Age of Empires 2

[Mando Knight]

Yes, this is a thread about a game that's a good half-decade old, but I still like it...

Has anyone homebrewed a good scenario here? I ran through the campaigns that they supply, and I'm wondering if there are any decent ones I can download...

Does anyone else use the Teutons as their civ of choice? No Light Cavalry or Husbandry is a downer, but Castles with 13 range and infantry that can increase its rain of death more than makes up for that (try Black Forest, build Castles, and stuff Teutonic Knights in them when the enemy comes attacking...)

[SilentNight]

It's all about the goths man. They build so fast you can fill up a cue of Huskarls and one will already be done when you finish clicking. Plus you can kill a castle with about 20 of them. A far a scenarios i never had internet on my PC ( I'm typing on a Mac right now ) and was never creative enough to build my own.

[Mando Knight]

I know about the swarms of Goths trick, but somehow, the lack of stone walls just doesn't do it for me... though my most recent game was double random one on one, ending up with me as Goths and the computer as Persia and I won thanks to the infantry swarms (and 20 monks and >40 War Elephants...).

Also, have you ever seen Teutonic Knights spawn? They spawn a good 60% as fast as Huskarls, and can kill them in a 3:1 brawl... they're the only infantry besides Halberds that can threaten a War Elephant in melee combat without monk support so far as I've seen... maybe Samurai...

I've done tests: Post-Imperial Teuton vs. Post-Imperial Other Infantry Civilization, one Elite Unique Unit on each side in a Palisade Wall arena. The two men fight to the death, and it's always the Other Guy who is lying in a bloody, sworded heap...

[Ganurath]

Huskarls aren't great in melee, what they're for is taking down ranged units. Just take a look at their ranged armor. As for my pick: Celts. They're like Goths with their effective anti-archery (Woad Raiders have M speed while most infantry are S) and actual walls to boot!

[Closet_Skeleton]

Age of Empire always ignored me for 2 reasons:

1. It was popular but really unoriginal. I know it's wrong to hate thing for being popular, but when people think Warcraft is an Age of Empires rip off its just annoying. The other thing was that the Warcraft model it emulated wasn't particularly suited to a historic game anyway. Age of Empires at best populised and refined the Warcraft model of RTS and was at worst Civilisation for people who are only smart enough to play Warcraft. Researching everything every mission sucked in Warcraft and Age of Empires only did it worse.

2. The occaisonally terrible implementation of history. It tries to be acurate, even give you a history lesson even, then completely screws up. The last game I played in the series was admitedly Age of Mythology, where they tried to implement Siege Towers and raming ships, but ended up with tanks and ships that actually had giant hammers that they used to bash other ships. Age of Empires 2 was annoying for:

Vikings could only get Berzerkers, warrior cultists of Tyr, at a technology level where they had converted to Christianity and Longships that shot arrows but couldn't transport units

Woad Raiders are just stupid since woad isn't native to where Celts live and can't be used as body paint and celts only painted themselves in the pre-Roman perioid

Huskals were historically elite two-handed axemen that had to be supplemented by less well trained troops so they should train slowly and be really expensive, rather than units you can horde in their own right. Like Berzekers, they also fell out of fashion way before the society that produced them had reached the technology level that Age of Empires 2 requires before you can fight them.

Arbitary damage bonuses for Pikemen vs cavalry just don't work. They represent Pikemen being good against cavalry but have no representation of why Pikemen are good against cavalry.

I actually like building castle and bases in Age of Empires 2. But it's sort of pointless since the time you spend building a base is pathetic compared to the time you actually need to complete your objective and win the mission.

[Omicroncubed]

Oh man I loved this game so much. Me and my brother used to play this in LAN, but sience we got our computer formatted for being crappy, we lost the game from the computer... I'm not sure where the CD is currently but my brother should know.

[Triaxx]

I loved playing this game. Historical Anomolies aside, Vikings were my favorite race to play. I was always a little perturbed that they didn't have their own campaign. I wanted to storm Normandy. You know, with Vikings. With the objective being destroying the wonder in Paris.

[Athaniar]

A funny thing is that you advocate historical correctness and spell berserker with Z (like in Warhammer).

I really like this game, it's probably my favorite RTS of all time. I like AoE III and AoM too, but it's just something that makes this the best.

Misc. info: On the Erik the Red scenario, if you use the reveal map cheat, you can see that there is an intricate pattern on the sea.

[Morty]

I liked this game. It was preety unrealistic and unoriginal RTS, but it was well done, well detailed, and could pass as historically accurate for someone who doesn't know much about history. I played mostly campaigns, so I don't have any particular favorite nation.

[Oeep Snaec]

I played AoE 2 because the gameplay was incredible. Throwing huge masses of troops together in one small area and having them beat the living snot out of each other is amazing, glorious even. Think 8 player deathmatch.

[Timarvay]

Heh. Heh. I couldn't even run 8 player random map, the way my friends played it. We would normally run out of resources on the map by the end.

[Closet_Skeleton]

A funny thing is that you advocate historical correctness and spell berserker with Z (like in Warhammer).

Correct spelling is an anachronism.

[Mando Knight]

Age of Empire always ignored me for 2 reasons:

1. It was popular but really unoriginal. I know it's wrong to hate thing for being popular, but when people think Warcraft is an Age of Empires rip off its just annoying. The other thing was that the Warcraft model it emulated wasn't particularly suited to a historic game anyway. Age of Empires at best populised and refined the Warcraft model of RTS and was at worst Civilisation for people who are only smart enough to play Warcraft. Researching everything every mission sucked in Warcraft and Age of Empires only did it worse.

2. The occaisonally terrible implementation of history. It tries to be acurate, even give you a history lesson even, then completely screws up. The last game I played in the series was admitedly Age of Mythology, where they tried to implement Siege Towers and raming ships, but ended up with tanks and ships that actually had giant hammers that they used to bash other ships. Age of Empires 2 was annoying for:

Vikings could only get Berzerkers, warrior cultists of Tyr, at a technology level where they had converted to Christianity and Longships that shot arrows but couldn't transport units

Woad Raiders are just stupid since woad isn't native to where Celts live and can't be used as body paint and celts only painted themselves in the pre-Roman perioid

Huskals were historically elite two-handed axemen that had to be supplemented by less well trained troops so they should train slowly and be really expensive, rather than units you can horde in their own right. Like Berzekers, they also fell out of fashion way before the society that produced them had reached the technology level that Age of Empires 2 requires before you can fight them.

Arbitary damage bonuses for Pikemen vs cavalry just don't work. They represent Pikemen being good against cavalry but have no representation of why Pikemen are good against cavalry.

I actually like building castle and bases in Age of Empires 2. But it's sort of pointless since the time you spend building a base is pathetic compared to the time you actually need to complete your objective and win the mission.

Yes, Age of Empires is somewhat unoriginal: it copies many weapons and structures that were used a millenium ago. On purpose. However, it is not just a Warcraft knockoff with historical flavor, as Ensemble Studios did go through the trouble of creating their own game engine, which was good enough that they only modified it a little from AoE to AoE 2. Also, it allows the player to choose one of multiple civilizations, which Warcraft doesn't allow.

I have some trouble comprehending why you use both "occasionally" and "completely" when referring as to how Age of Empires messes up history. Age of Mythology wasn't even a historical game...

Huskarls were not exclusively heavy-axe wielders, just as knights did not exclusively use swords or lances. They were historically professional soldiers, and such men could afford and use whatever weapons they desired. They were also used even up until the battle of Hastings in 1066, long after their conversion to Christianity.

The bit on the woad raiders is a good point: woad wasn't the dye used by the Celts, but rather it is an improper translation of Julius Caesar's observations as to their appearance, dyed or tattooed with vitrum. Woad actually wouldn't have been a good tattoo ink at all...

Berserkers were named after the skins they wore into battle, or "bear-sark." They were used up until the 1000s, right in the middle of the Christianization of Scandinavia. I have seen no evidence that they are specifically cultists of Tyr.

Even though many of these units have been misplaced time-wise, and cannot be accompanied by their lesser brethren (no militia after the dark age if you research Man at Arms, although they were used far later), that's mostly because of game mechanics and balancing issues.

My main use of Castles is as an offensive defense. The Teutonic Castles have massive range and aren't easily destroyed, so I build them ever closer to my enemy, along with Stables and Monasteries, pushing them away from resources and starving them into using Scorpions, Pikemen, Light Cavalry, and Skirmishers, which don't easily counter an army of Hand Cannons, Paladins, and Elite Teutonic Knights...

[Closet_Skeleton]

Yes, Age of Empires is somewhat unoriginal: it copies many weapons and structures that were used a millenium ago. On purpose.

Nobody said that. People say it isn't original as a real time stratergy computer game as it brought very little to the genre.


However, it is not just a Warcraft knockoff with historical flavor, as Ensemble Studios did go through the trouble of creating their own game engine

Having its own game engine in no way stops it being a Warcraft knock off. The fact that you have peasants that gather resources and build buildings, buildings that produce troops, upgrades that you can research from certain buildings and units that run around as individuals with no semblance of realism makes it a Warcraft knock off. It follows the Warcraft model of RTS almost exactly, it just bothers to have differant models for differant levels of tech tree and a slightly more complicated resource gathering. There are RTS games that don't copy Warcraft such as Command and Conquor, the Total War series or Praetorians and ones that alter Warcraft's model, such as Battle Realms or Warlords Battlecry. Age of Empires just copies it.


Also, it allows the player to choose one of multiple civilizations, which Warcraft doesn't allow.

Uhm, Orcs and Humans? I know they where almost identical but the Age of Empires civilisations re-use stuff as well.


I have some trouble comprehending why you use both "occasionally" and "completely" when referring as to how Age of Empires messes up history. Age of Mythology wasn't even a historical game...

My problem with Age of Mythology wasn't that it wasn't historical, but in that it tries to use things that have actually been used in history, then implements them in really stupid ways. I didn't complain about the minotaurs or the fact that Dark Ages Vikings are fighting Pharonic Egypt.


Huskarls were not exclusively heavy-axe wielders, just as knights did not exclusively use swords or lances. They were historically professional soldiers, and such men could afford and use whatever weapons they desired. They were also used even up until the battle of Hastings in 1066, long after their conversion to Christianity.

Except in Age of Empires 2 Huskarls don't appear until "the castle age". England didn't have any Stone Castles before 1066 and it didn't have any Huskarls afterwards (they fled to Constantinople and became merceneries). It was however Berzerkers which I was complaining about disapearing after Christianity. Berzerkers where wiped out by the 12th century, which is the age of stone castles.


The bit on the woad raiders is a good point: woad wasn't the dye used by the Celts, but rather it is an improper translation of Julius Caesar's observations as to their appearance, dyed or tattooed with vitrum. Woad actually wouldn't have been a good tattoo ink at all...

They're only in the game for Brave Heart fans.


Berserkers were named after the skins they wore into battle, or "bear-sark."

Everyone knows this.


They were used up until the 1000s, right in the middle of the Christianization of Scandinavia. I have seen no evidence that they are specifically cultists of Tyr.

Same problem as the Huskarls but a lot more so, Stone Castles weren't popular at this time and Berserkers in Age of Empires aren't available until you get stone Castles. They may have existed during the Christianisation of Scandinavia, but that's a very differant thing from them existing after the Christianisation of Scandinavia. In reality Berserkers are disapearing when stone fortifications are coming about, in Age of Empires you have to wait until you can get stone fortifications to get them.

Age of Empires mechanics are flawed due to attempting to force a historic setting onto the Warcraft style of RTS.

I forgot the worsed unit in Age of Empires 2. The cannon galley with a single massive cannon on the front. Or the fact that they have medieval fireships with flamethrowers on them. Makes sense for Greek fire but breaks down completely for Sir Francis Drake's fire ships.

[Mando Knight]

Having its own game engine in no way stops it being a Warcraft knock off. The fact that you have peasants that gather resources and build buildings, buildings that produce troops, upgrades that you can research from certain buildings and units that run around as individuals with no semblance of realism makes it a Warcraft knock off. It follows the Warcraft model of RTS almost exactly, it just bothers to have differant models for differant levels of tech tree and a slightly more complicated resource gathering. There are RTS games that don't copy Warcraft such as Command and Conquor, the Total War series or Praetorians and ones that alter Warcraft's model, such as Battle Realms or Warlords Battlecry. Age of Empires just copies it.

Warcraft was not the pioneer of that type of RTS, rather, Dune II was. It was the first title to combine a large number of previous RTS components and games, such as resource gathering, tech trees, and unit-producing buildings. By your reasoning, I seem to find Warcraft as a medieval-fantasy knockoff of Dune II.

Furthermore, the first Age of Empires employs an isometric, pseudo-3D view, something not done by Warcraft until Warcraft III. AoE 2 also includes unit queues and an idle villager-seeker, not implemented in either of the Warcraft installments that proceeded it, as well as an in-game scenario editor better than Warcraft II's (especially with Conquerors, which is the version I always play).


Uhm, Orcs and Humans? I know they where almost identical but the Age of Empires civilisations re-use stuff as well.

I'm using "multiple" as in "more than two." It's not exactly the strictest dictionary definition, but I think that's what most people mean when they say "multiple." I never really liked the historical inaccuracy of giving various civs technology they never had, but again, that's because of game balance trumping historical accuracy.


I forgot the worsed unit in Age of Empires 2. The cannon galley with a single massive cannon on the front. Or the fact that they have medieval fireships with flamethrowers on them. Makes sense for Greek fire but breaks down completely for Sir Francis Drake's fire ships.

I never liked naval combat in AoE either, and will agree on that point that it is rather inaccurate and somewhat absurd.

Francis Drake's fire ship is AoE's Demolition ship.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Warcraft was not the pioneer of that type of RTS, rather, Dune II was. It was the first title to combine a large number of previous RTS components and games, such as resource gathering, tech trees, and unit-producing buildings. By your reasoning, I seem to find Warcraft as a medieval-fantasy knockoff of Dune II.

I've never played Dune II, but I assumed it would be closer to Command and Conquor than Warcraft. If Dune II is closer to Warcraft than Command and Conquor then I'm wrong. If you try and compare Age of Empires to both Warcraft and Command and Conquor then Age of Empires is almost identical to Warcraft. In Dune II, are the resource gatherers also responsible for building construction, do you build farms/houses to increase the pop cap, are their multiple resources obtainable from differant areas and are there research buildings that let you buy upgrades? These are all in Warcraft and Age of Empires but absent from Command and Conquor (which I'm probably spelling wrong).


AoE 2 also includes unit queues and an idle villager-seeker, not implemented in either of the Warcraft installments that proceeded it

Only if you don't count Starcraft as being a Warcraft game, which you may choose to but it still deserves its place in the evolution of the genre. I'll give you the idle villager button.


as well as an in-game scenario editor better than Warcraft II's (especially with Conquerors, which is the version I always play).

Warcraft II had no scenerio editor, just a map editor. Age of Empires I had a better one map editor than Warcraft II, but Starcrafts had a way better trigger system than Age of Empires 2. Starcraft lacked the campaign editor Age of Empires 2 had but the ability to autolink maps is not that important.

I never played Conquerors because it became too hard to get hold of a copy that wasn't bundled with the original.


I never liked naval combat in AoE either, and will agree on that point that it is rather inaccurate and somewhat absurd.

No land based RTS game does naval combat with any degree of satisfaction, but Age of Empires' implementation is pathetic when compared to Warcraft II or even the original Command and Conquor (where you couldn't even build them, but they still bothered making the turrets behave realisticly).


Francis Drake's fire ship is AoE's Demolition ship.

Which explodes the moment it does anything, while Francis Drake's fire ships stayed around as a terrain hazard. Demolition ships are also a waste of money when Francis Drake was using up a free resource. Demolition ships may be based on Francis Drake's fireships but they completely miss the point, which is what I was complaining about in Age of Mythologies Hammer Ships and Siege Towers. If Ensemble Studios had abandoned Warcraft's way of doing things they could have had a game where fire and ramming ships along with Siege towers worked the way they should. Instead you end up with a game based on a model that isn't relevant to its setting. I'm not actually saying that Age of Empires is a worse game than Warcraft, I'm just saying it would have been a lot better if it hadn't copied it so exactly.

[mause]

I love aoe II the conqueros:smallsmile:
I think the byzantines are the best civlization I mean: gunpowder, infantry siege weapons, strong monks and cataphracts; they have no weaknesses!
if anyone want to play just talk to me in the msn [email protected]
:smallwink:

[MeklorIlavator]

I think I'd have to reinstall the game, but I'd like to play with some other people(especially team games).

[Triaxx]

CS, please, drop the Blizzawe. Just because they got there a little early, doesn't mean that everything else is a clone. AOE at least made the games entertaining. The WC franchise was horrifyingly boring.

SC only slightly less so.

Anyone else a fan of the Mongols? The Mangudai were a fantastic anti-cavalry weapon. Especially when facing those nasty Frankish Knights. Definitely better first responders than foot archers.

I am glad to see I wasn't the only one unimpressed with the Cannon Galleons.

[SurlySeraph]

I loved AoE II. I was never great at it (I build expansions too slowly), but I loved it.

I used the Mongols a lot. With enough micromanagement, horse archers are amazing against everything except light cavalry. That's what the camels are for. Plus, they've got good siege.

My favorite civ, though, was the Huns. In sufficient numbers, tarkans can kill anything, even castles. Since you don't need to build houses, you can make sufficient numbers pretty quickly if you build enough castles. Put tarkans in squares around horse archers (to kill pikemen and quickly chip away at everything else), and you're golden against everything except heavy cavalry. Have trebuchets and halberds lag behind your horde of tarkans and horse archers; retreat back to the halberds when heavy cavalry comes for you and wait for the trebuchets when assaulting fortified areas.

[Mando Knight]

My younger brother is obsessed with using Mongols, and another used the Byzantines frequently.

I hate having to fight Cavalry Archers, and the Mangudai are nasty against my usual workaround: Siege Onagers. If your opponent uses line formation, a Siege Onager takes 'em right out! Those Mangudai just shoot them up though.:smallmad:

The Mongols, the Celts, and the Teutons are all tied for the most siege engine upgrades, and I like all three...

The Byzantines aren't bad, especially if you use a balanced water/land map, but it's too bad that they don't get Blast Furnace.

My favorite anti-cavalry archer technique is a longbow firing squad. They're cheap, deadly, fast-firing, and won Agincourt. In Post-Imperial, Elite Longbowmen can out-shoot any building except Teutonic Castles, Korean Keeps, and Turkish Bombard Towers, and those you can just hit with Trebuchet...

[Blackdrop]

Arbitary damage bonuses for Pikemen vs cavalry just don't work. They represent Pikemen being good against cavalry but have no representation of why Pikemen are good against cavalry.

Pikemen were the preferred anti-cavalry weapon of the time, though. The phalanx formation was one of the main reasons for why knights vanished from the battlefield.

Anyhoo, my favorite races were the infantry civs. My general plan was to build my maximum allowed units and just throw them at the enemy. It was set up like Legion 1- 20 Infantry/20 Pikemen, Legion 2- 20 Archers/20 Skirmishers, Legion 3- 40 Knights, Legion 4 35 Civ-uniques/5 trebuchets, Legion 5- 20 civ-uniques. The other twenty were villagers/scouts/boats.

[endoperez]

CS, please, drop the Blizzawe. Just because they got there a little early, doesn't mean that everything else is a clone. AOE at least made the games entertaining. The WC franchise was horrifyingly boring.

I thought he was trying to say that Age of Empire games would have been better if they had LESS in common with Warcraft games.

[Paragon Badger]

AOEII did what even newer Warcraft games lack;

Strategery. :smallamused:

You can come up with alot of strategies in Warcraft, but you only need one to win. Rushrushrushrush.

Age of Empires 2 had plenty of different strategies that worked. And even more counter-strategies. Dark Age Rushers? Garrison them villies up into a deadly TC arrow-storm!

Even the diehard goth rushers who practiced their technique down to a few minutes could be easily dispatched with some thought; Using the terrain to choke their advance, if the map allows. Delay tactics and counter-building with the time given by said delay.

Heck, even the death-sentence that is turtling could be pulled off if you figure out a cost-effective defense and have a few villies meandering about, plunking down counter-attack bases (ie; one or two military buildings ready to deal a crushing blow to their economy) Most people don't bother to continue scouting when they've explored most of the map.

You could say Warcraft III ripped off of Age of Empires II in many respects. :smalltongue:

Edit: Counter-units! Sure, Paladins can wipe out their supossed 'counter' pikeman, but pikemen are dirt cheap...Paladins are not.

[Dhavaer]

Teutons are my favourite too, although I also like British, Huns and Byzantines.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I thought he was trying to say that Age of Empire games would have been better if they had LESS in common with Warcraft games.

Yes.


Pikemen were the preferred anti-cavalry weapon of the time, though. The phalanx formation was one of the main reasons for why knights vanished from the battlefield.

I know this. This was my exact point, you can't do phalanx formations in Age of Empires, so Pikemen get an arbitary damage bonus instead.

[Mando Knight]

Even the diehard goth rushers who practiced their technique down to a few minutes could be easily dispatched with some thought; Using the terrain to choke their advance, if the map allows. Delay tactics and counter-building with the time given by said delay.

Heck, even the death-sentence that is turtling could be pulled off if you figure out a cost-effective defense and have a few villies meandering about, plunking down counter-attack bases (ie; one or two military buildings ready to deal a crushing blow to their economy) Most people don't bother to continue scouting when they've explored most of the map.

I've developed the opinion that Goths don't get stone walls because they think that they're too cheap and annoying to fight against. Seriously, 5 stone/section for a wall that they can't get through save with siege engines? That builds like crazy?

Except when the opponent starts using archers and field artillery that can retreat faster than the Teutonic Knight, that unit is probably one of the most cost-effective units in the game. Sure, it costs more than a swordsman, but it will pay itself back several times over when your expensive legion of Teutonic Knights just won't die. Paladins? Dead. Champions? Dead. Samurai? Jaguar Warriors? Dead and deader. The only melee unit that can kill a Teutonic Knight in one on one combat or swarm on swarm combat is the War Elephant... but Teutons get all of the conversion related Monk techs...

[Veridian]

Hm....saying AoE II is a ripoff of warcraft is like saying all RTS games are a ripiff of warcraft...I mean they all involve gathering resources and making units from buildings, mostly? I don't really think it's fair to do that, as there's only so many different ways you can show creating units and buildings, but well, that's your view and I don't really want to get into a debate over it, 'cause it's meaningless imho :smallwink:

Anyway, I play a little bit of AoE II, though I'm pretty poor at the game (I lack the necessary macro-units-like-mad ability so I tend to forget to keep making the things....). I prefer archer civs like Mayans or Britons. Or Byzantines, because their cataphracts are just unfair (though their trash troops suck horribly in the late game). Or Goths, because who doesn't like making an army of 100 men in about 1 minute?

But, the archers are practically imbalanced in the game. Unless you have Huskarls or Eagle Warriors to counter them with, a pack of 40 archers can take down a pack of 40 paladins, if you can find favorable terrain. And archers are MUCH cheaper than paladins... I remember seeing one replay, where they pushed all their archers onto this little spit of land with a tiny entry point. Only room for 1 unit at a time to pass through. And then they were basically unkillable and the other player had to retreat his army of paladins away from the smaller force of plumed archers...

[Closet_Skeleton]

AOEII did what even newer Warcraft games lack;

Strategery. :smallamused:

You can come up with alot of strategies in Warcraft, but you only need one to win. Rushrushrushrush.

Well, this is why Starcraft was better than Warcraft.


Heck, even the death-sentence that is turtling could be pulled off if you figure out a cost-effective defense and have a few villies meandering about, plunking down counter-attack bases (ie; one or two military buildings ready to deal a crushing blow to their economy) Most people don't bother to continue scouting when they've explored most of the map.

Funny thing is, I like turtling. What else are you supposed to do in the 20 minutes it takes to get all those upgrades? Base building in Age of Empires is better implemented than Warcraft (despite being essentially the exact same thing) but is an utter waste of time since it doesn't contribute to your victory at all. Whenever I played Age of Empires 2 I always spent a lot of time chopping down trees so my walls could run properly (despite trees in a way being a better defence) and building my base against cliffs and things. At one point for a laugh I build a ton of ships in a lake by my base just to use for defence and it was of course an utter waste of time.

Age of Empires is one of those games where all the stratergies are based around things the games designers didn't expect to be abused and the things the games designers put a lot of work into end up being inferior. All stratergy games end up with this a bit though and it isn't really a bad thing.


Hm....saying AoE II is a ripoff of warcraft is like saying all RTS games are a ripiff of warcraft...I mean they all involve gathering resources and making units from buildings, mostly?

My old signiture quote went along the lines of "when one person rips you off it's plagerism, when 50 people do you've founded a genre". It's also annoying that a lot of games that didn't copy Warcraft so much aren't as popular as Age of Empires, but this may be due to Warcraft and Age of Empires being good.


But, the archers are practically imbalanced in the game. Unless you have Huskarls or Eagle Warriors to counter them with, a pack of 40 archers can take down a pack of 40 paladins, if you can find favorable terrain. And archers are MUCH cheaper than paladins... I remember seeing one replay, where they pushed all their archers onto this little spit of land with a tiny entry point. Only room for 1 unit at a time to pass through. And then they were basically unkillable and the other player had to retreat his army of paladins away from the smaller force of plumed archers...

Archers automatically kiting (moving backwards after every attack) was one of the most annoying part of Age of Empires 2. It did however make it one of the few games to get Horse Archers right, I just wish English longbowmen, or worse crossbowmen who can't reload on the move, wouldn't try it.

[Veridian]

I never noticed archers kiting by themselves before. Only with skirmishers when something got too close.

Though kiting wasn't terribly hard to do manually, if you were so inclined...

[Mando Knight]

If you ever need a reminder about the fragility of non-longbowman archers, set up a group of Siege Onagers flanked by Heavy Scorpions. The Onagers take out the archers while they get closer, and the Scorpions take out those who survive the rain of flaming rocks. Pain, pain, pain. Especially when further bolstered by Castles and Keeps. Walls, too, to keep out cavalry support.

[Veridian]

True, onagers do a great job of breaking up...well pretty much any massed group of units. But they're kinda hard to use properly...

A celtish or mongol siege engine strat is pretty deadly - I even saw a korean one pulled off rather nicely in a team game (for the additional +2 onager range via team bonus). Korean onagers have a horrid range...

[Mando Knight]

Again, I say: Teutons! They get the Siege Onagers, too, and Bombard Cannons, and Heavy Scorpions, and Siege Engineers. That's not bad, especially considering that they aren't skilled at Archery Range units...

[Veridian]

Still, if you like playing siege, you're much better off with Celts (+50% siege weapon hp...that makes 415hp siege rams :smallamused: ), or Mongols (+50% increased siege unit movement speed). Mongols are especially good as Magnudai are a very, very excellent unit. (Magnudai + siege rams/trebs/whatever is fun)

Turks are also an interesting choice, as their bombard cannons just have a terribly unfair reach once upgraded. Though I dislike bombards in general due to their cost, they're more effective against units than a trebuchet is.

[Raiser Blade]

Lumberjack....

[Mando Knight]

Yeah, I know the cheat codes, but I'm already 2x or so as skilled as the computer... what's the challenge in that?

[Annarrkkii]

I was always rather partial to the English, with their longbowmen, and most of my best victories were pulled off with a teammate, typically the Huns, if it was my usual compatriot I was playing with. Longbowmen to chew things apart as they close, the tarkans to punch holes in defenses and raze bases to the ground.

When I wasn't the Britons or the Saracens, I was partial to the quality-over-quantity civs, as much as that can be said of any civilization in AoE II, such as the Teutons, Turks, and Byzantines. I tell you, a squad of Byzantine cavalrymen and a squad of Byzantine camels are a hard pairing to beat—their speed helps with archers and siege engines (admittedly, only to a point), the cataphracts could manhandle infantry, and the camels could be called in in the event of cavalry. It was, as far as strategies went, fairly simplistic, and I was never an especially talented player, but it was a fun game.

[throtecutter]

I still play AOE the Conquerors when friends come over for LAN parties. We have had to ban the Byzantines, British, Spanish, Persians and Koreans due to completely overpowered strategies.

My favorite is my Byzantines strategy, a continuous army Halberdiers (would you believe that is in spell check) and Skirmishers. Not only are these the cheapest (cost wise) units in the game, they take no gold so I can have enough gold to win when there are no more resources on the map. They can be produced continuously out of 3 barracks and archery ranges with an economy of about 15 villagers. Then come the trample damage cataphracts ...

I always hated ship battles. There are really only 2 kinds of ships. Fire ships for everything sea based, and Cannon Galleon for all buildings.

The large guidebook was laughable. The person writing it seemed to just look at numbers rather than test stuff. I will never understand how the Britons got a difficulty rating of medium...

[Triaxx]

I liked the Vikings because I didn't have to stop and pick up the Hand Cart and Wheelbarrow. Plus I can out build you at sea. And you can't meet me at the beach either. Stack the fact that I get stronger infantry? I will mow you down.

[Veridian]

Briton's real power is their longbowmen. If they square off against Goths, Aztecs or Mayans (or a well placed onager shot if you can get it in), then they're in trouble. It's not so easy as it looks, though still pretty effective (though getting enough castles to make enough longbows might be a bit hard, depending on how you like to use the castles). Push come to shove you can just mass skirmishers and use those.

Byantines have cheap 'trash' units, but their cataphracts are expensive. Sure they're nasty, but they're costly...and if you're using trash units against a group of champions or archers, they'll just die like flies, so you're wasting resource. As catas are so deadly, you need to try and pick them off with cavalry of your own, they're not quite so nasty against other cav. (and you can support with archers too)

Spanish are decent, but don't really have any particular glowing strength. Their cavalry is good, their infantry is good, their boats are good, but their archers suck and their unique unit is mediocre. Though their team bonus is really nice to have.

Persians? Well elephants are great, but can be easily countered with monks and pikes. Pikes get an obscene bonus against elephants.

Koreans? War wagons aren't really that good, their onagers are nice, but they don't really have anything going for them...unless you're into tower rushing I guess.

So, I don't get why they're banned by anyone in any game? There are no truly overpowering strategies, as you can counter anything with pretty much anything. If people are pulling off 'overpowering strategies' sit and ask yourself what counters them. You'll find an answer. :smallwink:

The most overpowering strategy is when you get a large group of well used siege units. That means 20+ ballistae with some onager support. But to get such an army is risky...and it falls apart very fast if you dont pay attention. (and if you flank it correctly)

Oh, and as for ship battles, galleons actually beat out fire ships in large numbers (Try it, you'll be surprised. I know I was.)

[Mando Knight]

Conquistadors work. They're basically ranged Cataphracts, as I've found. That, and the Spanish can easily switch from cavalry-based to infantry-based at the blink of an eye if need be. I don't even use archers if my civ gets hand cannons, so the archer sucking doesn't matter to me.

[Veridian]

Yeah, conquistadors aren't bad, but I just don't really find them good enough to be a mainstay. They're mobile and have good hp/armor/damage, but their accuracy stinks and their range is a bit short.

Same beef I have with hand cannoners, except hand cannoners are far too delicate for my liking, and very easily countered by skirmishers. They rip up infantry nicely, though.

[Paragon Badger]

The most overpowering strategy is when you get a large group of well used siege units. That means 20+ ballistae with some onager support. But to get such an army is risky...and it falls apart very fast if you dont pay attention. (and if you flank it correctly)

Light Cavalry. Attack from multiple directions to spread out their fire. :smallbiggrin:

[Cybren]

AoE was a crappy warcraft ripoff with a little bit of heart.
AoE2 was a good game in its own right.

[Athaniar]

Age of Empires isn't trying to be perfectly historically correct at every point, it's trying to be a good, playable game. And I don't see many similarities with Warcraft either.

[Triaxx]

Light Cavalry. Attack from multiple directions to spread out their fire. :smallbiggrin:

Better still, Mangudai, they spread the fire, and tear them apart. Or I can throw Berserkers into their teeth after the cavalry have turned them to the sides.

Anyone else think the Japanese got the short end of the stick with Samurai as a unique unit? Though the team bonus is great if you pair them with the Vikings. Persians and Franks are another nifty pair.

[Mando Knight]

I probably sound worse than a fanboy for recommending Teutons again, but their team bonus is a conversion resistance that stacks with Faith, making their allies' Hussar almost perfect Monk slayers, and even the Teutonic Knights and War Elephants take several Monks to convert before the rest of the army comes to bear on them.

Huns make a good pair with anyone who is using cavalry thanks to their +20% Stable work rate team bonus.

Samurai aren't bad compared to the other infantry uniques... it's just that the Jags introduced in Conquerors do same job better, since most of the unique units are either infantry (covered by Jags) or have range, and Samurai don't like ranged enemies in this game...

[Triaxx]

Let's not mention that their unique tech seems to be completely pointless since they get Bombard Cannons. On the other hand, I like fishing, so...

[Woot Spitum]

I love the Aztecs. Garland Wars makes your infantry downright scary.:smallamused: And for the record, pikemen with garland wars chew up cavalry like nothing else.