Greetings. Here, a small essay:
.
INTRODUCTION
I’ll begin by saying that, when it comes to AoE2, I’ve always valued consistency in the game design. What do I mean by that? I’m not directly opposed to changing or adding things to the game, as long as those things become part of a new standard and feel cohesive within the set of rules the game follows.
This is especially important in this game, where most of the game’s logic is an abstraction of its historical setting. For example, 1 villager building a house by only hammering the ground or resources in your stockpile being directly transformed into a newly born unit; these aren’t incoherences, they’re consistent within the game logic of abstractions.
The same happens with tech trees. Some civilizations lack (or have access to) technologies or unit upgrades either as a balance decision (e.g. Spanish without Crossbow) or as an abstraction of a historical reality (e.g. Chinese Arbalesters, which do not literally represent French Arbalesters but rather proficiency in archery). Malian Arbalesters, Mongol Knights, Cuman Castles, Aztec Monasteries, everything is an abstraction.
But those abstractions are purposefully broken to make the different civs play out differently: bonuses and tech trees, and that’s what makes civilizations play different from each other.
.
A HISTORICAL RECAP
Originally, in AoK, the first version of the game that came out, with its set of civs, units, and rules, established that, when it comes to designing civilizations, those deviations from the abstraction of the game I mentioned were, with a few exceptions, a single unique unit, slight differences in tech trees, and stat differences as bonuses. An inner logic for civilization design was set, and it was overall consistent. From now on, I will refer to this consistency simply as “the consistency.”
Then The Conquerors came, and, as was common for the mindset of game developers at that time, things needed to be as flashy and cool as possible to attract customers. It didn’t matter if things went a bit crazy, a new iteration of the game would come out in a few years and everyone would leave the old AoE2 behind to play the new AoE3. With The Conquerors came the Huns, and it was decided that they would deviate from the standard design rules with a marked asymmetrical bonus, that is, not needing to build houses. But most importantly, we got the American civs, and they are, even to this day, perhaps the civs that deviate the most from the standard design .
The american civs were quite unique, but I guess it was fine; they were indeed very different from the existing civs in historical reality, especially in terms of military. The consistency was somehow broken, but at the same time, it could be understood as a redefinition: now the tech tree would be overall the same for every civ (missing one or another upgrade) as long as what’s being added is based in a marked historical reality. It woudl be insulting to give american civilizations mounted units.
And the Huns? They were nomads, so their element of asymmetry is also an abstraction of them living in yurts, right? Well, Mongols were as much nomads as Huns, but they do need houses, so it’s not a element of asymmetry based on historical reality (if it were, it should be applied globally when appropriate). It’s just an arbitrary breaking of the consistency, and we would need to deal with it. I guess it’s fine, it’s just a game, some exceptions are tolerated as long as it’s fun.
The Forgotten was mostly fine. The original Indians were a historical mess, and one might say the lack of knights is an arbitrary breaking of the consistency, but, whether the devs were aware or not, it could be understood as a historical reference to the poor tradition of horse breeding in India (something only present there and (albeit to a lesser degree) in Southeast Asia), and their preference for light cavalry, especially in the northwest. Imperial camels were a historical miss, but they were within the inner logic of the game, just an upgrade.
African Kingdoms was fine in this aspect, and Rise of the Rajas too, aside from one single thing: Battle Elephants. But, just like the american civs, it was based on a historical reality. You cannot pretend to represent elephants with any other mounted unit that is not an elephant. It’s just too much of an abstraction to be convincing… but now Indians, who were the quintessential “users” of elephants in war, lacked this unit. The justification for the inclusion of this new unit, that is, the representation of the use of battle elephants in real life, was broken as soon as it was included, because by excepting the Indians, it didn’t appropriately follow its own inner logic.
To this point, the consistency between civilization (a)symmetrical design was overall preserved: a shared tech tree, except for the Americans, who do not have horses, and elephants for those civs who used elephants in war (one could consider camels within this logic of regional units).
But then DE arrived, and along with it The Last Khans, and everything broke forever. The Steppe Lancer was the first time a non-unique unit was added without a convincing historical argument. “But… steppe lancers are historically accurate! Steppe warriors fought with lances mounted on horses!” Yes, just like every culture in the world at that time… yeah, that’s not a proper argument. The Steppe Lancer inclusion was an arbitrary deviation from the standard tech tree design just for the sake of variety and as a marketing move to make the new civs more appealing, and from now on, the same would happen again and again.
Since DE came out, the consistency broke more and more with each DLC. Burgundians introduced the first “early access” to a unique upgrade, Sicilians brought the first building replacement (donjons), Poles introduced the first upgrade replacement (the winged hussar), the folwark mechanic was something the game had never seen before (“within x tiles” effect), Romans introduced the aura mechanic, and Indian civs generalized the unique civ aspect of lacking knights to a whole game region, with Gurjaras in particular presenting a big design asymmetry compared to the game’s standard. Then came the Mountain Royals civs, with, again, another instance of a marked deviation from the standard design rules without a proper historical justification, with two unique building replacements (fortified monasteries and mule carts).
A new standard for future civilizations is now set.
.
NOW, TO THE POINT
You may think I’m saying: “Old good, new bad,” “This does not feel like AoE2,” “Stop adding mechanics.” But no, not at all. Well, perhaps we should stop with new mechanics, but that’s not the point. I’m not saying that. I’m fine with the way new civs are designed, and I’m fine with this level of asymmetry between civs. I actually enjoy playing Gurjaras and Armenians, two of the most asymmetrical civs in the game.
What I do not like is the way the consistency was broken. Are we adding new civs with new (or missing) units, buildings, and mechanics? Fine, but let’s do it for all civs, even the already existing ones. Let’s define a new inner logic for the game and be consistent with it.
They are somehow advancing in the mechanics and upgrades aspect through changes to old civs like Saracens’ Madrasa, the Savar, and Celts’ Stronghold, but it’s happening too slowly compared to the rate at which new civs are being added.
I’m especially concerned with the direction the game is taking with the apparently new “historical regions” style. You want to make India feel different from the rest of the world? The Caucasus feel different from the rest of the world? America? Fine, I’m on board. But do it for all regions. Europe should feel as different from China as the Caucasus and India. Africa (even when the two african civs are worlds apart) should definitely have a distinct feature.
Damn, it doesn’t make sense that a region like the Caucasus, which is sometimes even considered part of Europe today, feels more different than Europe compared to f**king Japan. This is what I mean when I say the consistency is broken. Everything seems arbitrary and sales-oriented. “New is different. Old is all the same. And it’s fine because new is new and old is old.”
Just as civilizations in old campaigns are updated to include the new, more appropriate civs, civilization designs should be consistent across the board, not just with new additions.
.
SOME IDEAS IN THIS REGARD
I want to illustrate what I mean with some ideas. Broad ideas, not real proposals. Don’t take them literally and keep only the intention.
Ideas:
- Redesign Mamluks and Ghulams to be a replacement for knights and cavaliers for civs that made extensive use of these units (Saracens, Turks, Persians, Tatars, Hindustanis). They would cost more gold or something like that, to represent their mercenary nature. Current UUs would be replaced with something else.
- Fire Lancers as a pre-evolution of Hand Cannoneers for East Asian civs (Mongols, Chinese, Koreans, and hypothetical Chinese DLC civs) (not my own idea).
- Cavalry archers made a regional unit for the steppe civs and civs with connections to them (that includes most of the Middle East and Eastern Europe).
- Emphasize the prevalence of Battle Elephants in SEA civs by buffing them and removing access to cavalier for those civs (this would be historically accurate).
- Something for Europe? IDK, the game is already so inspired by Western Europe that it’s difficult to come up with something unique for them. Any idea? Paladins for everyone is the only thing that comes to mind, but it’s unlikely.
.
CONCLUSION
“The game needs to be kept fresh”, paraphrasing, is a phrase I read quite often. I agree, we need ways to attract new players, keep the game financed, and we, old players, need new ways to experience the game. But in order to keep this game as the piece of art it still is, consistency must be preserved, otherwise, the game is being treated like a commercial product that needs to keep customers engaged by throwing new stuff all around. And it must not be so. Every move the devs make to change the game must be done within a framework of establishing a new paradigm, as if it were to eventually become the definitive version of the game.
Let’s keep consistency preserved and improved upon.
