• Breaking News

    Wednesday, July 1, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Age of Empires II New Matchmaking Customization (and more) coming this July!

    Age of Empires II New Matchmaking Customization (and more) coming this July!

    July 01, 2020

    Age of Empires II New Matchmaking Customization (and more) coming this July!

    New Matchmaking Customization (and more) coming this July!

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 01:15 PM PDT

    Found an old picture of my brother and I opening AoE2: Conqueror's Expansion for Christmas, about 20 years ago.

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 10:06 PM PDT

    After 3 months, its finally done, aoe2 de on hard!

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 04:36 AM PDT

    I think the conclusion is clear boys

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 12:33 AM PDT

    My first aoe meme

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 10:26 AM PDT

    Real streaming hours

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 03:42 AM PDT

    Here’s my latest fan art! Monastery built in planet zoo. ��

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 04:13 AM PDT

    The math of a succesful drush

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 06:18 AM PDT

    I was recently wondering whether it was worth drushing in low elo games or not. So I started by wondering what would be considered a successful drush. So far pretty simple, it's a drush that damages your opponent's eco more than it damages yours.

    As the damage to your eco is pretty much the same every time, it should be easy enough to work out just how much damage needs to be done to your opponent.

    To simplify things, all ressources will be treated as one, and 1 minute of villager time as 20 ressources

    So in order to drush, you'll need

    - a barracks : 175 W + 1 min of villager time (50 secs + walking time) = 195 ressources

    - 3 millitia : 3*(60 F + 20 G) = 240 ressources

    Total : 435 ressources, or 21.75 minutes of villager time. You'll need to exceed that

    This seems like a lot to me. Drushing, will only disturb small groups of vills for a little while, could it really amount to this much ? Am I missing something ?

    submitted by /u/Fflow27
    [link] [comments]

    Lithuanians too OP

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 11:50 AM PDT

    Determining unit strength through rates of reinforcement

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 08:44 AM PDT

    This might will be a big post, Tl;Dr will be at bottom.

    For a long time I have noticed a lot of confusion between how to determine the strengths of different units in late game, particularly whether cost or pop efficiency is best. For a long time I wasn't sure what the best method would be for determining units strengths, and it was something I was curious about, so looked into it. In this post I am going to explain the method I found which I think is best for determining actual unit efficiency at population cap – this is looking at the reinforcement rate of units. This mostly applies to TGs, but has some relevance to late game 1v1s also. Likewise this will apply well to melee units, but can be more complex for ranged units as I will show later.

    To start off with the generally best method for determine unit efficiency is cost efficiency; that is by allocating a value to each unit based on its cost, assuming that all resources are equal, and then using that ratio of units to apply to the numbers expected in a game. E.g a knight of 135 cost is 2.25 times more expensive than a 60 cost pikeman, and thus expect players with similar eco strengths to be able to afford numbers equivalent to that ratio – e.g 12 knights to 27 pikes. There are ofc problems with this method: it doesn't account for unit upgrade costs (pike is expensive upgrade), the value of each resource keeps changing, the differences in practical application of units (meaning speed differences, though this is an issue for all such efficiencies), but the main issue it faces is dealing with the population cap at the end of the game. 60 paladin might cost the same as 135 halbs, but with 140 compared to 65 economy the paladin player should be able to afford much more army.

    This leads to an argument of pure population efficiency, meaning that cost of units is mostly (or even entirely) ignored and only the population number counts. This would change the above 60 vs 135 paladin vs halbs into 60 paladin vs 60 halbs because each side would have 140 eco units behind it. Paladin win this fight by a large margin, so by viewing only population efficiency the dominant units are those which are more powerful regardless of cost. Likewise a generic FU cavalier is equal to a berber cavalier, because the cheaper cost is irrelevant to a 60 vs 60 cavalier battle. However, the pure population efficiency argument for has an obvious flaw: that more expensive units are more difficult to replace (or make in the first place) compared to cheaper units. Clearly a berber cavalier player would have an advantage over a normal cavalier civ, because even with a 140 villager economy and 60 army a Berber player would be able to remake their army faster, and thus over time lead to a massive advantage. Therefore the pop efficiency argument is not sufficient for determining unit strength/outcomes as it exaggerates the strength of more expensive powerful units.

    This comes to the best method imo to work out unit strengths, and that is to work out the reinforcement/replace rate of units based on their economy. Reinforcement rate meaning the number of units which would be replaced with an ideal economy in a given time. To work this out just need to work out the ratio of villagers required for army to reinforce in a specific amount of time – for my purposes I am assuming that we want an economy which can remake full army in 4 minutes this is a slightly arbitrary number and it's the ratio of villagers to army which really matters but it fits well with a typical paladin economy so I chose this to make things easier. It is also assumed that all the economy is working towards unit production (ofc this is impossible, but doesn't really matter in determining the ratio of units). (There is perhaps some mathematical formula to work out the ratio of villagers to army, but I am no mathematician, so I just guess and checked to get the numbers) For example a typical late game set up for many civs is an economy of 120 villagers and an army of 80 paladin. Assuming a gather rate of 22 resources per minute, 120 vils make 2640 resources per minute which = 2640/135 = 19.5 paladins a minute. With such a set up it would take (roughly) 4 minutes to completely replace the army of paladin. Compare this to a halberdier player, they would need enough economy to be able to keep up unit production so that they can completely reinforce their army in 4 minutes in order to have a sustainable army against a paladin player. With 80 economy and 120 halbs they could afford 80 x 22 = 1760/60 = 29.3 halbs a minute, thus keeping up reinforcements to replace their army in 4 minutes. A likely battle between a halb and paladin player in a game would be at a ratio of 1.5 halbs to every 1 paladin, so 20 paladin against 30 halbs, or 40 paladin against 60 halbs. As would be little surprise to more experienced players (see this old post for instance: https://www.aoezone.net/threads/imperial-age-tips-secrets.115725/), paladin (just) win this match up. This means that in a population capped teamgame with full trade/gold pure paladins will (just) win against halbiders assuming both sides have full economy. The reinforcement rate therefore explains mathematically how population efficient armies are more powerful than cost efficiency would assume without unrealistically exaggerating their strength as population efficiency does.

    Another example applying this method is war elephants against halberdier, I use this example because a common comment by (with no disrespect intended) newer players is that halbs are too strong a counter to war elephants - citing the large attack bonus that halbs get vs elephant units, while most higher rated players see the opposite as being true in post-imp teamgame. If we look at cost efficencey it is 4.5 halbs for each elephants and even in larger numbers where the elephants trample damage comes into effect the halbs will win. However, applying reinforcement rate - If we look at war elephants, 150 vils x 22 = 3300 resources/275 (war elephant cost) = 12, 50/12 = 4.1 (closest we can get to 4), halbs we saw above have 120 army (for purpose of testing I halved numbers - its easier to test because 60 is max number allowed in a control group). So 25 elephants go against 60 halbs – and the result is heavily in favour of the elephants – about 18 elephants survived in my tests.

    I mentioned halbs a lot in this post as losing to armies they are (in theory) meant to beat. This is not to dismiss halbs as a unit – they are a non-gold costing unit which is cheap and quick to replace so before pop cap they are good unit, and if you aren't a civ with a good melee power unit then they can be decent even in late game. The reason I use in the examples is because they are a cheap melee unit which makes a great comparison to more pop efficient units. Also it shows clearly part of the reason why trash (non-gold costing units) generally aren't as good in full trade Teamgames.

    While I think the reinforcement rate method is the best for determining unit outcomes it does have its flaws. First ofc – it requires players to be pop capped, so does not apply so well if players are around 170 pop rather than 200 – in which case cost efficiency will have a greater impact. On the other hand it also does not account for what I will call the snowball effect. If there is a bit of time between fighting then a more population efficient army could either bank up more resources with its larger economy, or delete villagers for a larger army to give it an advantage. E.g a paladin player could delete 20 vils for 100 eco + 100 paladin army and a halb player could not realistically do they same, 100 paladins would win a battle vs halbs more decisively than 80, and then would snowball the reinforcements given that so many paladins remained after the first fight. - I think this snowball effect is the reason why its not common for halb players to run around with 120 army - because they need to have a decent number of villagers in order to maintain closer to equal footing when fights are not taking place - and thus a halb player might be further behind the paladin player than the reinforcement rate test indicates. Furthermore ranged units are a bit of an issue because they tend to not be killed as much in a typical TG composition so the correct measure is probably a bit closer to pure pop efficiency rather than reinforcement rate. Nevertheless in general I think reinforcement rates is the best method for determining the strength of units, particularly in relation to melee units in late game teamgames. It also has application in 1v1 games, but gold efficiency is more of a factor here (will save that for a future post).

    I will post some videos in the near future which looks at the strength of units in a team game based on their reinforcement rates in more detail. They will also use melee + ranged combos in addition to reinforcement based numbers since they are more applicable to realistic team game battles.

    Tl:DR: Neither cost or pop efficiency correctly account for the realistic amount of army which can be made by units with different cost. The best method for looking at how good ( in particular melee) units are in population capped late game team games is by looking at the ratio of villagers to military which can sustain an army – for my purposes assuming that the player wants an army fully replaced in 4 minutes. This is then compared to another unit, and together the numbers indicate the ratio of numbers that each army should have. E.g Assuming a gather rate of 22 resources per minute, 120 vils make 2640 resources per minute which = 2640/135 = 19.5 paladins a minute. With such a set up it would take 4 minutes to completely replace the army of paladin. The same method applied to halbs shows 80 eco with 120 army. This gives ratio of 1.5 halbs to every paladin – meaning 80 paladin vs 120 halbs. This same method can be applied to any/every melee unit to give a realistic indication of unit strengths.

    submitted by /u/flightlessbirdi
    [link] [comments]

    Can you beat the Joan of Arc campaign without killing a single enemy unit ?

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 11:25 AM PDT

    I found a blueprint for a new specialized unit I made all the way back in 1999, what you guys think?

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 10:36 PM PDT

    New July Patch Preview Including MM Changes

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 01:18 PM PDT

    Fast imperial

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 01:45 AM PDT

    Hi everyone, I am a new player. Just learnt the fast imperial with Turks and it really works. I was wondering if there is any other civ suited for fast imperial age strategy other then the Turks ?

    submitted by /u/boldfacebutton7
    [link] [comments]

    Team game - Strategy & Meta Discussion

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 07:26 AM PDT

    Are there any resources on strategy and meta for Team Games? It's seems TG are a really small part of the discussion on aoe2 community.. People always talk about 1v1 map pool, 1v1 civ tier list, 1v1 builds and etc

    For example, people discussing a drush don't mention the possibility of Flank scouts in your base. Or that Spanish is a great civ when the game is going late game and trade is important. Or when it's viable for the pocket to carry, etc

    I'm play about two or three 3v3s TG with friends almost every day and only play 1v1 sometimes when no one is around. So I'm just wondering, where can I read/research about TG strategy /meta?

    submitted by /u/eklam
    [link] [comments]

    ORIGINAL BOAR MEME

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 09:38 AM PDT

    Civilization Match-up Discussion Round 9 Week 9: Burmese vs Koreans

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 09:14 PM PDT

    Oh boy... two real popular civs here lol

    ​

    Hello and welcome back for another Age of Empires 2 civilization match up discussion! This is a series where we discuss the various advantages, disadvantages, and quirks found within the numerous match ups of the game. The goal is to collectively gain a deeper understanding of how two civilizations interact with each other in a variety of different settings. Feel free to ask questions, pose strategies, or provide insight on how the two civilizations in question interact with each other on any map type and game mode. This is not limited to 1v1 either. Feel free to discuss how the civilizations compare in team games as well! So long as you are talking about how the two civilizations interact, anything is fair game! Last week we discussed the Cumans vs Vikings, and next up is the Burmese vs Koreans!

    ​

    Burmese: Monk and Elephant civilization

    • Lumber Camp upgrades free
    • Infantry +1 attack per Age, starting in Feudal Age
    • Monastery techs cost -50%
    • TEAM BONUS: Relic spawn locations visible on map
    • Unique Unit: Arambai (Dart-throwing cavalry with incredibly powerful, but inaccurate, attack)
    • Castle Age Unique Tech: Howdah (Battle Elephants +1/+1 armor)
    • Imperial Age Unique Tech: Manipur Cavalry (Cavalry and Arambai +6 attack vs buildings)

    ​

    Koreans: Defensive and Naval civilization

    • Villagers +3 LoS
    • Stone Miners work +20% faster
    • Tower upgrades free (BBT requires Chemistry)
    • Arrow-firing towers +1/2 range in Castle/Imperial Age
    • Military units (including warships but not siege) cost -15% wood
    • TEAM BONUS: Mangonels have reducded minimum range
    • Unique Unit: War Wagon (Powerful, expensive, tanky cav archer)
    • Unique Unit: Turtle Ship (Extremely slow, powerful, ironclad cannon ship)
    • Castle Age Unique Tech: Panokseon (Turtle Ships move +15% faster)
    • Imperial Age Unique Tech: Shinkichon (Mangonels +1 range)

    ​

    Below are some match up-specific talking points to get you all started. These are just to give people ideas, you do not need to address them specifically if you do not want to!

    • Now with favorite maps looming, we can more confidently test these match ups! For 1v1 Arabia or Acropolis, neither of these civs are powerhouses. Koreans are a little too slow and clunky, and Burmese have an awful set of archer options. However, that is not to say these civs cannot do powerful things. Koreans themselves have an awesome toolkit of ranged options, while Burmese do pretty much everything other than archers very well. Who do you favor on open maps?
    • On your more closed maps like Arena, Hideout, and BF, both of these civs tend to shine more. Arambai can be a deadly tool here in both 1v1 and team games, whereas Koreans will grind down almost every other civ in the game if they don't have to move much. How does this match up look when players are given a bit of space with which to work?
    • For team games, Koreans strike me as a pretty solid flank civ on most maps - if not quite top tier. Their archers are very good, and they have the siege, halbs, and BBTs to accompany their War Wagons in late game. Burmese are a bit trickier. They aren't really much of a flank civ, but it feels somewhat awkward to play them as pocket... kind of like a worse Khmer... What role do you see these civs playing in tgs?

    Thanks as always for participating! Next week we will continue our discussions with the Ethiopians vs Mayans. Hope to see you there! :)

    ​

    Previous discussions: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

    submitted by /u/OrnLu528
    [link] [comments]

    Can we chat about what it really means to win?

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 07:26 PM PDT

    Tips for 4v4 against AI Please

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 08:32 AM PDT

    About two months ago all my friends and I started to play aoe2 again and since it has been great. Re-learning or actually learning the game has been very fun, we are all really enjoining it and even though we are still all noobs, we don't care because we are having a lot of fun everyday just playing against AI.

    This being said, we enjoy it more when we win but, we cannot defeat a 4v4, or even a 4v3 against AI in hardest but we almost always win against them in hard. What I really want to know is what would be the most effective way to beat them in Hardest (or Extreme).

    We like to play Arabia, Arena and Gold Fever and the game usually goes like this.: I'm flank and I harass one AI with scouts or towers and usually get it to resign while my teammates boom. The problem is this sets me back so hard and by the time I'm getting the first AI to resign, the other AI's are all over the place attacking me and my teammates.

    I know that ideally we shouldn't let them boom, but I'm struggling to know what is the best way to do this and what to do with the other AI's. All the tips are more than welcome!

    submitted by /u/Dekarmaldini
    [link] [comments]

    AI quick to give up these days!

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 06:49 PM PDT

    I miss the old fashioned games where you had the satisfaction of razing ALL THE BUILDINGS!! Is there a setting so the AI doesn't give up?

    submitted by /u/hykkkuppp
    [link] [comments]

    Why dont voobly add DE in thier hosting service?

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 06:45 AM PDT

    anyone know the reason?

    is it that microsoft does not allow it?

    submitted by /u/yollydick2
    [link] [comments]

    So I got matched with Hoang in the lobby, got hit with the lovely "game would not start" right afterwards. Feelsbadman

    Posted: 30 Jun 2020 08:15 AM PDT

    Does Cross Play work consistently?

    Posted: 01 Jul 2020 04:17 AM PDT

    I've read that AoE2 DE has cross play between windows and steam, however I have also read conflicting things about how well this actually works

    What is your guys experience of cross play? Does it work well and consistently?

    submitted by /u/scottyhg
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment