Problems registering at AoCZone?
You can try resending activation email. If that doesnt work you can send an email here. If you forgot your password click here.
 Main Menu

 ForumsSearch »

 SY Nations Cup 2017

 Escape Gaming

 Badlands Masters

 AoC Recorded Games

 AoE2HD Recorded Games

 AoFE Recorded Games

 Major Past Tournaments

 Auto downloadedFind »

 Users currently online
Staff (2)
Members (86)
»  dogao
»  ebbu
»  ExIT
»  frhtr
»  GriN
»  Hico
»  Janik
»  KL88
»  kmaro
»  lek
»  mazq
»  Smotp
»  wAkKo
»  Zoso
Guests (146)

 AoC Clans Add yours »

 Links

 Ads

Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Take part in AoFE discussions, share strategies and gaming experience
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  OneMillion » Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:17 pm

  19 Nov 2015, 16:53 GMT » Clemensor wrote:
no eagle forward sucks, tested it already, they die to mass archers still and produce slowly


If the Meso-American player does a forward as you suggest, how is the defender going to be able to achieve a mass of archers? Forwards can be won and lost very quickly, and eagles counter skirmishers very easily.

In the mid-feudal age where archers can be massed, it is true that they can focus fire on eagle warriors. However, they're still fast, cheap and can absorb 25 arrows each (with the first armour upgrade). Even if eagle warriors run into difficulties against archers, this changes when skirmishers are introduced. Skirmishers are more difficult to take out when they are screened by eagle warriors.

As far as the recruitment time is concerned, how often is the barracks constantly used during feudal wars? The most active building is normally a stable (non-Meso-American civilisations) or a pair of archery ranges. This change allows Meso-American civilisations to use a building they have to build anyway and tend to use much less than their archery ranges.

Another point: how does one defend woodlines or exposed mining zones? Either you have walls, towers or keep army units back to defend. All of these force defensive play or risk losing villagers to the eagles' mobility. The Meso-American civilisations are already powerful in the feudal age, they don't need another bonus.
User avatar
 OneMillion
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Dec 25, 2014
Location: Maynooth, Ireland
Age: 25
 
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  Clemensor » Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:27 pm

Well most players go for a drush most of the times, if they see u going forward they will simply add some militia more which will repell your attack pretty easily and slow you down. Inca would be my only real option for this kind of forward because of their boni. Plus eagles are countered by walls and lose 1v1 against a normal scout in Feudal archers. Mass archer comment was more in regard to full feudal wars. Of course you can make it work, but I dont think it is nearly as overpowered as some seem to suggest, just gives meso civs another option in feudal and might encourage them to play more in feudal age, rather than drush fc.
User avatar
 Clemensor
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Jun 09, 2014
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  OneMillion » Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:04 pm

I think the problem with using militia is that the forwarding player doesn't have to make eagle warriors immediately. Forward wars inevitably end up dominated by trash, so either the defender commits to men-at-arms and has to deal with ever more ranged units or they make trash of their own and get defeated by eagle warriors, which are essentially an anti-trash unit.

When it comes to countering eagle warriors in the feudal age, walls only counter eagle warriors to the extent that walls counter any other unit. In open combat, eagle warriors may die to scouts, but they are cheaper and nowhere near as food intensive. On top of that, the main challenge that skirmishers have against archers and scouts is that as soon as your covering spearmen are dead, the scouts will mop up the skirmishers. Eagle warriors provide very good screening cover for both spearmen and skirmishers, so they can't be picked off in the same way spearmen can. All of this paragraph is before we take into account the Meso-American economic bonuses, which makes all this a lot easier for them to do.

I don't think it's overpowered in the same way that I don't think the Age of Conquerors civilisations are overpowered, however it makes the drush fast castle option even easier, because you have a quick means of defending from early feudal age attacks, and you can exert extra pressure with another couple of eagle warriors once you reach the feudal age, if you desire. If HD had a competitive 1v1 scene, I would expect it to be even more likely to be just Aztecs.
User avatar
 OneMillion
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Dec 25, 2014
Location: Maynooth, Ireland
Age: 25
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  Clemensor » Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:50 pm

  19 Nov 2015, 21:04 GMT » OneMillion wrote:
I think the problem with using militia is that the forwarding player doesn't have to make eagle warriors immediately.


Your are correct, the forwarding player doesnt have to make eagles immediately, but that doesnt matter, a drush as a common go to still exists. It's not like u start making militia to counter eagles, in my example you have them already, regardless of what the opponent does. Plus to be effective with other units you additionally need to invest in ranges and more wood, what you dont really want if you want to end up with eagles (~6 on gold for 2 barracks, you need two because they really create slow and you need a couple of them to be effective)

Forward wars inevitably end up dominated by trash, so either the defender commits to men-at-arms and has to deal with ever more ranged units or they make trash of their own and get defeated by eagle warriors, which are essentially an anti-trash unit.


More or less. In the classic Hun fwd war you are correct, but in meso wars were M@A's are often used to fwd, archer are far mor often seen on the battlefield, plus M@A's counter fwds pretty nicely, even in normal AoC (eg Slam vs Acuo). I see eagles more as a counter to a forward play rather than used on the offensive. So eagles as a reactive instrument, rather than an offensive tool.

When it comes to countering eagle warriors in the feudal age, walls only counter eagle warriors to the extent that walls counter any other unit.


Im mostly talking about quick walls, which counter all melee units, thats not true for ranged units.

In open combat, eagle warriors may die to scouts, but they are cheaper and nowhere near as food intensive. On top of that, the main challenge that skirmishers have against archers and scouts is that as soon as your covering spearmen are dead, the scouts will mop up the skirmishers. Eagle warriors provide very good screening cover for both spearmen and skirmishers, so they can't be picked off in the same way spearmen can.


They are in a sense cheaper, but far less mobile in feudal age (surprisingly slow) and die also very easy to town center/tower fire. I think you are just overestimating the strength of eagle scouts. Plus if we have the scenario that both players went ranges first, the player with scouts availabe will most likely have already a good enough eco to sustain production. You can look at eagle scouts as a weaker, but faster M@A's basically. And its true, apart from standard infantry they dont have a hard counter, but they don't do aswell against ranged units (excluding trash) as you might think. They only way I see it work (meaning giving this kind of opening an edge over normal forwards) is to totally cut your opponent off gold.
All of this paragraph is before we take into account the Meso-American economic bonuses, which makes all this a lot easier for them to do.


Yup but thats true for any other strategy, so why should I go eagles if the other options just seem better?

I don't think it's overpowered in the same way that I don't think the Age of Conquerors civilisations are overpowered, however it makes the drush fast castle option even easier, because you have a quick means of defending from early feudal age attacks, and you can exert extra pressure with another couple of eagle warriors once you reach the feudal age, if you desire. If HD had a competitive 1v1 scene, I would expect it to be even more likely to be just Aztecs.


No it doesnt, it is 60! gold for one eagle scout. most of the times when going FC you are already short on gold so I cant really see that working out in short terms (meaning defending efficiently and still going up). I think they were just added to give meso civs a response to full skirms and to open more options in feudal age.
User avatar
 Clemensor
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Jun 09, 2014
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  OneMillion » Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:34 am

  19 Nov 2015, 21:50 GMT » Clemensor wrote:
Your are correct, the forwarding player doesnt have to make eagles immediately, but that doesnt matter, a drush as a common go to still exists. It's not like u start making militia to counter eagles, in my example you have them already, regardless of what the opponent does. Plus to be effective with other units you additionally need to invest in ranges and more wood, what you dont really want if you want to end up with eagles (~6 on gold for 2 barracks, you need two because they really create slow and you need a couple of them to be effective)


I would say that a more plausible way for that to play out would be that the forwarding player would drush into a forward. If you watch old recordings of Funito, one of the big forward players, he used to do straight forwards. Over time however, he started drushing into forwards a lot more often. Also, my suggestion wasn't a forward into eagle warriors, but rather do a standard barracks and archery range and supplement skirmishers with eagle warriors (with maybe a spearman done first to deter scouts). Most of the time, your barracks will be idle because you'll only make a couple of spearmen and focus on massing skirmishers, so it can easily be done within the current forward framework.

More or less. In the classic Hun fwd war you are correct, but in meso wars were M@A's are often used to fwd, archer are far mor often seen on the battlefield, plus M@A's counter fwds pretty nicely, even in normal AoC (eg Slam vs Acuo). I see eagles more as a counter to a forward play rather than used on the offensive. So eagles as a reactive instrument, rather than an offensive tool.


I am focusing on Meso-American civilisations forwarding non-Meso-American civilisations, as that is when one player has eagle warriors and the other one doesn't. As for men-at-arms, I would say they're only truly a counter to trash when they're Celtic. Otherwise, the cheapness and mobility of trash is a significant problem. Once again, once the initial men-at-arms power spike is over, eagle warriors become more viable.

Im mostly talking about quick walls, which counter all melee units, thats not true for ranged units.


Quick walls are a good measure, but they do prevent that resource centre from receiving more villagers. That's the main caveat for walling woodlines to protect from scout rushes. Eagles have the mobility of scouts, but not the ability to be countered by a spearman.

They are in a sense cheaper, but far less mobile in feudal age (surprisingly slow) and die also very easy to town center/tower fire. I think you are just overestimating the strength of eagle scouts. Plus if we have the scenario that both players went ranges first, the player with scouts availabe will most likely have already a good enough eco to sustain production. You can look at eagle scouts as a weaker, but faster M@A's basically. And its true, apart from standard infantry they dont have a hard counter, but they don't do aswell against ranged units (excluding trash) as you might think. They only way I see it work (meaning giving this kind of opening an edge over normal forwards) is to totally cut your opponent off gold.


Yes, it is indeed scouts, I'm just so used to calling them eagle warriors. They may have only four attack, but they still have two projectile armour, meaning they can tank a lot of arrows. I wouldn't advocate ploughing them straight into a group of archers, but even if it's just two groups of archers (especially Maya archers), they can take so much of the sting out of the other group of archers. By all means, the other player can produce scouts, but spearmen are much more likely to survive when they're among cheap eagle warriors. It's like when some players put their skirmishers in front of their archers because it screens them from the enemy's arrows.

Yup but thats true for any other strategy, so why should I go eagles if the other options just seem better?


Ultimately, they make the Meso-American civilisations even more versatile and difficult to counter.

No it doesnt, it is 60! gold for one eagle scout. most of the times when going FC you are already short on gold so I cant really see that working out in short terms (meaning defending efficiently and still going up). I think they were just added to give meso civs a response to full skirms and to open more options in feudal age.


50 gold, surely? Going into archers (skirmishers as well, if necessary) is one of the options you have available to you to counter a Meso-American civilisation attempting a fast castle, and this just gives them another way to stop that (as it's before you have a mass of archers). It'll delay their castle age time, but they'll still be up soon after.

By the way, I just know you're going to do an eagle warrior forward at some point, if your Indian antics on stream are anything to go by!
User avatar
 OneMillion
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Dec 25, 2014
Location: Maynooth, Ireland
Age: 25
 
Advertisement from Google 
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  Aguruchi » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:44 am

I just want to add that playing Incas (fav civ) I always felt 'cheated' :x when it came to feudal age - lack of scouts hurts a lot but you only realize it w/ mesos. It's not only restraining in terms of options, it's also empowering for the guy across not having to fear/deal w/ scout rush. In short, the enemy knows your -limited- options and reacts better.
50g+20f is hardly different from scouts' 80f. Not to mention the need for a mining camp+more micro, + food is generally useful but gold not as much in feud.
And if you drush (most do anyway) just upgrade to m@a, if you don't, just wall. Very easy to deal w/ eagle scouts if you just throw up some walls. It's not like archers.

In sum: certainly not OP and a welcome change.
"I know only one thing. That I know nothing.''
Socrates. 2,5 milleniums ago.
User avatar
 Aguruchi
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
 

Re: Feudal Age Eagle Scout

Postby  OneMillion » Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:40 pm

Actually, the cost difference is noticeable. Because gold gathers faster than food and doesn't require the investment of wood in farms, eagle warriors are a much lighter burden on your economy. Per villager-second, they're about 20-25% cheaper, so their castle time won't be delayed. That's why elite eagle warriors are lethal in the early imperial age: they can be massed much more easily than light cavalry.

The problem is not with your opponent just making eagle warriors. It's with the fact that they can also make archers to counter men-at-arms, and skirmishers will find it more difficult to take those archers out because the eagle warriors will attract a lot of the fire and naturally counter them anyway. Whatever limit there is to the benefits this brings to the Incas, for the Aztecs and the Maya, it's just disgusting.
User avatar
 OneMillion
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Dec 25, 2014
Location: Maynooth, Ireland
Age: 25
 
 
Previous

Return to General AoFE Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Legend: Global moderators, News posters, Tournament moderators