[nz]

In a similar vein, Age of Empire 2 had a very interesting resource-balance that few other games have managed to replicate. With 5 resources (food, wood, gold, stone, population), and each of those resources being good for very different things (i.e. gold for stronger attack units, and stone for static defenses), and with the population being capped at 200, it presents the player with very interesting choices that have ripple-effects down the line. The sequels didn't quite manage to pull this balance off. And the dynamic is very different from other classics like Civ or Humankind, because those games about geographic control instead of worker-management.

Hoping someone undertakes a formal study of game-balance and economics in various strategy games (to help us make better games).

[annexrichmond]

Definitely. Also there are four ages in AOE, each one increasingly expensive but opens up a lot of technology. It is a big investment and doing so without much control can you leave you very vulnerable and is a key window for your opponent to attack. It’s a unique mechanic that adds a lot of strategy to the game

[nz]

Yep, which creates a first-strike/second-strike trade-off. If you have enough resources to click-up an age (or to research some tech-upgrade), you have to choose whether to do _that_, or to build up your military. If you choose the latter, you are implicitly trying to cripple/destroy your opponent before they attack you. If you succeed, then well played. But should you _fail_, you have a huge problem.

The interesting thing is that the first-striker's failure implies that the opponent had built himself up enough to survive the first strike. Which implies that their economy was not vulnerable to the first strike, and might also be capable of launching a second-strike soon.

As a kid, I never really _understood_ decisions like Pearl Harbor -- classic first-strike/second-strike tradeoff example -- until I played this game.