How do YOU play the game?

Screw "meta". Isn't meta a lack of diversity? The idea that there needs to be a "meta" is part of the problem!


I don't play because tech levels.

No because there should be diverse meta available. There's a meta by definition.

Meta changes over time, as it does with any game or sport that constantly changes the rules.

Now chess, chess doesn't have a meta, because the meta was taken down a dark ally over the last...2000 years? and savagely beaten apart and rended a normal strategy, nothing more, nothing less.

The problem with a meta, is that it takes advantage of a newly developed tactic the people haven't figured a way to beat yet.

But war is kinda like that.

Ok..

My understanding of meta was that it was the overarching strategy. And applied to an RTS it would be the balance of economic, military and scientific spending.

A meta strategy will always exist. Even Chess has one - the objective of capturing the enemy king.

And the way people play chess has constantly evolved, with differing focuses in play.

My understanding of a 'good meta' is that PA would offer several different playstyles for players to adopt and still have a viable chance of winning against their opponents.

Essentially, the preference of the majority of players might be invest all your resources into research. But economic builds or militaristic builds would also be viable options for your opponents to pursue, or any combination of the 3 build types.

Im sure there are more than 3. I just think in base 3.

"Meta" is the macro game. One of the big selling points of PA was the focus on macro over micro, so PA should depend much more on people playing a strong meta-game than other games do.

i would play both SP and MP, but lately i am playing Age of War 3

Ruse is a great game, i played and finished the Single player campaign 3 times
and Civ 5, is awesome, i like playing as either the Americans, or the Arabs.
Vs 8 to 12 civilizations