Age I and Age II were to suddenly merge? Who would come out on top?
*Note* This is a continuation of the little debate we had going on in Atul's thread in Screenshots section.

Some of the finer points brought up:

Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
Oh good. Then please feel free to talk smack with pride.


I thought you were an Age 2 player trying to talk smack to an Age 1 guy.

A) If all Age 1 player's were suddenly forced into current Age 2 servers with current Age 2 players, there would be a fairly even battle.

B) If all Age 2 player's were suddenly forced into current Age 1 servers with current Age 1 players, the Age 1 players would utterly crush the Age 2 players that would not be ready for the much more hardcore nature of Age 1.
Quote Originally Posted by acer5200 View Post
Ok, just like Rota said. If Age I players were sent to an Age II server with all their stuff, it'd be pretty equal.

If Age II players were sent to an Age I server, with all their troops and hero's they'd be massacred. Sure, you have 30m warriors and 9m arch, but what happens when you run out of food in 5 second because refuge is back? That entire army is gone, and you need to build up from scratch. Also, most Age II players have what? 0 food? Insta-refuge. Lastly, most Age II players rely on Facebook to do everything for them. Free ammys, free speech texts, etc etc etc. Guess what? Age I has none of this.
Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
I have every confidence that the best Age 2 players can be as good as any Age 1 player, eventually. But, if someone only has experience in Age 2, then they would be on the same level as a player barely out of BP in Age 1. I stand by statement...

The Age 2 players can grow to compete with the Age 1 players. But, at the moment of this hypothetical forced merge, the Age 2 players would be slaughtered. They would not be ready for the farming, and the double upkeep, and they would not have the benefit of boundless FB bonuses. Certainly, a rare few Age 2 players would handle themselves. But, the percent of the total would be in the low single digits.

The Age 2 player may be just as good of a "gamer" in real life. But, their experience just simply would not translate into immediate success in Age 1.
Quote Originally Posted by Satan View Post
Rota, I highly disagree with you. First of, Age II players have a far bigger army than any other Age I players. I don't understand why Age II is viewed as soft. Everyone's highly generic comments about Age II is getting kind of annoying.
Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
1) How big would Age 1 armies be in comparison if Age 1 had no refuge? They would be absolutely obscene, even with twice the upkeep.
2) Age 2 players are used to a mountain of freebies with all the FB gifts.

I think free gifts, and no refuge are the two biggest reasons Age 2 players are considered soft (Also the "no attack button" on some servers). It's not really that Age 2 players ARE soft, because they aren't. They are simply softer than Age 1 players, it's like comparing granite and chalk. Both are solid stone, but one is clearly more hardened than the other.


And as I said before, my statement does not apply to Age 1 veterans that are now Age 2 players, like you. So, there's no reason for you to take that statement personally.

I believe the gaming experience in Age 1 lends itself to expeditious success in Age 2. But, I don't think experience the gaming experience of Age 2 lends itself to rapid success in Age 1.
So... any extra thoughts you guys have on this?