You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.63 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Early Economic Bonuses The Bane Of RTS Games
Bottom
Topic Subject:Early Economic Bonuses The Bane Of RTS Games
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Shurafa
Mortal
posted 16 October 2002 02:17 PM EDT (US)         
shang,Mongols,Chinese,RA

What do these civs have in common? At least one and potentially two things.

1. An early economic bonus not available to other civs.
2. They dominated competitive rm play in their respective games.

Any time is see an economic bonus of 300% I am wary of abuse. My clanmate used an early Farm build on me in a 1v1 game last night and It was much stronger then I had anticipated (he hit classic in just under 5 mins).

I have not played the build yet myself (although I plan to) I do see its potential and wanted to get some feedback on it.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
AuthorReplies:
dragons89
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 04:26 AM EDT (US)     31 / 63       
First I hear all this about rain being the worst GP because it effects your enemies. Then I hear that it is overpowering.

Well, if you want my thoughts:

Farms are already slower than hunting. The 300% boost will only make it, let's say, twice as fast as hunting. You can have tons of villies on hunting. For example, you have 10 on hunting. To get the same amount of food as that, you'll need to have 5 villagers on farms, which is 350 gold. Also, remember that the rain GP will only last so long. After that's over, you just spent 350 of your gold for a considerably slow source of food.

I think it would be more profitable when you have tons of farms. Say about 20 farms. 300% boost=60 farm rate. The enemy will have around that much as well, but they'll only get the rate of 40 farms, which is like having an extra 20 farmers.


Give me money, and I might feel generous enough to say something kind.
--My The Ultimate AOK Guide--
--My The Ultimate AOM Guide

[This message has been edited by dragons89 (edited 10-17-2002 @ 04:28 AM).]

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 10:52 AM EDT (US)     32 / 63       
This post is for Alex and Smurf specifically.

It is obvious that you both understand the game at a "high" level of play. However you seem to have missed the main point of the post namely that distinct “early” game economic advantages are potentially unbalancing.

Instead you are arguing over civ balance in general, which have degenerated into a circular pattern that does not seem to be progressing adequately.

Essentially Alex is making the argument that there is a civ that will be the most efficient economically and will dominate. (historically this has been the case in previous “Age of” games and will more then likely also occur at least to some extent in AOM)

Smurf then countered with the fact that resources are “random” and this may affect the outcome (I agree that this “may” be true more testing is needed in order to verify) (Sandy also added that there may be a transitive relationship in which: civ x beats civ y beats civ z who beats civ x…) Also Smurf made the point that tactics can overcome and economic advantage (this logic is flawed however as we are speaking hypothetically about economic advantages (In a vacuum), strategy does not even come into the discussion as obviously better tactics and more efficient play can overcome economic advantages (that is the whole theory behind handicaps).

You both make good valid points. However this is not an argument that can be solved hypothetically as there is no way to decisively prove an outcome one way or another (even if you could for one map chances are it would not hold true on another). Therefore at this point it is too close too call.

One last thing keep in mind that “early” economic bonuses here are the culprit (that often decide games preemptively). Things that happened after the first few minutes of the game are outside the scope of the argument as there are way too many things that can skew the results.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
Jus
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 12:46 PM EDT (US)     33 / 63       
Shurafa, maybe you can test things a bit with the civs with less powerful or no early econ advantage? Compare the results using the same RM and perhaps assess subjectively on the resource placement and amount each time you play? Maybe we'll have a better idea how much advantage do they really give?
Shurafa
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 01:08 PM EDT (US)     34 / 63       
That is a good idea Jus. That is basically what I did with RA last night. I found that the build is indeed a strong one and merits further analysis.

However doing it with all the civs to make a definitive judgment is less then optimal as the sample size would be so small it would be hard to draw definitive conclusions from it. Within the first few weeks of the game we will have a much better assessment of state of game balance overall as many many thousands of games will be played.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
TheSmurfster
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 01:35 PM EDT (US)     35 / 63       

Quoted from Alexandergreat3:

It's nice that you mentioned those players. I don't question that the above players are among the very best in AoK. However, I do question how an expert player can dominate his opponent, as you said, economically and militarily long enough, yet he allowed the other player who has a worse econ to create a weaker army but gained the advantage??

It doesn't make any sense. Please explain.

This isn't just coming from me; ES themselves have said that it is possible to steamroll an opponent who has a better economy than you if you use your military units better than your opponents, or if you take more advantage of your GP or MUs. I hope someone at ES (preferably DS, as I think it was him who originally said that) could stumble in here and confirm this.

Quoted from Alexandergreat3:

When you said you clearly winning economically and militarily, could you please be more specific on how? Did you have more vils? (About how many more?)

And how were you dominating militarily? Were you surrounding his towns with your army the entire time, messing up his econ?

Sure, and I'd be happy to provide the screens too, except it's under NDA.

Here's a warstory of a comeback from Korean2003 against me:
http://aom.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=6201&st=recent&f=1,6201,0,0

Quoted from Alexandergreat3:

You said he came back because of “clever tactics”. Could you please explain specifically what you meant by “clever tactics,” because I really don't understand how he has been losing to you both economically and militarily the entire time, and then simply because of his “clever tactics” and will to survive, he made an amazing comeback against you?

Again, here's a good example: http://aom.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=6201&st=recent&f=1,6201,0,0

He used good micro skills, good unit mix, timed his GPs to get the best out of them, and put MUs to good use. He also used surprise tactics by making me think him completely defenseless, and all of a sudden going into his burning forwards with a hidden surprise army he was building up. Since I had the advantage, I had one army in his base raiding while the other was in the middle of our bases, taking out his forward buildings. Since my army was split, he used that to his advantage by overwhelming one of them, making that one wait for the other army to rejoin it, and buying him some time.

Quoted from Shurafa:

you seem to have missed the main point of the post namely that distinct “early” game economic advantages are potentially unbalancing.

Actually, my first post tried to prove that each civ had an early economic bonus, and they seemed to be all well-balanced. "If every civ is a screw, then the game is balanced." In any case, it is far too early to say that which of them, if any, is unbalancing. There were some players I know who said that Ra was the worst Egyptian civ, while others said he was too powerful.

Quoted from Shurafa:

Instead you are arguing over civ balance in general, which have degenerated into a circular pattern that does not seem to be progressing adequately.

It's kind of hard not to discuss civ balance in AoM when you compare Ra to the Mongols or Chinese at such an early stage. Your clanmate may just have been the better player. We'll really be able to tell when the game is finished, and when people of the same skill level can play against each other and discuss things.

Quoted from Shurafa:

Essentially Alex is making the argument that there is a civ that will be the most efficient economically and will dominate. (historically this has been the case in previous “Age of” games and will more then likely also occur at least to some extent in AOM)

ok, but also, historically age games have been _mostly_ about economy. In AoM, economy is still important, but much less so.


Quoted from Shurafa:

One last thing keep in mind that “early” economic bonuses here are the culprit (that often decide games preemptively). Things that happened after the first few minutes of the game are outside the scope of the argument as there are way too many things that can skew the results.

I wouldn't be so fast to jump to this conclusion. Starcraft was not decided by an early economic bonus, and Starcraft is perhaps the best balanced RTS ever. In my opinion, AoM is much more fundamentally similar to Starcraft than it is to any other age games.

Quoted from Shurafa:

You both make good valid points. However this is not an argument that can be solved hypothetically as there is no way to decisively prove an outcome one way or another (even if you could for one map chances are it would not hold true on another). Therefore at this point it is too close too call.

This is your best point by far. We should drop this for now and wait to see how things play out, I agree.



Bouncer Says:

"Have A Nice Day!"

[This message has been edited by TheSmurfster (edited 10-17-2002 @ 01:47 PM).]

Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 01:46 PM EDT (US)     36 / 63       
We got a little carried away at the end ;-).

Quote:

One last thing keep in mind that “early” economic bonuses here are the culprit (that often decide games preemptively). Things that happened after the first few minutes of the game are outside the scope of the argument as there are way too many things that can skew the results.

Smurfster made a good point about the randomized map will play a role in skewing the early econ bonuses. So my questions are how much will each map be randomized? Will it be enough to offset the early econ bonus, or will it be so small that it won't matter (and we would go back to square one, which is build-orders)?

We don't know whether the map will be randomized by a lot or just a little, as of the final version. But ultimately, it will be either a "yes" or a "no". That was the reason that I used the hypothetical situation between ODIN vs. RA in an early game.

If "yes", the map will be very randomized, then...

it would ended up being a luck-oriented game, for the resource generated would greatly favor one civ over another, and it would even further inflates the early econ bonuses.

If "no", the map will be pretty much the same, then...

we are essentially going back to where we started, which is maximizing build-orders as in previous Age games.

What do you guys think? I hope I made more sense this time around

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 01:54 PM EDT (US)     37 / 63       
Smurf do you even read my posts? Is this a personal thing with Alex?

Good tactics will always win!!! That is the nature of RTS games. However you want to make sure that you are playing on a level playing field.

For example would you want to play a chess match in which you were not allowed to play with your queen? Is it possible to win without your queen yes but there was a clear advantage. Tactics are an accepted part of the game yet in chess, as an example, players alternate colors each match (why because white moves first which is an advantege). Do black players win, yes all the time because they have better "tactics" and/or openings (openings are like build orders they are very similiar each game and are crucial part of any competative game).

This is an important dynamic to understand smurf. Tactics are important but you want the game to be "fair" (or as fair as possible) as well.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 01:58 PM EDT (US)     38 / 63       
By the way, Smurfster, I hope what I said won't seem as something personal against you, as I felt what you said was just part of the discussion, also .
Shurafa
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:03 PM EDT (US)     39 / 63       
Man I go to reply to smurfs post and alex chimes in lol

In the beta things are not so randomized which is a good thing I would say (random=luck imho), and I have one or two build orders with each race (you will always have build orders unless you are playing nomad).

Also alex I do not think the 10% hunting bonus will be enough to skew the game in odins favor completely when you take all other bonuses into acount. It is a strong bonus but balanced imho, even on maps with lots of hunting. However if it were 20-30%+ then it would be an issue.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
TheSmurfster
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:04 PM EDT (US)     40 / 63       
Ok, I just have to say some things about the random resource thing, then I'll be quiet for awhile.

Quote:

If "yes", the map will be very randomized, then...

it would ended up being a luck-oriented game, for the resource generated would greatly favor one civ over another, and it would even further inflates the early econ bonuses.

I hear that argument, but there are some things to keep in mind:

1) This is not true for all civs: Take Zeus and Isis, in a 1v1, for example. They both have strong economic bonuses early on (Zeus-favor, Isis-cheap techs), but neither of them would benefit over the other in a case of what resources are available in abundance and what are in scarcity. They are both versatile enough not to depend on an abundance of either huntables, herdables, wood, gold, or whatever, and can deal with any situation quite well.

2) You don't have to sit back and watch your opponent take advantage of the map. If there is lots of gold and your opponent does early farming with Ra, do a very-fast-classic and raid the farms. They are weaker and even if he gets a speed boost in archaic age, destroying some before he has an adequate military would really hurt him. If your opponent is Odin, well, let's just say I've been in several crazy villie wars over a huge deer patch in 1v1s, some of which decided the game within the first 5 mins.

So, this proves even further how random maps can complicate strategies. Not only will they help determine what build you do, but, if they seem to benefit an opponent, they also help determine how you are going to try to offset their advantage.

Also...

3) GPs. They can really mess you up badly. Got a killer Norse rush ready to go? One bolt for your ulfsark, coming up. Trying something sneaky and innovative? Loki's spy will handle that.

Just from playing AoM, I got the idea that the game would not be as hard for you to continue playing if you lost a villager early on. If this were so, ES would make bolt unable to target villagers. This proves that the game is not all about economy. AoM's games are more likely decided by military. So, maybe Shurafa _should_ be watching out for Ra, but maybe for different reasons. (TheMoonGoat, for example, thought Ra-Sekhmet's Chariot Archers to be too powerful).

Quote:

If "yes", the map will be very randomized, then...

it would ended up being a luck-oriented game, for the resource generated would greatly favor one civ over another, and it would even further inflates the early econ bonuses.

Agreed, I hope this is not so.


Bouncer Says:

"Have A Nice Day!"

[This message has been edited by TheSmurfster (edited 10-17-2002 @ 02:05 PM).]

TheSmurfster
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:12 PM EDT (US)     41 / 63       

Quoted from Shurafa:

Smurf do you even read my posts? Is this a personal thing with Alex?

Of course, I do. It's nothing personal at all, sorry if it came across that way.

Quoted from Shurafa:

Good tactics will always win!!! That is the nature of RTS games. However you want to make sure that you are playing on a level playing field.

1) True. However, the point I was making, which ES actually said quite some time ago and which many good players agree upon, is that tactics mean much, much more im AoM than they did in previous age games compared to economy.

2) He asked for specifics. I merely gave him a warstory that would demonstrate what I would consider "clever" or "efficient" use of GPs, MUs, and military tactics. That's all. I was not trying to circumvent the main argument of early economic bonuses. Again, the main point was that early economic bonuses would be less likely to be a screw than they were in previous age games. That's not to say that they aren't an important part of the game - far from it.

Quote:

By the way, Smurfster, I hope what I said won't seem as something personal against you, as I felt what you said was just part of the discussion, also .

No, nothing personal at all, and I hope it didn't seem that way on my part either. (In one post I think I did come across as unnecessarily personal, sorry.) I get a little carried away.


Bouncer Says:

"Have A Nice Day!"

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:15 PM EDT (US)     42 / 63       
As far as raiding farms goes:

1: They have more then paid for themselves so regardless of the outcome it is a win win for the Ra player.
2: How much raiding can you do before the 4 minute mark. A 4:30 classic (with no practice) is pretty good imho (and the eco was pumping). As a result the Ra player can potentially control the tempo of the game (which will help protect those fragile farms)
3: This build works on any map that has food and gold (randomness is not a factor)

Once again I ask have either of you tried the build? Or is this completely on theory. If you have tried it please post your result/thoughts. If not go try it!!!!! sheesh


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:20 PM EDT (US)     43 / 63       
Nothing personal. Cheers :-)
Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:24 PM EDT (US)     44 / 63       
Just when I had the Alpha, not the Beta.
TheSmurfster
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:24 PM EDT (US)     45 / 63       
I've decided to wait till the full version, and see how things play out. It's been an interesting conversation, but I'll just prefer to wait to see what happens.

Bouncer Says:

"Have A Nice Day!"

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 17 October 2002 02:24 PM EDT (US)     46 / 63       
nt

NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
Dynamios
Mortal
posted 18 October 2002 01:31 PM EDT (US)     47 / 63       
I`m new to this forum but I have played AoE I and II for several years, since I`m a big fan of Ensemble Studios.

I can`t see how Rain makes the game unbalanced due to its 300 % farm boost for one minute of gameplay.
First of all, farms cost a lot of gold and take time to construct, meaning the player will first have to task a fair amount of workers to mine and then pay for expensive farming, which right after that precious minute will be useless again, considering the efficiency of hunting, which in the first age - if you research Hunting Dogs – is at least 50 % faster food income.

Even during Rain, thanks to the slowness initially, food income in total (note: still thinking Archaic) will be less than 100 %, but probably not more than 50 %. Why? Well, in order to keep up production of villagers from TC the majority of work force will have to hunt – thus limiting the amount of gold gathered and the amount of farms that can be afforded (decreasing the effect and suggesting use in later ages when farms can be made cheaper, faster to build and Locust can be aquired).

During gold mining and farm construction is food income less than any other civilisation in the game, meaning Rain will be absolutely needed in the last part of the first age (when food incomes are relatively large) in case fast Classic is the objective.

First Age:
! farming 100 %
! upgraded hunting 150 % - 200 % (depending upon which civ you choose and, of course, how effective initial hunting really is compared to farming – my guess is 125 %)
! Rain-farming 300 %

If one third of the work force farm and the rest hunt will the food income during Rain be something like 225 % approximately, i.e. less than 50 % as good as only hunting. The question is if it`s wise to task your villager to mine gold so early? It slows down the income of the most vital resource in the first age, namely food, and might hurt training of villagers. Also, is it worth to use Rain so early in the game? Maybe it`s not an early eco bonus at all, considering the great deal of gold that is wasted for one minute of gathering, and players will find themselves usint that GP in later ages. However, interesting post.

Looking forward to the release here in Europe with excitement. Would like to find out which civ is best early on; I think either Odin (great hunting, Ox Cart) or Ra empowering, Rain). See you on the net!

InsertNameHere
Mortal
posted 18 October 2002 10:55 PM EDT (US)     48 / 63       
I found that Rain alone not to be very powerful simply because early on it isnt very easy to build enough farms to merit casting a gp, and later, everyone else has farms, so your helping them out too. Maybe calling it mid classical (when your econ can handle the farm amount and before your enemy has many if any farms) would be a smarter use. That's what makes god powers so strategic, because if you decide to use them early, you might wish you kept it.

Rain+Locust Swarm is very powerful, especially in a 1v1, where you can destroy any farms your enemy ahd by kamkizing a roc, then happily do rain, unworried about whether your helping your enemy. I did this one game, and it gave me the upper hand militarily. My enemy had to completely switch to wood and gold units only for a quite some time, which meant i knew just how to counter them.

As for early bonuses and efficient econs, i think that there will not be a civ that is most popular over all, but everyone will pick the civ that they run the most efficinet econ on.

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 18 December 2002 09:46 PM EDT (US)     49 / 63       
Well the game has been out for awhile now and it looks like a 300% economic bonus is quite strong after all!!!!

lol

The Ra fast heroic has indeed become a powerful strat as predicted.

We will see if this still holds true a month from now. (hopefully 1.03 will be out by then)


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
proq
Mortal
posted 18 December 2002 09:58 PM EDT (US)     50 / 63       
OMG... did you really have to bring back this old thread? RAFH is very prone to failure. If you attack it at the right time, you won. I can get to classical at most 30 seconds later, but usually it's 10 seconds later or even closer to the same time. I can get to heroic about the same time and kill a rook performing the FH but good players can easily kill me if I age so you should never try to go faster than Ra. I stay in classical and mass units right away. By the time they age, you should be on your way for you can be sure the migdol is up when u get there. You destroy the migdol and look for the miners. If you can do that correctly or just take one mine. You are ahead of the game. I am usually able to finish it off when I get that far but I don't know what civ or unit u would use.

Proud member of Tsunami Studios
as a
scripter of some sort
ESO: Zeusthor

[This message has been edited by proq (edited 12-18-2002 @ 09:59 PM).]

VVafflE
Mortal
posted 18 December 2002 10:15 PM EDT (US)     51 / 63       
cough*no life*cough

wth did you find a 2 month old post. could have just made a new one.

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 07:06 AM EDT (US)     52 / 63       
Yes I could have started a new one but this was a HEATED arguement based on pure theory. Also it was alot of fun.

BTW Can you guess who was right? hehe

What I would really like is to get some feedback from Thesmurfster and Alex.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
SaveroK
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 02:08 PM EDT (US)     53 / 63       
Whiners- The Bane of RTS Games.
Dwarven_Smithy
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 02:42 PM EDT (US)     54 / 63       
I don't think you were right. There are plenty of counters for a Ra FH. For example, an Odin player can FH and build Huskies to chop up Camels and Chariot archers. Conversely the Ra player could stay in classical and whip the Odin player whose base lacks a real defense when he is going FH.

Hades-Can use pestilence to stop the production of Migdol units while he tears up the enemy's econ or Migdol.

Poseiden-can do same or use ceasefire to keep his Migdol from getting up.

Zeus-can Ceasefire or use Hoplites with a bonus versus bildings to keep him from getting a Migdol up.

Loki-can use Undermine on a half bilt Migdol

Thor-can FH and use Huskies

Odin-the same

I haven't tested all(or even most of these) but there is potential to really hurt a Ra player.

Elendil_King
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 05:42 PM EDT (US)     55 / 63       

I am not as expirienced as you people so maybe I am not in the right. It seems to me that in AoM, tactics and military strategy have much more importance than in other RTS games. Now that there are settlements envolved and claiming them isan issue of high significance, concentrating on developing extraordinary military tactics, to be able to hold those positions, has a larger priority. I made a post asking the question: who is most likely to win, he who is a good tactician or he who is a good economical strategist? Most people vote the good tactician would come out victorious when facing a good economical strategist. To become a good tactician requires much more time than becoming a good economical strategist for tactics is something that depends much more on the situation in which the game is. Econimcally, there is always a strategy that is employed by the mayority. Since tactics cannot be that general they are more personal and thus harder to perfect. Coming back to the RA economic issue, I would say he fits the economical strategist quite well. But there are other civilizations who fit tacticians better. What I am trying to get to is that, in this game, tactics are have more importance and, thus, in this game, it is very hard to find quickly which is the overall better civilization. Perhaps it will happen in matter of personal opinion where one's style and tactics fit a deity and thus make it the best deity for one. But I would say that it will be very difficult to find out which one is the best and making everybody agree in it. Since tactics, like the "truth", are something personal, filled with relativity, a tactic developed by a small group will never apply to the majority of the players. In other RTS games, where economical strategy was much more involved and much more rutinatary, a strategy developed by a few could apply to the majority. That is why finding the overall dominant civ in a game like this one, where more attention is devoted to tactics, will take much more time if it is ever found.

P.S: this thread is very interesting

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 06:25 PM EDT (US)     56 / 63       
My original arguement was that the 300% bonus of RA is something to watch as it is the best early economic GP in the game.

This he can do something that no other civ can do (a 7 minute heroic consistently on every map in the game). The fact that it is gold based gives it this consistency.

This is why it is the most popular strat on ESO as we speak. Because it is easy to do and super consistent. Add some mercs to the mix and you have a strategy that is quite possibly the best in the game.

Hades pestilence only effects a small area for a short period and is not effective.

Poseidon Ceasfire countered by eclipse. Or wait and build two a minute later as he cannot kill you during ceasfire all he has done is give you more time for your eco to grow.

Zeus see Poseidon + mercs kill hoplites bad!!!

Loki - undermine a half built midol sure then you cancel it and build a new one.

Thor/Odin FH with equal pop the eggy army will win every time even if you have the proper counter (mercs cost no pop and build almost instantly)


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
TheSmurfster
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 06:53 PM EDT (US)     57 / 63       
OK OK, you win (sort of).

Rain, however, is not the *only* reason why Ra Fast Heroic is so popular. The other reasons are:

*Free tower upgrades
*Better Camels
*Better Chariot Archers
*Better Pharoah
*Better Priests

So overall, 3 of those are military, 2 are economic, and 1 is both. I believe it's the combination of all of those that makes him the civ of choice.


While I do concede that the Ra is the civ of choice over the other Eggies because of his rain, I would also say that the difference between Ra and Isis, or between Ra and Odin, is not nearly as large as that between the Chinese (pre-patch, original) and the Byzantines, for example. I would also say that the Fast Heroic could dominate even without rain, as Isis' prosperity could lead to a slightly weaker Fast Heroic, but with much better GPs (Ancestors + Plague). And, I also stand by what I said before: all gods have some aspect that boosts their economy (isis-prosperity, poseidon-lure, odin-hunting, thor-dwarves, etc.). So, while there are some balance issues to address with Ra, I would say that they are not only due to rain.


Finally, take note that the Odin Fast Heroic also looks to give Ra a run for his money in patch 1.02.

Overall, I'm glad that ES is taking an infinitely better patching policy than it did previously. GLHF.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that I played the alpha, where the Fast Heroic was for the most part unheard of, believe it or not. And, I also assumed that ES would balance the econ bonuses a little more evenly. So, for example, if rain is too powerful now, if ES had Odin's hunting bonus and Isis' prosperity to match rain, then there wouldn't be a problem.


Bouncer Says:

"Have A Nice Day!"

[This message has been edited by TheSmurfster (edited 12-21-2002 @ 06:57 PM).]

The_Avenger772
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 09:10 PM EDT (US)     58 / 63       
Pestilence/Ceasefire CAN counter RaFH. Often the Migdol goes up near TC so that the player is protected, as he is at a disadvantage before then. With a forward base, after ceasefire you can gather up an army, camp them near foundation, then destroy the migdol. Without a migdol immeidately RaFH is half-stuffed. Just run over econ and you're done.

Pestilence, just wait till migdol goes up, then cast it. Same effect.

Mokon
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 09:20 PM EDT (US)     59 / 63       
Ok i didn't read all the posts but remember this the oponent of RA gets a 200% farm increase when he uses rain!
When ever i play ra i always get lots of farms.
Drench19
Mortal
posted 21 December 2002 10:39 PM EDT (US)     60 / 63       
Econ is and will always be age of mythology's and every other age games biggest flaw.
It focus to much on econ and not enough on military strategy wich is what people buy it for.

IM not sure what ES was thinking but if i wanted an eco management rts i would of got zoo tycoon or something.

Every civ should have the same damn economy and it should flow modestly to keep pace with the battles, The rate at wich units die. So that that there could be some sort of strategic exchange.

Let games be decided by what i do with my units on the battlefield. Not weather or not i have access to some dumb econ bonus or having the map generator unfairly allocating a ton of food and gold on my side of the map and starving my opponent on the other.

Dealing with the age of games econ is just so unfun for it to be such an important game ending thing.

Shurafa
Mortal
posted 22 December 2002 05:18 PM EDT (US)     61 / 63       
LOL Drench: You may want to check out warcraft 3 it is basically exactly what you described 9 (same eco for all races and game decided on the battlefield)

However I think many of the age fans find maintaining your eco is one of the most fun parts of the game. I think AOM has the perfect balance of eco and military management imho.


NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
Alaric the Goth
Mortal
posted 23 December 2002 01:38 AM EDT (US)     62 / 63       
The only thing I believe that is overpowered in the Eggies is merc cavalry--like 75% armor both pierce and hack and 200+ hp. No pop slots-very gay. In a tight team game which I barely lost, a pockey eggy had created 300 yes thats right 300 merc cavalry froma tc right next to my stronghold. Now I made 15 frost giants and countless taxmen but he ended up winning mainly do to the fact that he could keep sending in mercs while I was at pop cap. Btw if I hadn't made a safeguard-upgraded tower city (about 15 towers, 3 hill forts) I wouldn't have laster nearly as long. Anyway, merc cavalry should possibly be toned down armor wise but mainly count as pop or have a special mercenary pop where you can only have 10 or so at the same time though they don't count as regular pop. And I am a 1700+ player btw, not great, but I'm not a noob here. And if you ask, the reason he had sooo much gold was he was in the pocket and the two ends were stailmated for most of the game allowing him to boom.
Shurafa
Mortal
posted 24 December 2002 04:13 AM EDT (US)     63 / 63       
RA fast heroic is STRONG by itself Merc however put it way over the top imho.

NYC_Shurafa NYC 4 Life!!!
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames