Are Monks Right or Are Experts Wrong?
- This topic has 17 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have been listening to the conversation about this topic and would like to hear your opinion.
Personally, I don’t believe that the civs in question are overpowered as the knight and camel civs are already at the top of the win rate bracket and making them weaker would not affect that.
They are right, with insane amount of micro monks + siege defeats any army.
I didn’t think so before today but they just single handedly won us a Post Imp 4v4 team game even with my godawful micro so they must be broken when actual good players use them.
Our entire team was getting flattened by Persian War Elephants in 4v4 Michi game.
I was pretty shocked at how awful FU Hindustani imperial camel are against them, like throwing skirms into paladin lol.
My teammates units weren’t faring any better.
Then I built 10 monasteries, researched all the upgrades Hindustanis have available and produced 20 monks, and all of the sudden we had more War Elephants than the Persian player, stalled out their push, and the entire enemy team gg’d shortly after
I don’t know about monks on other maps or other parts of the game (I suck too much to even try using units that won’t even defend themselves without explicit orders), but I’m never picking a bad monk civ on Michi again because they’re the only thing capable of slowing down those beasts.
monks are absolutely OP if you can micro them well
Monks are a gamble which is what makes them interesting but because the floor and ceiling for them can be so different due to micro and RNG there’s not really an easy answer.
I think there will be a counter-play emerging soon and that is stopping vil production, drop 4-5 stables, go mass light cav.
monks are great at the moment in all-in pushes, in situations where most food is spent on vils which makes it very difficult to afford light cav.
stall out vil production, clear the push and you’re still comfortably ahead.
in that game between daut and tatoh recently, tatoh boomed up to 130, 140 vils.
if he stops at 100, he will have the food for 20-30 additional light cav and can just easily clear the whole map
I don’t think that they’re OP, but I think that rng always creates animosity.
Like those insta-converts, you might get them as often as they get you, but you’re gonna remember the times they got you way better than the times you got them.
From what I’ve seen in pro play, archers still kinda decimate them in decent #s.
Monks are theoretically infinitely powerful, but most people need the aid of a script to actually make full use of them during the lategame.
They have too many shortcomings.
Aren’t they too random for being OP or are they OP because they are so random…
monks are very micro heavy, there are situations where they can be very strong, but I wouldn’t say OP, nor have I heard any pro call them OP
Monks are OP.
But like many units, the stage of the game matters, they aren’t op in the late game when you have hordes of troops running them down.
They are amazing in the midgame, and a great tool against cavalry (except scouts) and siege.
Also you say that cavalry civs are on top, every civ can make monks, bonuses are nice but unnecessary to make them strong.
So it doesn’t really matter if a civ is classified as a monk civ or not, a frank player can still add a handfull of monks to convert camels if need be.
Well, monks do have their costs.
Sanctity (120g) is a must, depending on your enemy they might also need redemption (475g).
Thats 595 gold that you can not use foe somerhing else.
You also want not one but at least 3/4 (or more) of them so, getting up and running in a significant way is costing you at least 175 wood and 420 gold.
They are also created pretty slow and countered easily.
So, monks can be quite the gambl3.
A reminder that people like to talk about how aoe is so strategically focussed, when we have the ultimate mechanical skill based unit in the form of the monk, that gives return for investment rate far from any form of strategic play.
And then obviously xbow and mango micro for us mid level scrubs.
The game definitely rewards mechanical skill over strategic in many cases, but that is also what attracts and keeps viewers entertained, and part of the reason why something like aoe3 or 4 will be inherently less appealing to viewers.
Monks are definitely OP when considering return for investment, the catch is that the vast majority of the player base simply doesn’t have the micro to leverage it.
If there was an ai with perfect micro, they’d be basically unbeatable
Monks are really OP.
They can potentially get you free units that you don’t even need a production building or researching upgrades for.
They can heal up units to full health giving your army a new life.
Hoang uses monks in almost all his games.
He only cares about OP strarts and units.
Arena players know monk rush all too well.
They can end a game before you can even get to a proper 3tc boom.
The issue is that unlike other units, you really have to micro them.
And they are really squishy.
You cann only get them in castle age.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
