is not just a list of villager x goes to resource A, but he explains everything really well! Those are really useful and much better than other BO on youtube. I really don't understand why his BO's has much less views than Zeroempires and Resonance22Channel (first hits if you search on youtube). After those you will start finding lots of BOs from St4rk.

 

[Rayne]

On that flank i was against Japanese and Mongols. Siege rams were useless: It was a little choke point. So siegerams never will reach the castles at the end. So we needed ranged siege. My ally was Byzantines. There siege is good enough, if they wanna make siege. In the end i think i helped this flank a bit late, so he already took some damage. Maybe he didn't had the resources to build siege / lots of units. I was too busy on the other flank. If he did ask for resources, i could send them some...

Japanese and Mongols vs Huns and Byzantines sounds like a very bad matchup. I don't think the both of you could beat an army of like Japanese halbs + trebs and EMangudai + SO/rams. It'll shred anything. That's if Mongols planned to assist with the Japanese ally.

Siege rams definitely would be useless here from you with Byzantine ally (aside from civs vs).

My logic behind the paladin / HCA combo: A full paladin army can't all attack in a choke point. HCA can give a ranged attack at the same time. So i deal more damage at one moment. Also Paladin fail against halbs, but the HCA can kill them before the halbs reach the paladins. The skirms wanna attack the HCA, but first needs to destroy Paladins. Paladins aren't really afraid of skirms.

Some deathmatch-type Hun army with paladins and HCA sounds cool if it were a 1v1, but in a TG it should be better to have either 60 paladins or like 70 HCA (for being vs Mongols and Japanese, 60 paladins must be better overall than HCA here). Byzantines could do something like arbalests and bbc + bbts (combined with your paladins), but its still a terrible fight against SO, EMangudai, and Japanese halbs and trebs to take down bbts. Not much the two of you could do here.

Just another question: What will be better in most cases: We won the game easily on one side. So i started to raid all enemies. They were fully open from one side. Raiding all enemies from one flank or helping your other flank to not get killed? What would be the best option. After the first raiding party i helped my flank and let the raiding be done by the other flank. I think the answer start with 'It depends on the situation'.

Sounds like it can be a tricky question without seeing the game. It does depend... But if you really did manage to annihilate one side, and there was another enemy close by and he couldn't wall you out quickly, it 'might' be best to go for him and kill him (assuming you can kill him). Otherwise, it must be a long distance to travel to the other flank which takes more time and might be bad.

I would first wonder how dead your other ally is. If he is alive and well with 170 pop or so, its probably better to just help him and forget about raiding. Better to have another player in the game for you guys, while one of theirs is kind of out of the game. If he is completely dead as well, then go for the other enemy nearby. Don't waste the time travelling there I think.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

Before i ask for every civ how to play: Is there some list of best strategies for every civ (and how to best counter the strategy/units). I think someone write this done sometime. So i can have a look at it and learn from that list!

 

[The_Philos]

I think it's difficult to define a must-go-to strategy for each civ. Sure there are bonuses for each civ, which makes certain strategies more viable than others (for example: If you have a good food eco bonus early on, it would make sense to go with scouts), but like always it depends heavily on the match-up and the map generation.
For starters I would reccommend to check the tech tree at the start and see which unit is potentially the strongest. This unit usually should be in the end your main army and be combined with trash and counters for the units of you opponent.
Simple example:
Huns have great Cav-Archers, but if your opponent has mass skirms, it makes sense to add knights/LC/siege...

However a clean execution of a Dark Age build and a good follow up in Feudal can win you games very early. So this should be your main focus at first.

Edit: There are actually threads by Grandmaster on aoezone about some civs (not all but many). Here is the link to the latest one: https://www.aoezone.net/threads/civ-strategies-indians.147573/
The others are linked in the first post.

 

[guitarizt]

There's nothing out there. You have to stream your games so twitch chat can ridicule you when you don't know meta.

 

[AkeNo]

There's nothing out there. You have to stream your games so twitch chat can ridicule you when you don't know meta.

my favorite hobby

 

[AttilaTheHun]

I did some searching too. I found http://www.cysion.be/aocbox/?cat=12 it seems pretty old. Things are changed. There are much more civ. Maybe also some balancing changes. For example: I read Korean are a **** civ early on. They seems nowadays pretty popular with great tower rushes, isn't it? I'm looking for a kinda updated version of that site.

 

[woot]

I did some searching too. I found http://www.cysion.be/aocbox/?cat=12 it seems pretty old. Things are changed. There are much more civ. Maybe also some balancing changes. For example: I read Korean are a **** civ early on. They seems nowadays pretty popular with great tower rushes, isn't it? I'm looking for a kinda updated version of that site.

In aoe 2, mind games and switching strategies is very common. The units are not very unique. That makes it difficult to find one particular meta for any civ. Often we start with one kind of strategy and adapt it and change to something else completely in the middle of the game. I think it is more important to understand how the overall economy works with each strategy. That will let us adapt during mid game. Another factor is the non mirror random map generation. Map dictates our strategy quite a lot. I guess that's why no one has built a comprehensive strategy guide for aoc civs.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

In aoe 2, mind games and switching strategies is very common. The units are not very unique. That makes it difficult to find one particular meta for any civ. Often we start with one kind of strategy and adapt it and change to something else completely in the middle of the game. I think it is more important to understand how the overall economy works with each strategy. That will let us adapt during mid game. Another factor is the non mirror random map generation. Map dictates our strategy quite a lot. I guess that's why no one has built a comprehensive strategy guide for aoc civs.

Did you have a look at the web page? It's not like they say 'you have to go for strategy x with civ y'. They just tells the pros and cons of every civs during different ages and for all kind of units. Just an example: They tells us Mongols is a pretty good rush civ, because of the hunting bonus. So this civ is well suited for early aggression. The strategy you pick is still up to you. You still can go drush, scouts, archers, trush, ... I think no one won't agree. It is just how this civ fits in the current meta game. It isn't about pick strategy X. Good luck with you archers rush into cross bows if you are the Spanish or trying to learn a scout rush and getting the Aztecs.

So i am just looking for a kind of civ overview with all cons and pros for every civ. I do understand picking the strategy also depends on map generation, enemy civ, enemy strategy, ...

 

[AttilaTheHun]

I became a bit tired of FC into boom on black forest, so i tried Arena for some games. It is still FC into something. This something is something else than into boom. I tried the monk rush for some games. Pretty funny strategy. I have a question about the monk rush: They give me a lot of map control so i could gather all most all relics. The enemy was stuck in his base. I couldn't really push into his base. Every time i was able to build a tower / castle, so i couldn't enter the base with monks. So how to push into a base with monks? I randomed Aztecs. I played against Koreans (I think he wanna castle drop me, but he was too late and build the castles/towers defensive). In the end i won in imperial age with trebs and eagles. I feel I would had won the game in castle age if i could push with the monks. So can someone give me some advice about how to push with a monk rush?

 

[AttilaTheHun]

Someone can give me some insight about the monk rush? It isn't part of the BO play list of St4rk.

 

[Clemensor]

Someone can give me some insight about the monk rush? It isn't part of the BO play list of St4rk.

check this channel out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdlxXGoMO4NcOu510i59PNQ/videos


Also a longer video which is not a tutorial per se but still could be useful to you is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BanvAYJK67Q

 

[AttilaTheHun]

check this channel out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdlxXGoMO4NcOu510i59PNQ/videos


Also a longer video which is not a tutorial per se but still could be useful to you is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BanvAYJK67Q

Thank you! i will have a look!

Is there a list of counters for every unit? For the most basic units i know the counters. For UU i don't really know or i am not sure.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

I found the next guide:
https://www.aoezone.net/attachments/aoktc-counter_units-zip.98597/

This only contains the Age of Empires II civs. New units from the AoE II HD DLCs are missing. Is there an update for all units?

 

[AttilaTheHun]

How to deal with unbalanced teams in teamgames? Ratings are not accurate. Some hosts wanna split highest ratings. This wont solve the issue.

In most games the winning team is already clear in dark/feudal age based on the score / times for hitting next age.

 

[misafeco]

How to deal with unbalanced teams in teamgames? Ratings are not accurate. Some hosts wanna split highest ratings. This wont solve the issue.

In most games the winning team is already clear in dark/feudal age based on the score / times for hitting next age.

In the new player lobby there is a much bigger gap between player skills. Teams are definitely more balanced in Medieval Siege in my experience. You will never get perfect balance, but you can always try. Don't let zero gamers into the room and split the teams carefully.

 

[woot]

Did you have a look at the web page? It's not like they say 'you have to go for strategy x with civ y'. They just tells the pros and cons of every civs during different ages and for all kind of units. Just an example: They tells us Mongols is a pretty good rush civ, because of the hunting bonus. So this civ is well suited for early aggression. The strategy you pick is still up to you. You still can go drush, scouts, archers, trush, ... I think no one won't agree. It is just how this civ fits in the current meta game. It isn't about pick strategy X. Good luck with you archers rush into cross bows if you are the Spanish or trying to learn a scout rush and getting the Aztecs.

So i am just looking for a kind of civ overview with all cons and pros for every civ. I do understand picking the strategy also depends on map generation, enemy civ, enemy strategy, ...

Not now but I had seen some of it back in 2011/12. The guy who wrote it is the lead designer of WK. If you spend some time looking at the tech tree of a civ, you will understand which strategies are viable and which are not. The page you quoted isn't a comprehensive guide either. It simply writes the tech tree like a story.

When we started first games on the new civs, most of us would open the tech tree during dark age to glance through the specialty of the civs. You can do that too. First look at what economic bonus the civ has. It is given in the first column. Bonuses such as malay's faster up also helps the economy in a big way because of more vills. After that decide on strategy while exploring your and your opponents map. Economy is a big part of aoe. We need to know how much of resources we would have at what stage if we go with certain style of play.

I understand what you mean by going archer with spanish. Malians (new civ) don't have bracer (and probably not thumbring idr). If someone is new to malians, they do open the tech tree in dark age to make sure.