[Anonymous Player]

In real-time strategy (RTS) games, there is a trend for developers to create certain civilizations that require a slow playing style, defensively building up until they reach their peak in the late game and become nearly invincible.

In contrast, there are other civilizations that require an aggressive approach but will fall off in strength in the late game.

This design is meant to create a contest of skill, but often results in an unengaging experience where the aggressive player attacks but is ultimately shut out by the defensive player, who then wins easily once they reach their late-game peak.

While this approach may balance skill levels for matchmaking, it can feel like a boxing match where one fighter is unable to land a punch for the first three rounds but is then declared the winner in round four.

It is boring and unfulfilling for the attacking player, who may simply move on to find a more engaging opponent.

Unfortunately, the imbalance between civilizations can also create frustration for players who choose a weaker option and are easily defeated by a stronger one.

There is no easy solution to this issue, as balancing the game and making it engaging for everyone is a complex task.

However, game developers could consider adjusting the power levels of certain civilizations to make them more equal, providing players with a more engaging experience regardless of their preferred play style.

[the_juice_is_zeus]

I’m not sure it’s super fun for the aggro person to have their big rush totally shut down.

And as a slower player, I get a lot of satisfaction out of being able to fend off a push and then send a scary counter attack into their base.

Sure I don’t watch every single building go down if they resign early, but my strategy paid off and looking at the post-game map helps round out the satisfaction

[WombozM]

Both sides are under pressure, one has to do damage while he can to win and the other has to sustain that damage to win.

Its a 50/50.

Theres also agro vs agro or defensive vs defensive matches which are more flexible in which you can play differently.

There are certain match ups where a civ might counter another but ultimately its up to skill, mind games and decision making that win games.

Theres also nothing wrong with just starting another game, its just the way the dice rolls.

[Unbridledscum]

The maps are random and there are a lot of different civ matchups.

IF everyone played random civ on Arabia then you’ve got a 0.057% chance of any given matchup.

Then, the players are different and the map generation is different.

A savvy player will figure out what the possible paths to success are going to be, so in that sense you’re right that a player with a civ that shines in late imperial is going to try to get there with the minimum amount of effort.

But they do still need to get there and arrive in a stronger position than their opponent.

You’re suggesting it’s sort of a foregone conclusion, like all you need are the techs and you’re guaranteed to win.

It’s a bit like saying Persians get war elephants so once they get 200 of those they probably win isn’t it?

[SheAllRiledUp]

No this is good game design.

The aggressor by proxy has the advantage in the sense that you force decisions and break up game plans.

The only advantage you get as a defender is that your buildings are closer to the action and you can produce nearby / have TC cover fire too.

Often when I see newer players complain about aggressive play not working it’s one of two things going wrong.

First, they are probably not adapting their aggression to the map (hybrid / water / closed require different things).

Second, and much more commonly and much more overlooked, the aggro player doesn’t identify the proper aggro play for the situation.

They will scout and see tight walls and commit to scout rush anyway when they should be doing archers + towers.

Or they will see the enemy trying to full wall early and go for the slower archer play when they should drush or scout rush.

They also don’t know which resources to deny and kind of just go in looking for general damage and vil kills.

If your opponent wants to play scouts take them off of berries with a drush.

If they want to play archers, hit their gold or their wood if you can manage it.

Then you need to scale your aggression to castle age and set up forward siege or castle drops.

The aggressor ALWAYS has map priority in mid game unless they made a big fat mistake somewhere.

You can use that to do a number of things, like taking relics, building a forward castle with siege, or stone walling and expanding your base.

I mean, are you really going to tell me aggressive civs don’t work when in pro play you can just watch Lierrey make people tap out in castle age?

[Author]

Posts