random vs civ pick
- This topic has 19 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Posts
-
in general i love random civ, my problem is theres a number of civs that i just hate so much that i basically want to resign immediately if i get them, which is of course not ideal for laddering.
so i end up picking from among my favourites a lot, and when im feeling frisky and go random, i often end up in a downward spiral of tilt and frustration.
As a mere 900 player I do not see the point of picking Civs.
I paid for 45 Civs and I’m going to *use* all 45 Civs.
If i Civ pick I tend to get into my own head.
I go into the game expecting to pull of a certain strategy and when it doesn’t work I end up frustrated.
Better to just go random and work on my consistence and adaptability.
With exactly 4 exceptions, all civs are essentially identical up until feudal age anyway.
This game is old enough as it is and the meta is largely solved, why would I practice a tight, civ-specific build order when I can add some much-needed variety?
To me “civ picking in 1500 elo” really reads as “I play Berbers or Franks and 3 Stable Knights all-in every game”.
Wanna do that every game?
Sure.
But Knights aren’t terribly hard to play, and leveraging the Berbers bonus doesn’t take hundreds of games to learn.
In fact, it’s quite self-explanatory.
Learning how to adapt and use unconventional units, on the other hand (like Monk defense on Arabia), takes practice.
Booming under pressure.
Or being forced to use suboptimal units (like Pikeman) because your main unit (e.g.
Knights) is countered by enemy civ.
Developing a feel of how much more you can push your civ due to a bonus (e.g. 200w Dravidians bonus) is also a valuable skill, because in this game you can’t plan everything perfectly, BOs only carry you into Feudal really.
And this is something that you learn by going random civ, random civ also gives your brain power to understand matchups on a deeper level.
If you pick Franks, in contrast, where Scouts into Knights is the best strat in 80% of situations, you aren’t learning a valuable AoE2 skill: adaptation and the ability to make good from a bad situation.
I think the issue people have is not with players who pick the same civ for a while but who consistently pick only one certain strong civ or perhaps the dominating civ for a certain map, ending up playing always the same strat, no variety, no adaption, pretty much no strategizing.
This can be discouraging and boring to play against.
Don’t think anyone will have an issue with you playing Bulgarians 20 times in a row before you move on to Koreans.
I do agree that this makes a lot of sense for learningsl the game too, especially on advanced level where it’s a lot about fine tuning and precise game understanding.
Maybe I should do that but I find it a bit too boring.
Random is exciting.
Play how you like.
Who are we to tell you how to play?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
