Switching From Age of Empires 4 to 2
- This topic has 12 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey there!
I’m transitioning from Age of Empires 4 to Age of Empires 2, so what should I keep an eye out for?
Also, I prefer civilizations that are good at pressuring and winning in the early to mid game instead of relying on a massive late game army.
Are there any non-cheesy civilizations that specialize in that?
> I like civs who pressure and try to end on the early to mid game rather
than trying to amass a huge late game, what are some non-cheese
civilisations who are good at thatCommon new player recommendations are:
* Franks.
One of the best civs by winrate at all levels except the highest.
They have an extremely smooth cavalry play style with economy bonuses at every point of the early and mid game.
Late game they have very good heavy cavalry and decent siege and infantry.
* Magyars.
No direct economy bonus but their scout cavalry line is discounted and melee attack upgrades at the blacksmith are free.
You *have* to make and use units to take advantage of the Magyars’ bonuses.
Late game they want to switch into cavalry archers, which are very fun to use (quick, tanky, and effective in large masses).
Magyars’ cavalry archers get full upgrades as well as an expensive late game upgrade that’s exclusive to Magyars.
* Mayans.
Their archers are cheaper so they can a lot of them.
Their eco is very good.
They have a slightly unusual start with +1 villager but no open pop space, which means you have to get the Loom upgrade immediately instead of when most civs get it (just before clicking up to Feudal Age).
They have a smooth economy and are one of three American civs that have no cavalry.
Instead, they have eagle warriors, infantry that is fast moving, good vs archers, siege, and monks, and basically a cavalry replacement.
Mayans are very good until gold runs out.
Some casters like to joke that “if it’s an aoe2 map, Mayans are probably good on it”. 90% true.
* Huns.
They are the best civ for playing either cavalry or ranged units as the situation requires.
Their stables work faster and their cavalry archers are cheaper.
This means their cavalry archers are viable in Castle Age (you still have to mass them), unlike Magyar cavalry archers.
Huns offer a smooth experience since they don’t have to build houses.
They are a good civ to try _second_ after the first civ teaches you the very important habit of building houses before your buildings stop producing units.
I play both games regularly.
**Important differences to keep in mind:**
Early-mid game ranged battles have some more micro involved because you can dodge arrows.
Single unit type compositions are more viable, diverse unit comps are not as necessary.
There is no heavy vs light armor system.
Counter unit bonus damage works similarly though such as pikes vs cav.
Terrain does not effect line of sight.
Units/buildings on higher terrain do extra damage and take less damage from those on lower terrain.
Castles are harder to kill, and almost impossible to kill before Imperial (no trebuchets available in castle).
Unique units can only be made in castles (with a few exceptions) so often they don’t get made due to this bottleneck.
Bkackmsith upgrades work differently.
Separate armor techs for melee infantry, ranged units, and cav.
Damage techs for melee and ranged.
This makes switching your composition less viable in some cases.
And makes your decisions less dependent on the enemy composition.
The civs are much more similiar.
Only two unique techs each, and typically one unique unit (some have a couple and maybe a building).
The tech tree is subtractive rather than additive.
Everyone shares the same tech tree, much like AoE4, but they are missing things from it instead of having things added.
Aging up is different.
There are no landmarks, it is just a “tech” you research at the town center.
No additional TCs until castle age (except for Cumans).
No sacred sites.
Relics are not as strong, but still important in long games.
​
Virtually all ranged attacks can miss.
Ranged units have an (in)accuracy stat, making shots miss the tile where the enemy unit is standing, as well as no predictive targeting early game, meaning it’s hard to hit individual targets.
The effect on micro is that archers are micro-intensive which melee units are now.
As compensation, the mainline archer unit has good damage output against almost all mainline melee units, both cavalry and infantry.
The archers get really good when massed.
They can outrun infantry but are well served with a few spearmen in front if you face cavalry.
Eventually, in Castle Age you can research Ballistics.
Even that only gives arrow-based attacks predictive targeting, but it’s a game changer.
After unit upgrades and archer attack upgrades at the blacksmith, it’s the highest priority for archers in Castle Age.
Similarly, there’s the Thumb Ring upgrade that makes archers 100% accurate vs non-moving targets as well as improving their fire rate.
It’s not as high priority as Ballistics, but still nice to get, and a must in Imperial Age.
Except for one civilization, all ranged gunpowder attacks lack predictive targeting and perfect accuracy all game long.
In compensation, they have very high attack.
The actual bombard cannon unit trained from the siege workshop is only effective against slow moving units, though.
They are not really a backline dps unit like some aoe4 cannon can be.
I play 4 and 2…who’s your aoe4 main?
I’ll recommend some civs with similar bonuses or play styles from AOE2.
Something else that’s noticeable different is that monks are different and relics are way less important in aoe2.
Relics cannot be used for group conversion.
Instead, monks can convert single targets.
They need upgrades to be able to convert siege, buildings, or other monks.
Relics only give a small trickle of gold.
Collecting them in early Castle Age is uncommon (except on walled maps), but it’s still a good idea to do it once you get map control.
Basically, the gold trickle is your only gold income in 1v1s once gold mines run out.
There is no trade income in single player, as trade routes only exist between markets of two different players.
Just because you expect a unit counter to be logical doesn’t mean it is.
AoE2 tends to prioritize balance over logic (why is by no means a bad thing, but is important to keep in mind).
I don’t know anything about AoE4, but I imagine its counter system is more complex and realistic than 2’s.
As a result, a unit matchup that would be favorable in 4 might be unfavorable in 2.
Fom what ive seen aoe 2 is ‘bigger”, as in the focus happens on a larger scale.
There is micro and macro, but from what i see from 4 the games are often decided from 1 or 2 scrims between 20-50 units.
While 2 has much larger battles often over several fronts.
Sometimes 100 military.
It seems more forgiving also.
If you get rushed or behind you can come back through good play rather than being snowballed.
Welcome to Age 2! 🙂 I wrote a [guide](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2804870527) aimed at AoE 4 players who try to get into AoE 2 – hope it’s not too confusing.
>I like civs who pressure and try to end on the early to mid game rather than trying to amass a huge late game, what are some non-cheese civilisations who are good at that?
You’re going to love aoe2 arabia.
My personal favorites for early game:
Aztecs, i go either M@a -> archers or Seige monk rush with eagle warriors which is kinda geared towards mid game and super strong
Mongols: early food eco bonus allows for some fun early feudal age uptime m@a tower play
franks and hindustanis: gold standard scout rush civs.
this is coming from a 1.1k elo with 1k hours so take with grain of salt on viability.
Welcome to the future.
I think the earliest civs to fight with would be Persians and Lithuanians.
My favorite is Bulgarians.
Would and mining camp are swapped on the key bindings.
You don’t need to bother with gold till feudal or going to unless making milita
Watch out for TC drop.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
