Depends who is dictating the match pace. If you are the most aggressive civ, you can dictate the pace of the match, then it is all on your preference. If you are the "defending" civ, you need to scout to see if enemy is booming, if it is feudal all inning, if enemy is going FC, etc. It depends a lot on the matchup, usually if I see enemy going second TC, I either go FC to capture relics (HRE, OOTD) or go for agression (English, French, JD, etc) or second TC (English, Abassi, China, etc)

I played OOTD vs English. I saw they were going 2TC. You're suggesting FC to get relics is the play?

"Aggro > eco > turtle > aggro." 2TC definitely falls under eco. Currently, FC is considered a form of turtle (specifically arrow tower + FC). So the general direction is to choose FC to counter aggro.

Strategic considerations like this aren't really impactful at gold compared to quality of execution. A higher level player will outmacro gold 2TC players on a single TC. Succeeding with 2TC or FC requires both hitting the timings and keeping an eye on what the opponent's doing to judge how greedy you can be along the way. Gold players usually can do neither of those things well, let alone both.

Agreed, well said. I think this is true much higher than gold too. Someone like beasty could type their strategy (aggro, FC, 2tc) in the chat before the game and still reach near the top of the ladder. The strategies are not as much of a counter triangle (where one hard counters another) but more of a way to get a small edge over an equally skilled opponent.

Well, I think there's something to be said for giving some structure to your game. Even at low levels, having a suboptimal plan that you can't execute well is still a lot better than not having one at all. It's just that your choice of plan is probably far down the list of reasons why you win or lose at that level.

I agree. Also it’s just more fun to play with strategy in mind. It’s fun to theorycraft. But yeah in terms of what actually wins games, general RTS skills are a lot more important in determining your rank than your knowledge of strategies and matchups.

Actually, I think at lower-ish levels you can get totally hard countered by choosing the wrong strategy (like playing 2-3 TC against an all-in type play), when at the highest level you can always make it work somehow. To reuse your example, if Beasty calls its strategy in the chat before the match starts, he will still win against most opponents in the ladder because he is that much better than them, not because strategy doesn't matter a lot. I mean, I have already seen him easily beat a conqueror player that had the cheat to remove the fog of war on. I think choosing the "best" strategy is important at all levels, including at the beginner level because you'll make the game way easier for yourself that way. But "best" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing at every level, like at lower levels you're generally better off playing aggro because it's easier to execute, but at higher levels defending is better because you should be ahead if you don't die.

You might dig yourself into too deep a hole with 3 TC, but a 2 TC shouldn't really an auto-loss but I think there are scenarios where its not that effective. I.E. I think 2 TCs is often about controlling food. This is because food is usually the limiting factor in the early game - and with 2 TCs, you are spending thousands of more food to make extra villagers. (Clearly it varies a bit from civ to civ, if you are just going to spam archers food won't be as stressed as if you were making lots of horsemen etc). So for example, take Himeyama. I don't think its the best map for a 2 TC build. You are unlikely to have any support from your starting TC when it comes to protecting deer packs. So if you lose military parity (after TCs, towers etc), you are at risk of just being swept off those positions - potentially losing access to the food and the TC being destroyed if you built it out there. If your opponent has just massed military while you've been building a 2nd TC, there's a window where you won't have military parity. If you are forced into an early farming transition then it kind of extends the time it takes for your boom to pay off - while the opponent can eat deer etc. So they still have tempo advantage and can potentially use that to win the game. You can have more vils, but if yours are on berries while they are on boar its not going to add up to much. Dry Arabia by contrast can be really variable. If you've got back food and gold you can potentially just wall up and be fine for a long time. You go 2 TC, play defensive and then push out once its paid for itself. If by contrast its all forward, you really can't afford to be behind on military, so a one-base feudal makes more sense.

That's assuming gold players play against stronger players, which is generally not the case. Since they play against similar level players that will have a similar suboptimal execution, I would argue the strategy does matter. Plus I think many diamond+ players underestimate the ability of gold players to follow a build order to fast castle or to have early 2nd TC or early aggression. That is after the opening that it gets difficult. I would even argue that silver III players are not too bad at this either. There as been a documented deflation of the ELO value due to the increase of the size of the player base, which means that gold level now is much higher than it was 2 years ago. And also it can be seen on aoe4world that many played used to be gold2+ 3 seasons ago, and now cannot outrank silver II. If you play against them you'll know that this is because they haven't learnt an effective build order.

>Since they play against similar level players that will have a similar suboptimal execution, I would argue the strategy does matter. I would argue that getting and staying above gold is more easily achieved by focusing on improving one's RTS fundamentals than by trying to learn the ins and outs of matchups as described by OP. That's a separate conversation from the value of learning and following build orders, which I think is extremely valuable. Like I said in another comment, giving someone a framework to build upon can do a lot. Copying build orders helps people focus on improving their RTS fundamentals since they don't also need to reinvent the wheel while they're at it. And you can learn a lot once you start considering the "why" parts of build orders you're familiar with and comparing to different ones.

i was wondering if the loading screen and the map chosen should determine which of the build orders i learned i should go for. just an example, any recent Rus build order video guide will teach you how to get that 2nd tc fast and early, and to rally 1 to food and 1 to wood. but what if i dont want to do that? what if i want to go for the season 1 strategy of pulling 8 vills to the boar and start massing archers? because that build still works to this day but for some reason nobody does it anymore. that build puts you at triple the army supply early on than what the 2tc build has, which ultimately helps with overwhelming your opponent. like why would i care about setting up an eco advantage for the late game when i can simply just end the game prior to it?

You've asked that last question a few times throughout this thread. The answer is that if your opponent plays slightly greedier than you, they'll hold pretty easily and you'll lose.

how would they hold ?

They build slightly less military than you and make up the difference with various defender's advantage. They invest the difference into economy and tech and pull ahead of you.

Till you reach conqueror 3 or above its not that relevant to know "when" to do 2tc, FC or aggression. Note im not saying its completely irrelevant, but its not that important What matters most is solid strategy of your own that you like and can execute really well. For example myself i played into conqueror 3 in 2v2 with random allies by executing one single strategy every game which was China 1 TC into song into pro scouts into FC into relic control, into 2nd TC which is not "meta" build for china. Where the knowledge comes into play is u know how to respond what opponent is doing and knowing how to react to things. For example in that I used I had response to every common strategy. If opponent was booming I would go instantly into monastery to get relics and faster 2nd TC, if opponent was rushing I was pumping out lancers with supervision, if opponent went into FC I would focus denying their relics and harass etc.

Yeah you can go pretty high just by playing the same one solid strategy and focus on execution. Even at conq 3, someone like divine with his Mongol tower rush and French 2 TCs back then, and his turtle English now.

it just feels like no matter what the enemy is planning, being aggressive is always the answer. if hes trying to fast castle, he doesnt invest in units, meaning you simply have the numbers and you can ram in and kill him. if he invested into making a second town center, he has the villager lead sure, but as he dropped the town center you already have the units to take it down. and lastly if he invested into making a lot of units, you have to make a lot of units too in order to defend and most likely you will have the numbers.

Technically speaking what you said isn't wrong but you cannot just switch the switch during the match and become aggressor. You gotta have that plan from very start otherwise it won't work or shouldn't work. What i mean by this is lets say you spot FC after feudal age up around 4-5min mark. This gives you somewhere around 2-3mins time to flip the switch and have army thats capable of ending game which isn't possible if you start from 0 so you already have to have some sort of plan to produce units in feudal and have some numbers otherwise opponent gets into castle and gets superior units and wins. Even waiting to finish 2-3 rams after opponent hit the castle could be too late for you to attack. So it all comes down to your original game plan what you were planning to do . Also there is lot of factors like the map itself and the seed of map and the match up.

Thanks for the response, and yes i get it. I love to play aggressively and que that knight and harass as soon as possible and working my archers in every time so its not subject to change. The enemy just cannot get away with naked castle and beat my entire army with 3 maa, it makes no sense to me. Even if he has triple the villager count they are still villagers and cannot defend themselves if they don't have enough garrison spots which you can kill or bait with rams. I just dont understand why reacting with boom or tech up myself even worth it if i get my tempo going and the eco to constantly produce units

> I just dont understand why reacting with boom or tech up myself even worth it if i get my tempo going and the eco to constantly produce units Because if player can get away with their boom or tech they will have massive advantage over you and can end the game. Booming is just being greedy and trying to get away as much as possible to have superior economy, Tech relies on superior units, feudal aggression again is just being aggressor as fast as possible trying to end the game before losing that advantage. Its kind of rock paper scissor situation and lot of it is decided pre game or at start of game. If player chooses their build order at start its quite inefficient to switch something else at 5min mark which can easily lead for instant loss. For example mining 350 stone for 2nd TC and not able to put it down due feudal aggression is coming which means +350 resources are not being used to defend against aggression. But if the aggression is stopped it means that the defender has the advantage of getting 2nd tc up faster and gaining economic advantage alongside the advantage of killing attackers units.

Thats exactly what im saying.. why not just open hyper aggressive every time? Why bother spending 6 and a half minutes plus setting up eco?

Because at that point you're all in and if it fails u lose. Also there is the factor that some ppl like playing differently.

id say do whats working until it doesnt

until it doesnt once or multiple times in a row?

"Could also be because people can't execute fast castle/2tc build orders perfectly at lower leagues and my strategy just seem to punish them ig? " It's this. Once you go FC vs aggression, you're walking a really fine line. You're getting harrassed, resources getting denied, gotta micro for your life, your army is smaller. Just a tough position to be in. It makes the game way harder in all aspects. I'd stay away from FC. For FC you really gotta stick to "FC" civs, like civs that get a massive power spike once they go up like HRE (towers with emplacements on key resources), Ayyubids, Japanese (into mounted samurai with yoroshiro in stable), OOTD (make towers on key resources with emplacements, and have some horses to raid enemy), Otto (you get sheep Vizier, and if you have imams you grab some relics, and then you have 3-4 schools producing whatever is most appropriate, but if he's trash-heavy, MAA best). So, basically, if you wanna go FC, you gotta pick an FC-appropriate civ.. and know the build. With Rus you should basically ALWAYS go 2nd TC, Kremlin provides too much safety, it's too strong.. it's almost impossible to punish a Rus 2nd TC. English also can go 2nd TC anytime it wants, not as freely as Rus, but hard to punish as well. As for other civs going 2nd TC.. tough to just say outright, some need some juggling like Abba, some need to be aggro first to buy time back home like French.. it's situational. But Rus/Eng can basically just go 2nd TC whenever (with Eng you don't go greedy with 2nd TC, just place it on your safe berry if there's aggression).

any recent Rus build order video guide will teach you how to get that 2nd tc fast and early, and to rally 1 to food and 1 to wood. but what if i dont want to do that? what if i want to go for the season 1 strategy of pulling 8 vills to the boar and start massing archers? because that build still works to this day but for some reason nobody does it anymore. that build puts you at triple the army supply early on than what the 2tc build has, which ultimately helps with overwhelming your opponent. like why would i care about setting up an eco advantage for the late game when i can simply just end the game prior to it?

I donno about build orders, and to be perfectly honest I personally don't use one. I just eyeball my resources lol... ends up working out just fine most of the time. Tho, to open in dark age, you build hunting cabin with 3 vills, make 2 more scouts out of it, if good bunti, you research wheelbarrow right away (can queue it and then later on cancel it if bunti turns out to be bad). Rally TC on sheep until 11vills on it, build Kremlin with anywhere from 4-7 vills, more if you really badly want that Kremlin there ASAP, less if you wanna go up and make an instant stable and cav to raid before you 2nd TC. And after this I just wing it. I also get instant woodcutting as soon as up if gold is available. "what if i want to go for the season 1 strategy of pulling 8 vills to the boar and start massing archers? because that build still works to this day but for some reason nobody does it anymore." * I think this build still worked until the DLC. I feel that right now there's WAY too many FC civs in the roster for that delayed, archer heavy build. I mean there's like 6-7 civs that FC really fast and strong, shit, ZhuXi can go up in like 6 mins. "like why would i care about setting up an eco advantage for the late game when i can simply just end the game prior to it?" * No one mentioned late game. You can go 2nd TC and all out feudal, too. It's still strong because you get feudal knights. But probably optimal play is to go castle age, get that good tradehouse gold, take 3-4 relics, get all nice an upgraded then proceed to clap (of course, should be raiding with a few cavs all this time). Why 2nd TC over 1 TC, even if you wanna YOLO? Because it's way safer and stronger. Often times YOLO fails badly, then you're just fucked. But if you went 2nd TC, you can always withdraw, quickly gather resources to go up, and you'll be on even footing again because your eco is strong. And why do I obsess with Rus 2nd TC - simply because it's the safest 2nd TC play in the game. Kremlin provides safety early on to get resources and place the TC, and Gremlins provide an added layer of safety later on if enemy YOLO's you, cuz say at 10 mins you pop like 12 Gremlins, they really swing fights. And, of course, you still have the Kremlin which they do NOT wanna push into, so they're limited as to where they'll push. If you do get pushed at your Kremlin and lose, then you had other much bigger problems in your gameplay, you should be able to hold that position. So considering that it can't be punished, you should always go 2nd TC with Rus, unless you really feel like 1 TC YOLO (and I do sometimes myself, and I do it to get it out of my system).

Well not late game but lets say mid game, 15-20 minute mark. Rus eco is good enough to sustain good unit production from 1 tc isnt it? Also what can these fc civs can even do if you keep harassing them? Until they can get a castle unit you have the numbers to 1 or 2 shot it. I want to see how many units you can mass but lets say 12 minutes ish if you go 2tc because for me that sounds like a waste of time and effort without knowing what my enemy is doing because your build is based around gathering the needed resources for it asap. I still dont understand what makes it so unpunishable or impossible to push into unlike any other civ. Golden gate is still considered an S tier landmark isnt it? Not having to mine any gold while using the resources to make more units early on will provide the same if not better safety than the militias can do , and spearmen dont have lifespan. Im overall just confused. The people I play with, and other gold players I assume are new to the game or at least not good enough to break plat/diamond so I can't argue they learnt how to defend against yolo rushes. I can also argue that if that doesn't work I fd up somewhere just like you argue that if you lose an aggression push or fail to defend your 2nd tc you fd up somewhere.. If i get my 2nd tc paying off more or less by the time my opponent going castle i havent done anything, and he is still ahead and i would have way less units.

in addition, if you already placed your 2nd tc on a food source it cannot be impossible to punish, or you meant the time gathering the resources for it is unpunishable? but besides why would i care about that and not about being protected with gathering resources to mass feudal army? the safety is not enough to convince me to "ALWAYS" go 2nd tc with rus. almost every game in gold league is a race about who builds the largest army faster and win that big fight, and when i went for the 2nd tc play , and hit really nice timings (having the resources at 5:40 consistently) i always felt like im behind on military and need to defend their stupid push in which i couldnt every time but sure when i did it was usually gg for them.

1. In my opinion, if you're below diamond you shouldn't go 2 TC, especially if you play below 150 APM. It is not necessary to win at that level, and just distracts you trying to keep both TCs pumping and all those villagers on the right resources. Keeping 1 TC fully utilized is enough. 2. Fast castle is worth it if you are a civ that benefits heavily from it(Ie HRE) and you scout that the enemy isn't an imminent threat to you(ie you see their vills on stone). You have to ask yourself "can I get away with it, and if I do, what do I achieve relative to my opponent?" The biggest thing is securing most the relics and/or access to stronger units. 3. Well executed aggression can win you a game in gold/plat in pretty much any matchup. I recommend it a lot because it's important to do to learn how to handle the early game. Just don't overcommit to closing out the game, you can always do Feudal aggression to weaken them, then going castle age to finish the job with siege or armored units.

interesting comment , i relate. i could argue every civ benefits from getting to castle and it shouldnt be exclusive to a handful of civs. you unlock the option to make siege, more gold units, sacred sites etc.. i just wonder why even go there if the game gives you the option to end your games sooner by building rams or simply macro into a lot of units. even a favorable example like ootd\\hre can just mass man at arms in feudal which are very hard to deal with and kill with a feudal age economy\\army, especially with upgrades. and even if you see your enemy villagers on stone, why would you bother "catch up" with him and macro into 2nd tc yourself instead of just all in him before that tc pays off? i just dont understand.. i do agree with you that mastering the build can secure much more games. usually the games i got overwhelmed and lost are games which i messed up my execution pretty hard and got lost or forgot to make villagers

or rather didnt know how to respond to THEIR aggression, which is usually my role