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

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.34 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » France - how's the expansion?
Bottom
Topic Subject:France - how's the expansion?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
aoeplayer078
Skirmisher
posted 05-03-07 05:09 PM EDT (US)         
I'm a pretty set France player against the computer when alone or on the same team as some of my friends against the computer. I'm wondering how France fares in the expansion, as my friends and I are going to pick it up soon for some of the new content. I'm basically the ultimate bad France player (which is why I only use france when I'm against the CPU, otherwise I switch to Britain), I just drag myself to age four as quickly as I can, and then try to field the largest army of Courseir (the horse) possible.

How does the expansion change france's strategies, if at all, and any tips on adjusting to it? I've tried using musketeers and various army mixes, especially while my economy is weak, but once I have the resources to field them, nothing seems as effective as those horses plus a cannon or two.

AuthorReplies:
cquinn333
Skirmisher
posted 05-05-07 00:40 AM EDT (US)     26 / 34       
@King

"This is all logic here. If they add another game feature, they should balance for it"

that doesnt mean they did.

Ekanta
Skirmisher
posted 05-05-07 01:20 AM EDT (US)     27 / 34       
Supremacy can reach late game = late game should be balanced = treaty should be balanced... There should always be a counter for lame strats, early or late game, anything else is a game failure.
cquinn333
Skirmisher
posted 05-05-07 02:17 AM EDT (US)     28 / 34       
some teams have better early game, some better late game.

sorta blatant

exc4libulz1022
Skirmisher
posted 05-05-07 02:40 AM EDT (US)     29 / 34       

There should always be a counter for lame strats, early or late game, anything else is a game failure.

the essence of a lame strat is that even if you see it coming, it is nearly impossible to effectively counter (e.g. pre-1.03 spanish). there should not be counters to lame strats, because there should not be lame strats at all.

but thats minor, i disagree with your entire post. the game should NOT be balanced for every phase of a game, only for the game as a whole. how could there be uniqueness if ever civ had exactly the same power level in every phase of the game? if that was the case, any uniqueness in style of play and unit selection would be totally artificial, because there is no real difference in play. whereas the way the game really is, your civ has a "peak time" that you strive to exploit. for example, when ottos had strong abus, their peak time was in colonial. an otto player strived to keep the game in colonial as long as possible because that is where they are strongest. a german player is weak in colonial, and he tries to survive until his peak time arrives later in the game. if nobody had a peak time, a huge chunk would be knocked out of the very base of the age games.

therefor, treaty should not be balanced. at least, not if those balance changes affect supremacy too.


"he will have a hard getting banks up"
~rel4xed

"I accidently drop kicked someone once"
~george_uk

[This message has been edited by exc4libulz1022 (edited 05-05-2007 @ 02:41 AM).]

Ekanta
Skirmisher
posted 05-05-07 03:07 AM EDT (US)     30 / 34       
some teams [or civs] have better early game, some better late game

Im ok with that, but it should be counterable. Or else a civ with a strong early game will always win 1-1, and a civ with strong late game would dominate treaty and that is anything but balanced.
So simply stating that its ok that some civs are stronger in early game because others are stronger in late game can simply not have anything to do with balance. It would mean unbalance in both early and late game, in both supremacy and treaty.

Edit: Of course some civs can have a "peak" in terms of military in some age, but then the turtle capacity of the other civ must be better. And in late game they should be equally good. Very simple actually.

[This message has been edited by Ekanta (edited 05-05-2007 @ 03:12 AM).]

aoeplayer078
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-07 08:18 PM EDT (US)     31 / 34       
What are the best late, late, late, end game civs in terms of power? I hear France, which seems obvious, and often dutch (which makes no sense to me). I enjoy turtling up till my max power, trying to survive long enough to get to the end payoff. Any civs stand out for that?
Eicho
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-07 09:23 PM EDT (US)     32 / 34       
Really late late late late late game, where onl POP-EFFICIENCY is what matters the best are:
1- Aztecs (35 vills in Damage Dance, 100 ERK's)
2- Dutch (150 pop Military)
3- France (60 Cruisiers)
4- Russia (Fort Hopping)
ziGGysiGGy43
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-07 09:30 PM EDT (US)     33 / 34       
Am I the only one who can't understand half the things Eicho says? Please use spell check man.

On topic, always max out your economy. It will be much more effective, allowing you to constantly replenish your forces.

Eicho
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-07 09:37 PM EDT (US)     34 / 34       
hey ziggtsiggy, we ALL knwo that my spellign is not the best.
but the above post was pretty clear in spelling.
12-16 Year old Argentinian tend to write very quickly, and wiht lots of spelling mistakes (when we chat)
but im trying to improve this and qrite with no spellign mistakes here in HG, for you to understand
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames