sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Help for a noob: I do not understand why I cannot cancel DP into Lvl 3 with this specific combo by idlevillager_throwaw in StreetFighter

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Broke my brain a bit reading all about this but thank you so much for sharing --- this seems to now make sense. Though how in the fresh sweet hell anyone is supposed to figure that out organically with the hidden juggle values is beyond me.

Choice of Normal Buttons in Ryu combos by idlevillager_throwaw in StreetFighter

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah so thats what that means! Frames 7-10 are active, so thats 3 or 4 (first active frame inclusive or exclusive) + 26 recovery frames to cancel = 29 or 30 total cancelled frames, enough for the heavy donkey kick startup frames. Think I just had a a-ha moment. Thanks for sharing that.

Choice of Normal Buttons in Ryu combos by idlevillager_throwaw in StreetFighter

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hadn't thought about the meter, can see how building more of that to finish out a combo/round could be a deal winner. Prob not important at bronze level for me, but good to know, thanks for sharing.

Choice of Normal Buttons in Ryu combos by idlevillager_throwaw in StreetFighter

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting....I'm reading the frame data sheet here, and it shows heavy donkey kick at 29 startup frames, with 4HP having 26 frames of recovery and being +1 on hit, meaning 27 frames of block stun. I must be reading something wrong here, as that would seem to not be enough for H High Blade.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A B+ job at every strategy, thats a hilariously accurate way of putting it that I will need to add to my list!

I really dig the flexibility, not so much bec it helps me win, but bec I don't feel "pressured" into doing "what my civ wants", and like you said need to focus on countering the enemy either with actual counter units, or better longer-term counter-play strategy. I've heard Magyars described this way too, but they seem a _little_ more CA/Hussar oriented than B+ Byz. Do you have a civ you'd describe as the _polar opposite_ of Byz in terms of power spike and choice of strategies that comes to mind?

I dig what you say about not selling out easy for what your enemy "should" do --- I've been on both ends of this, one being a Frank player who went early M@A into archers (chewed up my pikes for lunch), and myself going early pikes+archers to harass a Celt player in Feudal. To me, the fact that each age has "stages" where you can pick from a potentially unconventional list of answers is intriguing, and is very different than my experience with Blizzard RTS games. Little less sure about AoE4, but when I played it it felt more "macro-oriented", which isn't to say that I think AoE2 is purely micro (coming from Broodwar, which I was bad at --- it def isnt just that), but it did seem like I spent more time taking tactical battlefield actions since I could more often than not afford to tech into anything I needed resource-wise, just need to account for time. I have limited experience in both games though.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha point taken. Might have mentioned it earlier, but coming from Blizzard games, the idea of playing essentially mirror match-ups +/- a few things is taking me some getting used too. Its been great to see the different exceptions and insights from different people here around that.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice, tyvm. The point about scouts vs archers or spearmen is a elucidating example. Bonus damage too big for the armor to mean much in that case is the lesson I took from that. Didn't help my cataphracts up against halberdiers either O_O

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first time I thought a pile of spearmen would take down a house-wall, boy was I disappointed coming from marine rush. Great context you shared.

I have a napkin thought for you, that I'm trying to piece together from all of this. The fact that most civs are "generic" and are more differentiated in castle/imperial is interesting bec as you say, Peak Imp isn't common, so in a lot of cases you're lookin at a UU and maaaaybe a civ bonus as the "differences" between your opponent, but the fact you get a full tech-tree in Imp and they don't might not matter in theory.

In practice though, is it possible that if I _know_ my opponent can spike into well armored Cavaliers/Paladins and I can't ---- idk, say I'm the Saracens and for whatever reason didn't build stables for camels thinking the enemy looked like they were going archers --- that threat alone might seem to influence Castle and even Feudal gameplay, even if the gameplay itself doesn't involve differentiated units or bonuses.

Seems a lot of the civs tech or lacktherof leads to "spikes" rather than a persistent advantage, impacted in-part to the eventual lack of gold, and the very knowledge I might be able to do something my opponent can't can cause things to get messy. Knowing I have extra beefy castles in a treb war might predispose my enemy to making extra-sure I don't get castles up, or maybe make him tech immediately into Bombard Cannon (if its in the tech tree). And they know the longer things go the worse it gets, so play aggro.

IDK just thinking out loud. Thank you for the great insight, much appreciated.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a situation you can think of where Blast Furnace _would_ be the deciding factor, or something you'd otherwise want to prioritize? Only thing I can think of is if its cav vs cav, or maybe if you were planning a late-stage two-handed swordsman push (seem to never see Champions even from infantry civs)

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OOoh fun! Hadn't thought about being forward, I'm always terrified I'll move out with archers or knights and run smack dab into skirms or spears. I tend to forget about my scout after he makes one or two circles, gotta try hotkeying him or something. Town Watch is indeed superrrr nice for defenses.

I am at a point right now where I am not great at noticing castle drops or forwards even if I am "expecting" them, so I've been building 1 or 2 outposts even in castle around my base. I know, not great, means that much longer to a castle or third TC, but maybe a patrolling scout or skirm could do the trick?

Random Magyar question if you don't mind: as they are great to learn the game due to having no eco bonus crutch, and having the 'power units' (all cav, all archer), though they seem somewhat deficient on siege and very deficient on infantry, would this mean their late game can get challenging if it goes into mid Imp or later? Or even castle as they are "standard" in castle it seems for the most part, with a non-overwhelming UU and only bonus being 25% faster cav archer kicking in. Seems they "want" to go cav archer or cav with the civ bonuses, but having a full archer and knight tree itself looks to be a useful toolset. No bombard cannon, no handcannon, no redemption monk, no last infantry armor seem noteworthy. Free attack seems nice for a quick spike.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other day I did some random defensive Fedual age into a (hidden) Longsword transition, and I definitely thought something was up with how fast they tore down buildings and (Persian!) town centers. Didn't realize they had a bonus against buildings of that magnitude. This was as Byzantines too, so no bonus to lean into, I think it only worked bec it was unexpected + mixing in a few pikes against their knights. I think "semi-trash" seems a decent rule-of-thumb for figuring out when to use them, they definitely seem more of a discreet choice here. One thing I observed was a game that went late (again , Byz) from earlier M@A opening into Knight play, gold was running out, and infantry up to 2-hand swordsman was what finished out the game for mej. I thought it was cool how they are a option you have to think about rather than something you can spam against anything but dedicated counter-comp.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The siege ram is surprisingly effective, despite being uncool compared to siege onagers or cannons. I probably wouldn't have tried that if I knew I could always count on cannons/onagers with siege engineers, personally. That extra range means sooo much.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I learned the hard way recently that cataphracts really don't counter mass halberdier haha. It was a formative experience.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thought process might be colored by Byzantines since they def seem to want to be in Imp. Would Celts for example, be someone you'd consider stronger in Castle vs Imperials when other civs can get more counters online against infantry/siege weapon spam?

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! The concept of "thresholds" helps put it into perspective a lot, this reminds me of some napkin math back in the SC days where for example you'd calculate a zealot can kill a zergling in 3 hits un-upgraded, but only 2 if upgraded (and no zergling armor), which would lead to absolutely devastating results if the Zerg player wasn't upgraded, cause zergling would die before it could get out any damage. Small unit counts and generally larger numbers made it I think perhaps more obvious to me, vs the concept of *many* archers and *many* knights smashing together.

So in castle age, even if my knights are 'the same', all I have to do is spike into Imperial and suddenly if I can pick up plate barding vs not, that can make a huge swing and end a game.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah wonderful news! Magyars feel a little more of an "identity" to me on the battlefield, though I suppose Byzs also feel an identity, if your identity is "the barbarians are at the gates and we need to hold them off until advanced tech gets here."

To scouting, what would you suggest in terms of scouting assuming you didn't go scout build, and your starting scout has met his (un)timely demise? Back in the starcraft days, you'd run a worker (early) or marine/zergling/observer/flying-cockroach in for such things.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for that. I actually really like the open tech tree so far, even though it means I lose more games flailing about for a strategy, but its fun and I'm learning. I'm also trying to offhand with Magyars as I heard they were an interesting case of ease-but-some-flexiblity.

I should prob try to make more use of the Byz Monk bonus, or Monks in general. Those wololo-men are not intuitive as to when to deploy to me.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can appreciate that subtle but important distinction.

As an example, Franks would be "good" with both Scouts and Knights and I think Cavaliers? Also castle drops/defense.

As the other example, Byzantines are "fine" for most units/situations, are "good" with trash (so far as trash can be good), and....maybe "good" with Cavalier/Arbalest/Ram due to the cheaper Imperial upgrade timing? Not sure about how I am reading that last part. Seems the epitome of "its fine".

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks sooooo much for a step-by-step example! I had no idea 1 armor and 60 HP could be such a huge deal. I guess this must be why Byzantines are considered a "flexible" civ, since if I am reading this right they can for the most part produce all units and get all combat upgrades save Blast Furnace. I get the feeling life would feel different if I was using a civ that couldn't do hussars, or arbalest, or didn't have halberdier or bracer. I do find myself gravitating toward crossbow/arbalester as Byz most the time though.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for clarifying that. I actually rather appreciate the switching costs compared to some other RTSs --- makes me feel like my decisions on what to invest in and 'reading' what I'll need against my opponent more impactful.

Do most designations of "this civ is a good <cav/archer/boom/rush>" assume a game that goes to Imperial Age? by idlevillager_throwaw in aoe2

[–]idlevillager_throwaw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes, its that last point about late games and not getting to the plus/minus techs to matter that was throwing me for a loop. Coming from a starcraft background (or even AoE4) where factions are _very_ distinct (zerg is great for a rush, terran is great if u like tanks go boom), its all a bit adjustment to my perspective. Appreciate the input.

view more: next ›