A Most Excellent Team FF

[Aaryn_GenD]

ah yes this was were we both 2v2ed vs vorg and dhd

though i saw no ERKs?? no team coin chests? :-P
it only worked cuz you had the most OP teampartner (ME)

[36drew]

Hmm. Here are my thoughts on the aztec FF/FI and such in general. Grab a coffee because this might be the longest post I will make this month.

The Aztec FF is not a highly competitive strategy in 1v1 or in team games. Most civs can hit age 3 at the same time as aztec but pull off a semi-ff and have some eco to back it up. Not to mention the Aztec eco is mediocre at the best of times. Furthermore, a player can hang out in age ii and get all the market upgrades they need, ship villagers, grab tp's, and so forth. They max out their colonial options: this is a limit and a reality of AOE in it's current state of affairs. Going blindly to age 3 is not viable as Age currently stands.

Aztec really have no sem-ff option. You can't through up a warhut and harass with some Coyotes. You can't ship some and still get to age 3 in a resonible time. Not to mention a naked FF leaves you vulnerable to every sort of rush or semi-ff that exists (and that is what is being proposed here). Also if any sort of scouting happens your in trouble. In team games things get a bit more complicated.

While one can make a case that your teammates can hold out while you get to age 3, with aztec you are getting to age iii for a meager advantage.

I have also played 242 games with Aztec, so I know what i'm doing with them. And never once have I ever been in a situation where the FF made the most sense. If I use it, it's entirely for fun and creativity. AOE punishes you for trying to play unique. Going for the best builds and best strategies will always win you more games than going for gutsy strategies like gren rushes or aztec FF/FI's. _H2O talks all the time about going for the 'forced win.' So many people go wrong in their thinking here. If you want to get better, try to force a win by playing a legitimate competitive strategy. A person who does this improves immensley and learns greatly from his or her gameplay. A player who goes for gutsy moves like an aztec FF or FI does not learn much from game to game. Also the adaptation from patch to patch becomes limited. This is where we often have complaining about balance and such. And while complaining about balance may be fine, you have to complain for the right reasons.

Back to the forced win. I recently beat samwise12 with a spain revolution. What did I learn from the game? Absolutely nothing: it was a gutsy strategy and not a forced win in the slightest. Of course having fun and enjoying all aspects of the game matters too; there is something to be said for that.

Also, playing a 3v3 with the handicap button on is quite a bit different than playing a 3v3 rated (or any other rated game for that matter). Macabee, I just checked and you have a total of 3 rated games. Naturally your account had been reset after playing 6 months with playing a single rated game. This is merely an observation.

Bottom line is that while it is a fun strat, it is not competitive. Feel free to disagree if you like, but it's the reality of the matter.

[Macabee]

[quote=""Aaryn_GenD""]ah yes this was were we both 2v2ed vs vorg and dhd

though i saw no ERKs?? no team coin chests? :-P
it only worked cuz you had the most OP teampartner (ME) [/quote]

Well, looking at the screenshot, ERK's are actually mixed in with the coyotes. There were skulls, mace and Jaguars too. It didn't make a lot of sense to send the team cards in a 2v2 though - the other shipments were better.

It was a fun game...

Mac

[Aaryn_GenD]

wow i seriously did NOT notice them. i'll keep an eye next time.
yes team cards obviously gain more value the more players there are.

drew that post is amazing :-P
sums up everything

[Macabee]

[quote=""36drew""]Also, playing a 3v3 with the handicap button on is quite a bit different than playing a 3v3 rated (or any other rated game for that matter). Macabee, I just checked and you have a total of 3 rated games. Naturally your account had been reset after playing 6 months with playing a single rated game. This is merely an observation. [/quote]

I know an ff isn't a first option. It seems to me that was made very clear to me once in a rated game when you went down hard attempting an ff, mostly due to my puma and lordandcount's India army. An all out rush with puma doesn't seem to be a first option either, but sometimes it works too.

You've correctly noted that almost all my games on eso are clan games and I play for fun. But, I've noticed some people get way too upset when they lose - but that's merely my observation.


Mac

[I__CHAOS__I]

Ourk had a good 1v1 FF tho, not good on all maps, yet a good strat to use sometimes

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

That was an interesting post, Drew. I have to agree with your observations about "forced wins." But just because I agree that "legitimate competitive strategies" are the way to win rated games does not mean I like the idea. You are absolutely right that AOE punishes "unique play." I find that unfortunate, and that is one reason why I cooled on the game after almost two years playing. I mean, there is such a limited field of potential options. In a fair matchup, you either have to take a conventional approach or you will lose. So in the end, it's not about outthinking your opponent with something totally novel. It's about drawing a prepackaged strat from the hat as needed, hopefully exploiting a single error by your opponent, then out-clicking and out-microing your way to another "standard, forced win."

I still really like AOE 3. But it is things like this that bother me about it.

And that's also why I appreciate Mac's perspective. Thankfully, we can play clan games where we can be creative from time to time without anxiety and without "forcing" standard wins. That's refreshing to me.

But as you say, everything has its place. If rated wins are your thing, you gotta get standardized and sharpen up. I can't disagree with that.

[36drew]

[quote=""I__CHAOS__I""]Ourk had a good 1v1 FF tho, not good on all maps, yet a good strat to use sometimes[/quote]

Things have changed a lot since Ourk played though. He played in an era where natives could be used (as in cheyenne, rattan, etc) to beat major generals. It simple defied description.

In today's state of affairs, his same gameplay would not be successful. Just the fact that you can't get 10 wp in age ii makes things much more complicated. His build would no longer work.

[huGGy]

I never really played Aztecs so i can't say much about their strengths and weaknesses, but this BO seems ok and effective (i think it can be pretty effective in 2v2 as well if you don't get rushed. Problem are the teamcards aren't really worth it then). I'm wondering, if it's not even better when you send 5 Vills instead of 600 gold. Also, from my experience with some high ranked players i had 3v3s lately, it seems to be better to do semi-FFs with some Eco backing it up (adding market and stuff). None of them played Aztecs, tho. But i always enjoy this team 3 Vills card. It's giving such an Eco boost to the other teammates, simply OP.

Btw: Is this BO for RE or FP? Or is there no difference overall regarding this BO? I have no clue about Azzies...


Edit: Not only Ourk, etrips is still able to do a good Aztec FF (only 1v1, though. He abuses infinite Jag Prowler Card if i remember correctly)

[Sporting_Lisbon]

I have to say that the 3 BB's from tc with 10 coyo card, 4 sk and other nice cards can make up a strong fortress age army. If you want to 5 coyo semi-FF, you can use the war hut poli to colonial and get a hut up, what's the problem? And the forced win modus operandi is interesting with a civ you can stick to, otherwise it is imho plain boring. While you can say that doing a silly strat can win you a game by luck, having several strats in the arsenal, including the silly one, is much more interesting and effective than doing a cookie cutter strat just because it has 50%+ chance of winning no matter what. NaturePhoenix was able to use grens to dominate, without having to do it every game :p

[36drew]

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]While you can say that doing a silly strat can win you a game by luck, having several strats in the arsenal, including the silly one, is much more interesting and effective than doing a cookie cutter strat just because it has 50%+ chance of winning no matter what. NaturePhoenix was able to use grens to dominate, without having to do it every game :p[/quote]

Well said.

[LaZy]

FF´s in team games are cool/viable, and easily accepted on my behalf if the FFing civ is able 2 lame, ie artilary or silly units

out

[murdilator]

I would actually note that India has the most OP team card, second to Aztec, in the game: the TEAM Trickle. According to Cyclohexane's charts, this card is worth some 5.62 villagers for the entire team IN AGE 1. I know not every civ gets export, but still having a team 2.6 villager shipment really beats the wood trickle, especially for a Mahout FF or even in regular gameplay. If this were regular Sumptuary Laws +1 villager, there would be no doubt that it would be the most OP card in the game. It would be a 4-8 Vill shipment for India in age 1 ^ ^.


The most effective TEAM FF and FI strats I have done and seen are sling strategies. So like your teammate gives you 300 food & 300 coin to age, then gathers his 600 coin you shipped to him. Or consider this excellent one on Vanilla: A Spain and Portugal Team, where the Spanish gives Ports 100 wood and 100 food once Spain starts aging (4:15?), and whilst the Port player water booms with Towers and Minute Men, taking all the hits on a rush. The Spanish player executes with a phenomenal Spanish FF, destroying an Ottoman player's base (devastating), and forcing the enemy to withdraw. Believe it or not, this strategy is extremely viable, and if the Spanish is rushed, it is GG for the other civ, since Portugal will have the water, Spain has great anti-rush, and Portugal will be in an impenetrable defensive position, going to Industrial, feeding his ally resources while creating superior units. This goes along with hussars, petards and halbs at the enemy base, while Dragoons, Organ guns, and all kinds of mischief at home. In its hayday it was a brilliant strategy, especially against double Otto, in which the Portuguese could take on two Ottoman IOR's simultaneously (CM > all Otto Age 2 Units, Towers+TC > Cavalry). It was only playable on Lrg Carolina and Hispaniola though, but it still works marvelously. I had a screenshot of it -- a glory victory over a Otto-Russia team combo, with a British player, but it is too bad that my computer with it crashed suddenly.


I think 36drew's discourse was extremely interesting, especially about the forced win. However, strategies like the Portuguese Water Turtle are dependent on Team work and not on this type, which make them great allround strategies. They are the unique turtle that works. That is why I want turtle to be up to par again. "What your opponent expects least, will work best" - Frederick the Great, King of Prussia. In other words, the unexpected is what wins games. Personally, playing at a disadvantage without the best team support, the Water Turtle gives about 67-73% victory. I used to do this strategy with a friend from Brazil, Sargento_Garcia, and I remember two other supremacy players were fighting against us on Lrg Saguenay.

They asked him, "HOW ON EARTH DO YOU SURVIVE WITH 30 VILLS in Industrial?" He answered ":D." The fact that I could team-feed him resources did not come across their heads, as I had the entire water and most likely, galleons baffooning them at their base. I can't remember their civs though.



regards,



murdilator