Steam vs Voobly

A lot of people have been wondering if they should get the new AoE II re-release on Steam, or stick with Voobly or GameRanger. Let me just give my personal opinion on the subject.

The release of the HD Steam version of Age of Conquerors has had a number of issues (mostly to do with networking) that Voobly and GameRanger have had working for a number of years. The re-release was fairly rushed (it was only announced a month or two ago, and when one of the Senior developers on the team did an AMA a few months back there was no mention of it). Obviously the bugs are frustrating to new players trying to get into the game as well as Veterans trying to support the game.

That being said, the re-release is NOT meant to remake the game. The re-release is to give the community a way to revive the strong but small scene. It’s very difficult to sell people on a game made over 10 years ago (no matter how good of a game it is). It’s much easier to sell people on a game that is being “re-released”. Keeping this in mind, it is a work in progress. The team has shown they are willing to listen to the community, and are trying very hard to make the re-release enjoyable for all. Because of this, I would make the following case.

If you are looking to be a part of the community growing, and to meet new people, I would check out the HD re-release. The team is trying very hard to make the game what the community expects, and all it will take is a little bit of patience. The team is very dedicated thus far and communicates well with everyone (on reddit and the forums). In the future modding will be a lot easier via Steam as well, with all the mods being centralized on Steam Workshop. The HD re-release has a ton of promise, and if you can afford it, you out to give it a chance.

If you are looking for a gaming experience that will be relatively bug free, and are really just looking to network with your friends (and have a way to play with them even if you aren’t having a LAN party) then stick with Voobly (or GameRanger). Voobly is MORE than sufficient for your needs if you just want to play with your friends. Additionally, the Forgotten Empires mod/expansion is already available there (a fantastic mod that I will do a piece on some time)

To conclude, both versions have their bonuses. I personally  own both and use both as much as possible. Generally I play using the old fashioned LAN system if my friends are at my place. If I want to 1v1 against my brother, or a friend who is not in the same location, I use Voobly. And if I want to play a 1v1 or 4v4 with people I don’t know, I hop onto steam and go for a quickmatch. Try to decide what YOU want from the game, and you’ll be able to find the correct platform to play on.

If you want to check out the HD re-release, see: http://store.steampowered.com/app/221380/

If you want to check out Voobly, go to a local Walmart (or on Amazon) and pick up the game for about $10. Then go to: http://www.voobly.com/ and download the Voobly Client.

Most importantly, whichever you choose, Start the game Already!

Head2Head Mongols vs Mayans

This is the second edition of “Head2Head”. I will be pitting 2 civs from Age of Conquerors against each other to decide who I think has an advantage in a 1v1 fight. As I did with Huns vs Aztecs I will start in dark age and work my way up to imperial age before giving my final decision.

Mayan Pros:
Resources last longer. Many people underestimate how truly powerful this ability can be.
Cheaper archers. Anyone know what beats 20 Crossbowmen? 25 Crossbowmen.
EW harrass. Eagle Warrirs are one of my personal favorite castle/imp units. Cheaper than Kts and better than Light Cav.

Mongol Pros:
Faster working hunters. Many players consider the Mongols to be the FASTEST civ in the game.
Hussars are stronger
Mangudai = OP Cav Archer =D
Better siege units

Dark Age:
In the Dark Age we have an interesting face-off. Mongols have the bonus of EXTREMELY fast hunters, and Mayans have the bonus of resources lasting longer. The Mongol bonus allows them to absolutely FLY through late Dark Age. They will often be 45 seconds to a minute and a half ahead of other players, which doesn’t sound like a lot, but if you think about it in terms of rushing, a mongol player can get a tower up next to your wood supply before you even hit Feudal. Or they can have scouts on their way to your base as you’re arriving to Feudal Age. The Mayan bonus will cause the boar to last LONGER which saves you on wood (because you can get farms later) and is a very very solid long term bonus. However, for a Dark Age game, the Mongols have the clear advantage. In a game where rushes often decide the victor being 1 minute ahead can make or break you as a player.

Feudal Age:
Now, assuming that somehow the two players arrive at Feudal Age at the same time (so that we can isolate each variable) who has the advantage now? The major factors for Feudal Age are: Mongols get access to every type of Feudal Rush. The main thing here is that they can scrush their opponent without fear of being scrushed back. Now, obviously if you’re not a scout rusher this means very little to you. The Mayans on the other hand cannot scrush, but by now their economic bonus is starting to take effect. They’ve gathered around 400 extra food from the boars, berries, sheep and deer that they killed and have saved around 180 wood. This isn’t THAT huge a number, but if you think about it in terms of troops, that could be converted into a bunch of extra archers when Feudal Age is reached. And, as I said before, a great way to beat 20 X-Bows is by having 25 X-Bows. Additionally, Mayan archers cost less. This means that between their economic bonus and their military bonus they can absolutely FLOOD you with archers starting in Feudal Age (and accelerating throughout the rest of the game). So who has the advantage? In my opinion, the Mayan player wins out in a straight Feudal Age comparison, but just BARELY. The reasoning behind this is that archers are such a mandatory Feudal Age unit that the ability to produce so many is huge. HOWEVER, as I said, it was a close one for me. Mayans really are a 1 trick pony in Feudal Age (this coming from a hardcore Mayan player). They can pretty much do one of two things in Feudal Age: Build archers, or build skirmishers. Anytime you are limited to doing 1 thing you become predictable, and therefore preventable. How do you stop mass archers? Skirmishers and scouts. The Mongol player can mass Skirmishers and Scouts before he sees his enemy’s force because he knows the Mayan player is limited in troop choice. Despite this, I still stand by the Mayans having a slight SLIGHT slight edge in Feudal Age (more troops > less troops)

Castle Age:
Castle Age is where things get interesting. By this time the Mayan player has had his economic advantage in full force for quite a while now. Farms are lasting longer before they have to be replanted, wood is lasting longer before you the lumber camp has to be moved, etc. The mongol player on the other hand is now able to build arguably one of the best Castle Age units in the game. The Mangudai. Mangudai are honestly one of the most OP (overpowered) units in the game. You know what I’m talking about if you’ve ever seen an E-Mangudai hit and run again against a Paladin. Absolute insanity. If you haven’t had a stint of playing Mongols exclusively you really should have one. If nothing else it will make you an absolute micro-master. The question is, who has the advantage? Well, at this point the Mayan player has 2 soldier choices. EW and Archers. The Mongol player has 4 choices. Mangudai, Light Cavs, Kts, Cav Archers. The Mongol player has such a wide array of troops to choose from that the real question is what counters a Mayan player best? The answer: kts. Now, you just got through reading about how good the Mangudai and may be wondering why I don’t recommend them as the “staple” in this match up, and the reason is pierce armor. both Plumed Archers and Eagle Warriors have really really good pierce armor. The Mangudai can hit and run all day but it really is fruitless if the other player can absorb the blow as easily as the Mayan player’s units can. That’s why I suggest doing a Knight rush. If the Mongol player Knight rushes in early castle he can disrupt the numbers of archers the Mayan player has, as well as plow through any EW the Mayan has. The Mayan player then makes a choice: Build pikemen, or keep building archers/EW? If he’s smart, he’ll transition into pikemen and archers (knowing that EW are effectively useless) That’s when a Mongol player can make the transition into Mangudai. Mangudai slaughter infantry. Mangudai paired with Kts is a very hard combo to stop. Now, you’ve heard me talk a lot about the Mongol strategy, but what about Mayans? The Mayan player sticks to his guns. What does that mean? A million archers and constant pressure. The Mongol player needs to get a few minutes into Castle Age to get out a critical mass of Kts. The Mayan player has had critical mass of archers since halfway through Feudal Age. He just keeps pumping archers and getting the necassary upgrades to make them powerful. Generally I would also suggest getting EW for harrassment. If you CAN’T harrass, then just get pikemen to guard the archers. But really, the important thing is that you’re just making lots of archers. Try to throw down 5-6 archeries and have them constantly producing. In early Castle you can put on serious pressure. This is really where the Mayan bonus is at it’s peak. In early Castle Age he has more resources and cheaper archers that are about to be upgraded. The Mongol player is really forced in going for Castle Age units (IE Kts and Cav Archers) that you can’t start building until Castle Age. What this means is that the Mongol player is playing catch-up trying to build his Castle-Age army to keep up with the Mayan player who’s been building his Castle Age army since Feudal Age. Who has the edge? Mayans. The Mongol player DOES have access to more strategies, but besides some lucky Mangonel shots there’s not much that can cost efficiently deal with 40 Crossbowmen.

And finally, Imperial Age:
Imperial Age is where the Mongols take back their advantage. They get access to slightly more powerful Hussars which means late-game harrassment they can run by with Hussars and survive more hits than normal while slaughtering farmers and wood-cutters. In really late game there’s very little any player can do to prevent run-bys. What you have to do instead is mitigate the effects as efficiently as possible. These run-bys will get even more deadly as the game progresses and gold runs out on the map. The Mayan player will eventually be bled dry (granted, it willl take much longer than it would take to bleed other civs dry) but no matter how good their economic bonus is, gold doesn’t last forever. Hussars by this point are one of the best units you can get. Cost no gold and are fast. Mayans have to keep plugging away with their eco bonus and hope their enemy runs out of food before the Mayan player runs out of gold (not likely, but possible). In terms of Imperial Age, Mongols having above average Hussars gives them the advantage.

And now the moment of truth. Who is the winner and why? It’s time for Final Comparison:
Mongol player: Fast hunters means fast Feudal. If they can capitalize on that they may be able to off-set the Mayan cheaper archers during Feudal Age.
If the game lasts long, Hussars become an unstoppable force.
Mayan player: resources last longer and cheap archers.

Who is the winner? For this Head2Head I have got to go with the Mayans. Feudal and Castle age armies are just SO much bigger when you’re a Mayan player. Sure the Mongol player has access to units that are good 1v1 or 1v2 vs your units, but as a Mayan player you simply don’t play those odds. Your goal is always to have 3 to 1 archers to enemies. If you manage to hold off the initial Feudal Age aggression for long enough to compensate, you should be able to keep the momentum and hold it throughout the whole game.

Thanks as always for reading, let me know if you have any tips, suggestions, ideas, or complaints. As I always say, I love hearing from my readers.

New schedule (again) what to expect

Most people have probably stopped paying attention by now since I haven’t posted anything in almost a month, but for those of you who are still reading (and for any new viewers) allow me to explain the lack of posts and what I plan on doing in the future.

I recently got a job that sucks up almost ALL my time in the day, and what free time I DO have I tend to prefer to actually play Age rather than just discuss it =D Be that as it may, I really enjoy doing this blog and I’ve sort of been craving it even though I haven’t been posting. So I’m going to come back to it, but instead of trying to go back to my old schedule immediately I’m going to ease back into it. I’ll start by doing 2 posts a week (probably friday and saturday) and then try to move it to 3 posts a week (adding in tuesday). From there hopefully I can work my way down to 7 days a week, but it also depends on my ability to keep coming up with new topics. (NOTE: I would LOVE suggestions. I have a finite number of ideas off the top of my head, so any help is GREAT) I’m also planning on doing videos again but only on saturdays. I have a new microphone and actually have several videos recorded, but youtube has a 15 minute limit and sometimes I get carried away talking about Age (and forget to keep it under 15 minutes)

As for what to expect, I’m going to be doing another Head2Head this weekend (Either Mayans/Mongols or Japanese/Goths… OR if someone has a suggestion, leave a comment. I will do whatever people want to read about… Even if only one person responds =D)

With videos expect to see a Huns highlight, Goths highlight, and Mongols highlight (in that order). After that I’m taking requests again =)

As always feel free to leave a comment. The feedback thus far has been great. It’s honestly one of the reasons I enjoy doing this. It makes the work worth it to hear back from other members of the community =) (And of course, I love a good strategy discussion so don’t hesitate to point out where you disagree in any of my posts!)

Head2Head: Aztecs vs Huns

From now on I will occasionally do a new type of post called a “Head2Head” where I pit 2 civs against each other in a 1v1 game to determine who would have the edge over the other. The very first one will be the 2 most commonly considered “top 1v1 civs.”

Aztecs Pros:

• Strong Drush (Dark age Rush) because they can get out 5 militia instead of 3. This gives them quite a punch for dark age.
• EW (Eagle Warriors) are a good harrass unit because they’re cheaper than Kts (Knights) but better than scouts.
• Carry capacity can be a decent economic bonus for longer games

Aztecs Cons:

• no cavalry makes for a slightly weaker feudal (no scrushing) and more predictable castle (have to go infantry/archer)

Huns Pros:

• No houses saves on wood and time
• Cav Archers are cheap and powerful
• Stables work faster (makes for better scrushing and imperial Hussars)

Huns Cons:

• No houses means hard to wall against a drush/flush
• Less walled means run bys in mid-late game are easier

 

Dark Age:

Huns are slightly ahead because of the wood and time they save without having to build houses, so they’ll be ahead by 20-30 seconds (assuming they both have the same build order) towards the middle of dark age. HOWEVER, at the end of Dark Age Aztecs can run a drush, and because the Huns have a tougher time walling off (because they don’t have houses) I would give the Aztecs the edge if they drush.

Feudal Age:

In order to properly determine who has the edge in Feudal Warfare, I’m going to assume there was NOT a drush from either player (and I’ll factor that back in later). In Feudal Age the Hun player is slightly ahead in time (because of no houses) AND can run a scrush (a scrush that’s even faster than other civ’s flushes). This gives them access to most feudal age strategies. The Aztecs are far more limited. They can’t scrush which leaves them with archers/skirms/ManAtArms. If the Aztec player cannot pull off a good drush, then the Huns take back the advantage in the feudal age.

Castle Age:

If the game lasts to Castle Age with relatively little damage caused by either player, then by this point the Aztec economic bonus will have kicked in (villagers carry extra resources). This will mean that economically they are relatively equal. The difference is in the strategies available. Both players can go X-Bow/E-Skirm, so that’s a wash. Both players can go Long-Sword Men, so that’s a wash. The real difference comes in kts/Cav Archers/EW. Kts are the most powerful unit in Castle Age assuming the battle is not being micro-managed. Cav Archers are deadly because Hun Cav Archers are cheaper than other civs, and if you read my post on this, cost effective. EW are fast, stronger than scouts, and cheap. So who gets the advantage here? There are a lot more factors to look at in this scenario than the other scenarios, so I will list them.

1. Huns can’t efficiently wall, which means EW can run by and harrass villagers and it’s hard to stop.
2. EW have high pierce armor, so against Town Centers, X-Bows, and Cav Archers they have a huge advantage.
3. Kts can beat 2-3 EWs by themselves.

It basically boils down to this.

Aztecs go EW and get a good harrass unit that neutralizes the Hun’s best unit (Cav Archers). Huns go Kts which makes EW useless in a head on fight. Aztecs attempt to harrass heavily to make the huns hurt economically. Kts are a very gold/food expensive unit. Every time the Aztecs harrass a bit, that’s that many less Kts his enemy can get. The Aztecs can then efficiently defend their base with pikemen (to protect against enemy Knight raids). The Huns have to ALSO harrass, but will have a harder time since Aztecs can house-wall. They will also be faced with pikemen, a cost-efficient counter to Kts. They also can’t defend with pikemen because EW are not cavalry. Archers of any kind are also terrible against EW. This leaves them with a defensive option of MORE Kts.

In a Castle Age battle I believe that the winner is the Aztecs. But there is still one final age to examine.

Imperial Age:

Imperial Age is very unlikely to be reached because in this matchup, one civ is strong in Dark Age, one is strong in Feudal, and BOTH are strong in Castle. This generally means the game will be over by Imperial. HOWEVER, if it DOES last to Imperial, it’s important to know who has the edge.

In early Imperial Age the Aztecs can get out E-EW for fairly cheap. E-EW are ALMOST as good against arrows as Huskarls. They are also faster than Huskarls. This makes them absolutely devastating to a Hun player who has such a hard time walling. E-EW will serve basically the same function as the EW, but will be slightly stronger (so they will do better against Kts). However, the longer the game lasts, the harder it will be for the Aztecs to win. Aztecs can only get Pikes and E-Skirms for no gold. Huns can also get Hussars, which allows them to continue harrassing no matter how long the game lasts (Because Hussars serve the same purpose as the EW but don’t require gold)

If the game lasts into mid-late Imperial, the edge swings back to the Huns.

So the real question is:

In a 1v1 game, who’s got the advantage? And for that, I would have to say Aztecs. In a Dark Age fight, Huns are WEAKER than normal civs because they can’t wall with houses, and Aztecs are STRONGER than normal civs (by about double) so they are able to produce double the militia. This gives the Aztecs the edge RIGHT from the beginning that if they can hold onto long enough to neutralize the Huns superior Feudal Age, they will hit Castle, and then it’s likely going to be all over for the Hun player.

Of course, this is JUST speculation, and should not be taken as absolute fact. It IS something interesting to consider though. Also, remember, even if Aztecs get an edge, you can always win basically any matchup if you get good enough with your civ. Hopefully you found this post interesting, and as always, feel free to leave a comment letting me know what you think!

The Spanish- an important ally

First things first, I appologize for the lack of posts recently. My life suddenly got MUCH more busy and I sort of let my blog slip. I’m going to try and get back to daily posts.

And now: The Spanish and their trade carts.

If you’re playing in any team game of 3v3 or 4v4, the Spanish are a HUGE asset to your team. In fact, I would argue that for most team games, Spanish are the NUMBER ONE civ that you need on your team. Many people have probably noticed the Spanish team bonus, but much less people realize the significance of the bonus. Trade carts generate more gold the longer the distance is. If you have a REALLY solid trade route you could be making up to 100 gold PER TRIP for trade carts. The amazing thing about the Spanish is for their whole team, trade carts generate 33% MORE gold. That means 133 per trip instead of 100. This would be an awesome bonus even if it was only a civ bonus instead of a team bonus. The fact that it’s a team bonus makes it an absolute must have for a team game.

This is why.

In a 3v3 or 4v4 game you have a few options in the later stages of the game. You can try to go gold light units like Hussars E-Skirm, and Halberdiers, OR you could go for gold HEAVY units and get trade carts. There is no other option. By the time late castle and imperial age hit, you will be all out of gold mines. Food and wood are much easier to get (because trees are abundant on most maps and with endless wood you have endless farms). However, once gold mines run out, you either have to build trade carts or stick to cheaper units. Because of this, in a TEAM game, you will almost always see a LOT of trade carts. in 1v1 and 2v2 games this is less true because games will often end in feudal/castle, but in a team game you’re meant to continue the fight all the way into imperial. Since trade carts are such a must have, you may realize why Spanish are so good. Let’s say you have 3 players on the team. If each of you generates 100 gold from each trade cart, then you’d have a total of 300 gold. HOWEVER, if you have the Spanish on your team you’d have 133 gold each, or 400 gold total. If 100 gold each trade cart is enough to support a single player, between the three of you you generate enough gold to support FOUR players worth of units. This gives you a HUGE advantage because it means every player on your team can choose to make less trade carts (to have population room for more wood/food workers) or to have the same number of trade carts and get WAY more expensive units (Paladins, Unique Units, Siege Units, etc). The Spanish are one of the few civs whose team bonus is an economic advantage. Most other civs have team bonuses like faster building buildings (which isn’t very good seeing as you could just build 5 of a building instead of 4 and have the same advantage) or cheaper docks, or things like that. These bonuses can be NICE but they’re in no way game-changing. The Spanish bonus is.

For people who don’t really use trading carts, I strongly advocate using around 40-50 trade carts in big team games (especially on water maps or Black Forest) because in the later stages you want to be able to vastly outproduce your opponents in terms of expensive, hard hitting units that can really plow through an enemy. Let me know if you agree or disagree with anything in this post by leaving a comment!

Age of Conquerors… The most epic game of Rock-Paper-Scissors ever.

As most people are aware, Age of Conquerors is effectively one giant game of Rock Paper Scissors… Skirmisher beats Archer, Archer beats Spearman, Spearman beats Scout, and Scout beats Skirmisher (and of course, so on and so forth with all the other units in the game). Because each unit gets an attack bonus against certain kinds of other units, each unit is uniquely suited for the role it plays in your army. Despite this being (fairly) common knowledge, some people still fail to utilize it to the best of it’s potential. Here are a couple of little things you might consider trying the next time you’re in a game.

• If your standard build is lots and lots of archers and you notice your opponent is also building archers, consider mixing in some skirmishers… This may sound like a “well of course.” statement, but I’m advocating doing something slightly different than simply dropping your build and going with a new one based on what your enemy builds. What I advocate doing is throwing in skirmishers are a 2 archers to 1 skirmisher ratio. What this does is actually give you a nice “anti archer meat shield” in your army. If the enemy simply allows his archers to auto attack, then every attack against the skirmisher is sort of wasteful. Skirmishers are a cheap unit with really high pierce armor, which means if units are attacking the Skirmishers then they’re not attacking your archers (the more expensive unit) and instead effectively “throwing away” their attack on a unit that is much harder (for an archer) to kill. In very small numbers this may not mean much, but when 1/3 of your 40 units are Skirmishers, your army can soak up a lot of damage. This sort of build also allows for flexibility because the Skirms are much cheaper (costing no gold, only food and wood) which allows you to employ your gold elsewhere.
• When someone comes into harrass with Scouts, simply putting up a few spearmen at each of your weak points (gold, wood, stone) will deter almost any number of scouts. Spearmen get a HUGE attack bonus against Scouts (enough to kill them in 3 hits each) which makes it a cost-ineffective fight to allow Scouts to fight Spearmen. While it definitely is common knowledge that spearmen are good against Scouts, most people don’t realize that in terms of cost, it can easily kill an enemy’s Scout rush (scrush). If you have a tough time against scrushes, make sure to have at least 3 spearmen by your wood at all times, and then if/when you see the scouts come in, adjust accordingly (building more to guard gold, or alternatively stop building them if it’s clear that they aren’t doing much harrassing)
• If you attempt to scrush somebody and find they have Spearmen crawling around the place, do NOT try to pick off villagers. It’s not worth losing 80 food per Scout to have a small chance of denying your enemy 50 food. Instead, transition into forward archery ranges. Archers are so very deadly against any feudal units (except skirms and scouts) that transitioning to archers from a scrush can be very hard to deal with. Archers are phenomenal against Spearmen, and because Spearmen cost food/wood, your enemy will have to make a economic allotment choice… Should they build Skirms to counter your Archers? Or Spears to counter your Scouts? Because you (Economically) don’t have to make this choice (since Scouts cost food, and Archers cost wood/gold) you’re able to have a balanced economy as well as a larger army than your opponent.

These three things are just a few things to think about when trying to build a balanced army. Even though these are helpful hints, remember, your opponent may have weaknesses, but so will you. Don’t fall into the trap of choosing a strategy and doing it every single time. Make sure that you are able to adjust your build to deal with your opponent’s build. Remember, if your enemy goes rock, you have to go paper. Just because you’re used to going scissors doesn’t mean that it’ll work every time! =)

This is just a test for my first poll on the website… Basically, I’m curious to see what people say is their favorite team in a 1v1, and more importantly, why. If you don’t mind taking a quick second and choosing your favorite 1v1 civ and then leaving a comment that’d be great! I’d like to see a conversation started about this.

Ones I expect to see:

• Huns (scrush/flush->Cav Archers)
• Aztecs (drush->Eagle Warriors)
• Mongols (hunting bonus->flush)
• Mayans (mass archers)
• Goths (mass feudal infantry->Huskarls)

Now, obviously these are just the ones that come to MY mind as generally classed “high tier” 1v1 civs. What I REALLY want to see is innovative ideas concerning OTHER civs. Huns and Aztecs are nice, but every civ has something unique and fun about them. I would be really impressed to see some ideas that one day reinvent the way 1v1 maps are played. And remember! This is just a test, I’ll go back to standard posts tomorrow. (I just wanted to test out the feature)

Side Note: This is my first attempt at a poll… Let me know if you have any advice, I’m still a little bit new to most features of wordpress.

What a “grush” is used for

In high level water maps, you may have noticed that players play MUCH differently than they do on land maps. You may have noticed that they get a LOT more Lumberjacks in Dark Age. This happens for two reasons.

• The first reason is that they need less food workers is because on water maps they have the ability to build fishing ships. Fishing ships are a HUGE economic advantage because they are effectively slightly more expensive villagers that you can get IN ADDITION to what you can build out of your town center. Because of this, you will ALWAYS see players get fishing ships in high level play.
• The second reason people get a lot of extra guys on wood on water maps… Galley Rushing. You may have noticed you NEVER see drushes, scrushes or flushes on Baltic or Mediterranean and may have wondered why. The reasons for this is that these maps are much easier to wall off on, so the rushes will usually not make it through. Also, in any good rush your goal should be to kill of economy. Because EVERYONE builds fishing ships on water maps, the easiest way to hurt the enemy’s economy is, you guessed it, feudal age navy.

Grushing is where you get to feudal as fast as you can, get up 3-4 docks, and pump galleys until either you control the sea, or your enemy does. While grushing you should try to work with other players to cripple a single player’s fishing economy by killing his navy, catching any stray fishing ships you can, and then start working down his docks. The water maps give good teamwork players an advantage because on a normal map, the distance is just far too great to effectively work together. On water maps however, it’s just wide open water, allowing whatever team controls the center the ability to pick and choose their targets.

As with any good rush, you need to be aware of the next step in the process. When you watch really high level players on water maps you’ll notice that they end up getting War Galleys at around the same time. If you wait too long to get to castle age, you lose out on some critical upgrades. A grush castle transition should be done by feel and personal preference, but if you aren’t totally sure, keep an eye on your navy. If it gets to be around 30 galleys then you should probably start going to castle age.

Grushing can often determine the outcome of the game. If one side can wipe out the other’s navy and water eco, then they could theoretically have DOUBLE the economy as their enemy during feudal age and early castle. This sort of bonus can determine a win or loss in a team game. If you haven’t tried grushing before, I would strongly encourage finding some team tournament replays and watching some of the games. If you have trouble finding any, feel free to post a comment… I’d be happy to hunt some down for you to watch =)

Hun Castle Age Strategy – Cavalry Archers

Because my next video will be focused on the Huns, I thought I’d make a post explaining the most commonly used strategy for high level Hun Players once Castle Age is reached.

Cavalry Archers are better than the standard equivalent Castle Age archers (Crossbowmen and Elite Skirmishers) in a couple of ways.

• The first and most obvious is that Cavalry Archers are MUCH faster than Crossbowmen, meaning that if they encounter a large force of Crossbowmen they can simply fall back and re-enage at a more advantageous position.
• The second is that a Crossbowmen has a mere 35 HP… Such a small amount that in order to last long enough in the battle to deal damage they need something to sit in front of them and take hits, making them reliant on other units to survive. The Cavalry Archer has 60 HP, allowing them to take 2-3 more hits (in early Castle Age) more than a Crossbowman. This is a SIGNIFICANT advantage that lets the Cav Archer become a stand alone unit.

The question then arises, “why wouldn’t you ALWAYS build mass Cav Archers if they’re so good?” The answer: cost. Cav Archers are by no standards cheap. In fact, a Cav Archer costs 40 wood and 70 gold, making them cost slightly less gold than a knight. For a standard civ, building Crossbowmen is a much more economical build. (If you want to know the exact math, for the gold required to build 30 Crossbowmen, you could instead get 19 Cav Archers.) If they were to fight, it would end with around 10 surviving Crossbowmen.

HOWEVER that’s where the Hun’s unique bonus comes in. The Huns get 25% cheaper Cav Archers, meaning that instead of 30 vs 19 it’s 30 vs 25. Suddenly the tides have shifted. If you were to simulate that same battle with 6 more Cav Archers, it would actually end in 10 remaining Cav Archers. This is just in a standing fight! Which means if you pair that with the fact that Cav Archers are FAR faster than Crossbowmen, suddenly Cav Archers are a viable unit to use for a Castle Age army.

For the sake of those I may have accidentally lost by not being careful with my words, here’s the reasons Huns that use Cav Archers are so deadly:

1. They can beat other standard archers in a cost equivalent fight
2. They can escape from Knights, Mangonels, Skirms, and any other weaknesses standard archers would face
3. They can quickly run past enemy lines to harrass villagers that are far from protection (Wood and Gold miners)
4. They have enough health to make them a good unit against most other armies. (and if they find something they can’t beat, there’s still reason #2!)

So next time you download a “Master of Huns” or “Huns War” replay pack, you’ll have a better understanding of why they all end up building mass Cav Archers… And why no one seems to be able to counter it!

*Disclaimer: There are certainly ways to counter it, I simply mean it’s a very difficult thing to counter ;D*

What to expect after the break

A few of you have probably noticed that I haven’t posted anything in the past 2 weeks, and I appologize for not informing you of this little break before it occured. I have been visiting with friends and family and often spent tthe whole day away from internet access. I don’t mean to make excuses, but it is a little time consuming to make each of these posts =D

HOWEVER! I plan on getting right back into doing this starting monday (unless something unforseen prevents me). My current plan is:

• Finishing the rest of the civs. You may have noticed I talked a little about Saracens and Teutons, and I plan to finish off all the civs I have not talked about.
• More Age strategy video commentary. The next one will be Huns. If you follow the videos be sure to let me know what you want to see! I’ll do 1-2 Huns to start (because it was requested) and then I’ll go on to some other topic (unless it seems like people want to see more Huns)
• Map analysis for Black Forest, Baltic, Arabia, Coastal, Islands, and any other maps that get requested. These are the most commonly played maps from what I’ve observed, but I’ll talk about whatever you guys want me to! =D

Lastly, I’d just like to thank the few of you who have watched and commented on these posts. It’s really appreciated. It makes it worth it for me to spend time on this when I see that people enjoy the work I put into it.

Thanks again, and sorry for the lack of posts!