Age of Empires III

[Centurion]

Anyone of you plays it? What homecity level are you? What are your tactics and which civilization are you?

I wanted to show you how I beat an enemy with my über defencive tactic. Enemy destroyed my walls when I was in early age and rushed into my base but I managed to take him down and rebuild walls. I also upgraded them to stone walls and built all outposts I could get. I also got 2 factories from Homecity and started training Rockets. I placed them next to walls.

If enemy came with his ships and wanted to unload soldiers then it was impossible because the ships sank before they could reach the shore.

I built 2 mortar ships and kept bombing enemy until he had no villagers and no military buildings.
The difficulty level I played with was Expert. And I finally won it. I didn't have to use my own soldiers to take him down. I used mortars only.

A little video about my powerful defense.



Don't get hard on me because I posted it in Soldatforums -.- Duh...

[a-4-year-old]

I don't play anymore. I hated it.  The game is so economics heavy that its just a math problem. I would win every battle against my enemy but he would out-produce troops and I would lose simply because I hadn't bothered to make 40+ settlers 20 minutes into the game.

The fighting was so bland that I usually could dominate simply by using pikemen in a big square around my rockets.

I didn't even like things outside of gameplay, the server was just horrible and connection problems and bugs just destroyed any patients I had.  It would take me almost an hour just to find a game.

[Centurion]

I think you are exaggerating. You can't with enemy simply by using pikemen and rockets.
And I also believe you didn't play with the highest difficulty and 40+ villagers in 20 minutes won't really help you.

And I also don't like the way how you said: I would win this battle... Anyway. I would life forever if I only would find the source of youth.
It's a wonderful game if you know how to play it.

And I don't know about Internet play because I've never played it.

[a-4-year-old]

The highest computer setting is a joke. Online play is the only way to go.

The battle system is so bland that its barely above rock paper scissors.
Pikemen and rockets are the best combination to attack a settlement.  the only real threat to rockets are cavalry and pikemen nullify them. rockets destroy infantry and buildings easily, the pikemen are simply meat shields who, if they survive, are really good at burning down buildings as well.

[Centurion]

It's not that easy, believe me.

[blackdevil0742]

I got so disappointed by AoE III. Why couldn't they just stay with the setting they used in the second game.

[xurich]

If anybody plays on ESO, add xurich to your friends list and maybe we'll get a game going.

[GSx_Major]

Excellent game, I usually play russia (HC 83, I think). FF + Oprichnik rush, that's all you need.

As for the Pikemen + Rockets comment... If it's late enough in the game (assuming you don't FI) to get rockets, then the other player has heavy cannons and with a couple of those + a 20-30 unit army (dragoons, or musket/scirms) will blow your rockets away no matter how many pikemen (which will die from just about anything except cavalry) you have protecting them. Not that I would expect you to survive long enough to reach Industrial if you simply believe in spamming units.

Yes, it's based on a simple rock paper scissors type game. Infantry > cavalry > artillery > infantry. And then there's the cavalry that beat cavalry, the artillery that beats other artillery, the cavalry that beats infantry, the infantry that beats artillery, etc. And if you look into formations and microing and you'll find that there's a lot more to it. And it's of course possible to beat an army of 100 pikemen with 5 dragoons, if you want to spend 5 minutes running back and forth.

I don't play anymore. I hated it.  The game is so economics heavy that its just a math problem. I would win every battle against my enemy but he would out-produce troops and I would lose simply because I hadn't bothered to make 40+ settlers 20 minutes into the game.

Yes, the first 6-7 minutes are strictly economy. After that, it pretty much handles itself. Also, you should have 40+ settlers by 10 minutes... I usually have 20 after 3 minutes.

I didn't even like things outside of gameplay, the server was just horrible and connection problems and bugs just destroyed any patients I had.  It would take me almost an hour just to find a game.

That's odd since there's usually a couple thousand people on. As for lag, don't join a game hosted by someone with a bad connection, and you won't have problems with the connection. If I host, I don't have any problems even late in game with 8 players. As for the bugs, you weren't exactly specific.

As for the video... Turtling on Amazonas against a bot and then obliterating it with ships doesn't exactly require that much effort, even on expert. You go against one on Unknown and we'll see how you do. But of course, it's still a bot. I once won a 1v7 vs expert bots on (Large) Carolina. Key is to play as dutch. But there's also a case to be made for german dopple spamming.

I got so disappointed by AoE III. Why couldn't they just stay with the setting they used in the second game.

Because they had already done that in AoE2? What good is a new game if it's exactly like another?

[Centurion]

I wish I could play online but uh... I stole my AOE III :/

[GSx_Major]

It's like $20...

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I got so disappointed by AoE III. Why couldn't they just stay with the setting they used in the second game.

...Because the series is a progression? AoE II was in a later time period than AoE I, so it was only natural to make AoE III even more modern.

[Dascoo]

Rise of Nations is superior.

[a-4-year-old]

Who said anything about spamming units? I sure didn't.

It seems that when I said that a game lacks substance you two just assumed I lack skill.

ESO never really fixed them during the year+ I played. Connecting to a room usually fails, players got dropped from rooms "ghost" players would join a room, players in a room couldn't always see everyone else in the room. Starting the game would fail resulting in everyone kicked due to a "synchronization error"  They didn't even put in the refresh list button until after people complained.

Back when I played the game was so unbalanced that everyone would join a room start the game and see a french or a russian player on the other team and just drop because they knew they would lose.

Gameplay was really quite horrible. The game was so poorly designed that you are more often better off tasking a settler to building 5 barracks and spamming reinforcements than winning the first battle to begin with. And if you realize the civilization you have doesn't fit your play style or just plain wasn't any good you would be stuck with a terrible home city again. That kind of design limits player's experimentation.

[8th_account]

Bleh.. As far as I'm concerned, anything after The Conquerors isn't canon.

[GSx_Major]

Who said anything about spamming units? I sure didn't.

Paraphrased from when you said out-produce, coupled with your general spamming pikemen style.

It seems that when I said that a game lacks substance you two just assumed I lack skill.

You described a very poor strategy and said things indicating you weren't all that familiar with the game. Maybe you just never got past the pikemen.

Connecting to a room usually fails

It's a firewall problem... Not a bug.

"ghost" players would join a room

They drop out as they time out. Not ideal, but not really a bug.

players in a room couldn't always see everyone else in the room.

players got dropped from rooms

For no reason? Never seen it happen in 1500+ games over 4 years.

Starting the game would fail resulting in everyone kicked due to a "synchronization error"

There's an actual problem, good job. I much rather prefer Soldat eats, which is basically the same problem.

They didn't even put in the refresh list button until after people complained.

I didn't have a problem with the automatic refresh, but some did. They added it, and that's a bad thing?

Back when I played the game was so unbalanced that everyone would join a room start the game and see a french or a russian player on the other team and just drop because they knew they would lose.

The game is actually quite complex that the balance could never be perfectly equal for everyone. They patched it often early on due to balance problems, yes. But it's nowhere near as simple as you try to frame it as.

Gameplay was really quite horrible. The game was so poorly designed that you are more often better off tasking a settler to building 5 barracks and spamming reinforcements than winning the first battle to begin with.

Most battles are over in less than than the time it takes to make more units, and keeping your army alive is hardly a bad idea.

And if you realize the civilization you have doesn't fit your play style or just plain wasn't any good you would be stuck with a terrible home city again. That kind of design limits player's experimentation.

Actually, if you make a new HC it starts at the tier of your highest HC. Meaning that if I were to make a new HC it would start at 80, not at 1. Maybe you should double check everything you say?


You don't like the game, ok, I gotcha. No need to go all bullshit over it, though.

[croat1gamer]

If the game needs continuous bugfixes and balance fixes, you know there has something to be wrong.

Dont confuse it with the thing that is with Soldat, as it is a new version (1.x), while the bugfixes come later and fix various bugs (1.xy)

[a-4-year-old]

You don't like the game, ok, I gotcha. No need to go all bullshit over it, though.

It seems like all you said was that in all this time they actually fixed the things that plagued the game when I played it.  All the things I listed were known bugs and yes they were actual bugs. Just because you say they aren't bugs does not make them issues.

Paraphrased from when you said out-produce, coupled with your general spamming pikemen style.
Pikemen/cannon was actually a good strategy if you had taken a moment to think how many different units you can counter with them you might actually see my point.

It seems that when I said that a game lacks substance you two just assumed I lack skill.

You described a very poor strategy and said things indicating you weren't all that familiar with the game. Maybe you just never got past the pikemen.
once again this is just ignorance on your part. Pikemen have high damage vs. cavalry and buildings and they are much faster than other infantry units. Melee attacks are the best ways for infantry to attack cannons without being raped. If you ditch the British and their terrible rockets and go, oh perhaps the spanish then you can have amazing pikemen that run just as fast as cavalry with great LOS when you use the right cards and you pick up heavy cannons instead of rockets.

Connecting to a room usually fails

It's a firewall problem... Not a bug.
If every other game I own can pass my firewall and this one can't who's fault is that? Thats still a bug. Its also a bug that had no resolution on their forums as disabling my firewall didn't actually solve anything.

"ghost" players would join a room

They drop out as they time out. Not ideal, but not really a bug.
What part of that isn't a bug? A bug in software is an error, flaw or mistake in software that impedes use.

players in a room couldn't always see everyone else in the room.

players got dropped from rooms

For no reason? Never seen it happen in 1500+ games over 4 years.Then play online.
Honestly you must not have played online at all during the first two years or so of this game's release.  I remember specific conversations with people about how these two things happened to them all the time. The only "remedy" to either of these things were just to reconnect to the room which didn't always work.

Starting the game would fail resulting in everyone kicked due to a "synchronization error"

There's an actual problem, good job. I much rather prefer Soldat eats, which is basically the same problem.

They didn't even put in the refresh list button until after people complained.

I didn't have a problem with the automatic refresh, but some did. They added it, and that's a bad thing?
Automatic refresh was a terrible idea. As you scroll to find a game the entire list changes up or down and you click the wrong room or if you're lucky you're just disoriented. It was a bad idea that wasn't fixed for months. A game should be done when they release it that game wasn't even close to ready for stores.

Back when I played the game was so unbalanced that everyone would join a room start the game and see a french or a russian player on the other team and just drop because they knew they would lose.

The game is actually quite complex that the balance could never be perfectly equal for everyone. They patched it often early on due to balance problems, yes. But it's nowhere near as simple as you try to frame it as. the balance problems were horrible, no they can't be equal but it seems they tailor made 2-3 civilizations to fit a working strategy and just left the rest to fend for themselves. its simply another instance of bad design and inadequate testing.

Gameplay was really quite horrible. The game was so poorly designed that you are more often better off tasking a settler to building 5 barracks and spamming reinforcements than winning the first battle to begin with.

Most battles are over in less than than the time it takes to make more units, and keeping your army alive is hardly a bad idea. 8 player games lasted so long that they would just stalemate because both powers would max out their population with units and then attack each other and have a new set of units marching to take their place, people would build 10 barracks just to have 50 musketeers in seconds.

And if you realize the civilization you have doesn't fit your play style or just plain wasn't any good you would be stuck with a terrible home city again. That kind of design limits player's experimentation.

Actually, if you make a new HC it starts at the tier of your highest HC. Meaning that if I were to make a new HC it would start at 80, not at 1. Maybe you should double check everything you say? which update did they do this in? perhaps the expansion packs? They certainly didn't do it anytime soon after the release and the game sure as hell wasn't set up that way on launch.


You don't like the game, ok, I gotcha. No need to go all bullshit over it, though.

[GSx_Major]

It seems like all you said was that in all this time they actually fixed the things that plagued the game when I played it.  All the things I listed were known bugs and yes they were actual bugs. Just because you say they aren't bugs does not make them issues.

You saying they're bugs when they're not does not make them bugs. Issues, yes. Issues which they fixed when they found out about them.

You can argue about need for more testing before the game was released, but that goes for just about every game out there.

Pikemen/cannon was actually a good strategy if you had taken a moment to think how many different units you can counter with them you might actually see my point.

once again this is just ignorance on your part. Pikemen have high damage vs. cavalry and buildings and they are much faster than other infantry units. Melee attacks are the best ways for infantry to attack cannons without being raped. If you ditch the British and their terrible rockets and go, oh perhaps the spanish then you can have amazing pikemen that run just as fast as cavalry with great LOS when you use the right cards and you pick up heavy cannons instead of rockets.

The fact remains that 50 skirms with 3 heavy cannons will beat 100 pikemen with 3 heavy cannons/rockets any day. Pikemen don't move as fast as cavalry even with every single upgrade and card, and why would you need the +10 LOS if you're bringing artillery with you?

An army of pikemen and rockets counters cavalry, buildings and infantry. The problem is, for the first seconds of the battle it will be 50 skirms and 3 heavy cannons against your 3 rockets. With the skirms in either a spread out formation or the defensive stance, your rockets will have little impact as your advancing pikemen gets crippled. Once they reach the enemy, they'll certainly do some damage but they won't all be able to get a stab at the skirms as there's simply more pikemen than there is room. Their base melee attack is also not much higher than skirmishers, but their 5x multiplier against cavalry is pretty nice.

And of course anyone with half a brain would keep some cavalry out of sight ready to strike at the artillery when your formation of pikemen eventually breaks, which it will do against the much more cost and pop effective army of skirms.

If every other game I own can pass my firewall and this one can't who's fault is that? Thats still a bug. Its also a bug that had no resolution on their forums as disabling my firewall didn't actually solve anything.

The hosts, not yours. And it's not a bug, even by your definition.

What part of that isn't a bug? A bug in software is an error, flaw or mistake in software that impedes use.

You time out, and then you're removed. You'll find the same in every online game.

Then play online.
Honestly you must not have played online at all during the first two years or so of this game's release.  I remember specific conversations with people about how these two things happened to them all the time. The only "remedy" to either of these things were just to reconnect to the room which didn't always work.

As I said, "for no reason?". If it happens to them but not to most people, then something is different with them. Until you've figured out what it was, I still haven't seen a single case of it happening for no reason.

QQ. I've played online since 1.0.1. I bought the game as soon as it was released.

Automatic refresh was a terrible idea. As you scroll to find a game the entire list changes up or down and you click the wrong room or if you're lucky you're just disoriented. It was a bad idea that wasn't fixed for months. A game should be done when they release it that game wasn't even close to ready for stores.

As I said, it worked fine for me. If you're an idiot and don't check what you're clicking at, then maybe it could be a problem. I don't have any problems at all with games being released without being tested by a 100 man team for a year. As long as they put every effort into the first major patch and get it out quickly, which they did - in two weeks (and the patch with the refresh button came what, a month and a half after release?), I don't mind them putting all the money and time into making a better game.

the balance problems were horrible, no they can't be equal but it seems they tailor made 2-3 civilizations to fit a working strategy and just left the rest to fend for themselves. its simply another instance of bad design and inadequate testing.

There are plenty of strategies for every nation in there, and every civilization has many ways of beating every other civilization. But of course, you'd rather ignore this and whine on about poor balance. There's 50+ factors that define every unit, and hundreds of techs and cards. There won't be a perfect balance, ever.

8 player games lasted so long that they would just stalemate because both powers would max out their population with units and then attack each other and have a new set of units marching to take their place, people would build 10 barracks just to have 50 musketeers in seconds.

Of course stalemates can happen, especially if as what you seem to describe, 8 players turtle. The only way to avoid this is to intentionally offset the balance. So what are you suggesting they do about it? Besides, it can happen in all games.

which update did they do this in? perhaps the expansion packs? They certainly didn't do it anytime soon after the release and the game sure as hell wasn't set up that way on launch.

Actually, it's in the original game. But hey, ignore that as just another fact.

[a-4-year-old]

I'm not going to debate with you about bugs anymore since you're completely ignorant as to what a software bug is. Wasting my time with circle talk won't get us anywhere.

It also isn't going to help if you just lie about home cities. That means my 1 high level city and the 7 cities that I made after that are all just bugged because they're all >10 right now. You don't have to lie to make your points.

Skirmishers have several disadvantages, they are only resistant to ranged and they have a lower hand attack, they are also slightly slower, the same spread that makes them less vulnerable to cannon fire makes them more vulnerable to melee fighting.

Pikemen have slight resistance to melee and are faster with more damage (despite losing the cavalry multiplier) with a spanish card pikemen are much quicker than skirmishers and equally as quick as the slowest cavalry unit (German War wagon) they also cost less. Since pikemen swarm around whatever they are attacking they are surprisingly resistant to cannon fire, When attacking cannons or perhaps skirmishers directly in front of cannons, pikemen may only lose one per volley.

All this means that an equivalent number of pikemen that are well managed can do ok against skirmishers, which are their biggest counter. Obviously a player would try to distract me while they flank with cavalry, that would be the correct move. Your example of 100 pikemen vs 50 skirmishers was obvious hyperbole, but if a player has cavalry it would be fair to give me an equivalent population of pikemen, at least in this example.  so in total it would be 50 skirmishers, 25 cavalry, and 3 cannons vs a total of 100 pikemen and 3 cannons, in this example I could leave a fairly large reserve to deal with a cavalry threat.

Total costs: (cavalry are hussars and cannons are free)
ME:
Food:4,000
Wood: 4,000
Gold: 0

Enemy:
Food: 5,500
Wood: 0
Gold: 5,250

This is significant as well, with my savings I could make 33 more pikemen.

Where this strategy really shines is when you break through and into their base.  Skirmishers have such a weak torch that an enemy player would have extra time to mount a defense of their buildings. If you don't play spanish then it doesn't work quite as well, however if you do play spanish it is very effective despite it's simplicity.

If you expect to go up against skirmishers as spanish you should use Skirmishers and Rodeleros  using the same basic tactics for rodeleros instead of pikemen.

[GSx_Major]

I'm not going to debate with you about bugs anymore since you're completely ignorant as to what a software bug is. Wasting my time with circle talk won't get us anywhere.

Simple definition, something not working as intended. I don't completely agree with it, but let's stick with it for this. Timeouts are not anywhere near being bugs by that definition.

It also isn't going to help if you just lie about home cities. That means my 1 high level city and the 7 cities that I made after that are all just bugged because they're all >10 right now. You don't have to lie to make your points.

Since I tested it (with a fresh install on my old comp), as well as checked what they claim it is so I would just love to know why yours would be different. But preemptively calling people liars is a good way to dodge it yourself.

Skirmishers have several disadvantages, they are only resistant to ranged and they have a lower hand attack, they are also slightly slower, the same spread that makes them less vulnerable to cannon fire makes them more vulnerable to melee fighting.

Pikemen have slight resistance to melee and are faster with more damage (despite losing the cavalry multiplier) with a spanish card pikemen are much quicker than skirmishers and equally as quick as the slowest cavalry unit (German War wagon) they also cost less. Since pikemen swarm around whatever they are attacking they are surprisingly resistant to cannon fire, When attacking cannons or perhaps skirmishers directly in front of cannons, pikemen may only lose one per volley.

All this means that an equivalent number of pikemen that are well managed can do ok against skirmishers, which are their biggest counter. Obviously a player would try to distract me while they flank with cavalry, that would be the correct move. Your example of 100 pikemen vs 50 skirmishers was obvious hyperbole, but if a player has cavalry it would be fair to give me an equivalent population of pikemen, at least in this example.  so in total it would be 50 skirmishers, 25 cavalry, and 3 cannons vs a total of 100 pikemen and 3 cannons, in this example I could leave a fairly large reserve to deal with a cavalry threat.

Pikemens base melee value is 8 (1.5 RoF), with Skirmishers having 6 melee (1.5 RoF). On top of that is Skirmishers 2x multiplier against infantry, which I'm assuming you've completely forgotten. The 10% resistance against melee makes for a total of 11 (10.8 to be precise, and that .2 matters) Further, by the time your pikemen has reached the skirmishers as many as 25% of them will be dead by skirmishers fire alone - and with the 3 cannons taking out a few as well as damaging a few that number could be as high as 30-35%.

Then you find yourself in a fight where your 65-70 pikemen (120hp) does 8 damage a piece, against 40-45 skirmishers (165hp) that do 11 damage a piece melee and 30 ranged. And, if you get to be spain, then I get to be dutch and get roughly equal bonuses to my skirmishers. Pikemen will swarm, and say they bunch up 5 on 1. That means your 70 pikemen covers 14 units, and will need FOUR (4.2, = 1 unit attacking one extra time) attacks to kill the skirmishers they're on. Meanwhile, 30 skirmishers are free to fire and will, despite the ranged attack being only half as fast, be able to kill 20 of your units - and the 14 skirms fighting will do enough damage to kill another 6.

And then it's 30 against 45. Same goes again, and then it's 20 against 30, then 13 against 17, etc. You add 25 hussars the the start of that, and you're dead wheter they fight or distract a "fairly large reserve". Now, of course it won't play out as mathematics but my cannons will hurt the more numerous and weaker pikemen more than your cannons will hurt my skirmishers. Especially if I'm dutch and you're spain.

Actually, if the fight was between cannons + skirms vs cannons + twice the amount of pikes then I'd use my cavalry to go after your base. You of course wouldn't have that cavalry as you wouldn't have the time or resources to make hussars, but obviously pikes are the way to go.

These are of course all base values, but if you get to upgrade yours and use HC cards then I get to do the same. Simply put, well managed pikemen will beat skirmishers. Well managed skirmishers will beat well managed pikemen, even if there are twice as many of them.

Your cost example is of course useless since I'm dutch and you're spain. My economy is gonna be a lot stronger than yours (especially in terms of gold and thus cold heavy units like skirmishers), and if I ignore the cavalry my army will not only win, it will also be cheaper and much more pop effective. There is also build time, 27 for pikemen and 33 for skirmishers, which means I'll raise my army in 60% of the time for 75% of the cost of yours.

This is indeed significant.

Where this strategy really shines is when you break through and into their base.  Skirmishers have such a weak torch that an enemy player would have extra time to mount a defense of their buildings. If you don't play spanish then it doesn't work quite as well, however if you do play spanish it is very effective despite it's simplicity.

Here, however, you have a very good point. If you were to simply ignore the fight which would leave you with no pikemen at all (and I guarantee you that 10 skirmishers take down buildings faster than 0 pikemen) down and just compare their torch stats, your 100 man pikemen army will be FIVE times faster at taking down buildings than my 50 skirmishers. The cannons of course cancel out eachother.

One of my favorite strategies is oprichniks rushing, so I love to take down buildings. It's a very valid point, but usually (unless you raid like me, which is harder with pikemen) you'll have to go through at least some defences to get to the good stuff. Swarming smaller armies or towers/forts with pikemen is a solid strategy - but again, you have to watch out for the other guys army which will tear you apart if you're busy taking down buildings.

If you expect to go up against skirmishers as spanish you should use Skirmishers and Rodeleros  using the same basic tactics for rodeleros instead of pikemen.

More expensive, but will do slightly better. I'd have to go into economy or pop to truly destroy this one.