PFFFt. No. The fact that you somehow can’t read these units with unique skins and or common skins is a YOU issue , not an Age 3 issue.
2 Likes
If you were being sincere in your message, a single glance at my activity (admittedly fairly low-key) on the forum would have stopped you from writing nonsense.
You seem to be taking the stance of an AoE3 player defending his toy against some nasty AoE2 player (which isn’t my case). You aimed so badly it’s almost laughable…
If you had read me correctly, you would have understood that I was pointing out the lack of readability not because information about the unit is missing, as you seem to be trying to correct me on, but precisely because there’s too much of it. At the very least, I’d rework the unit’s stats panel so the key stats are visible at a glance.
Playing isn’t enough for everyone, habit doesn’t cancel the problem!
I don’t understand why you seem so eager to turn this into an attack on me. I knew the opinion I was voicing wasn’t very popular on this forum, but is one still allowed to express an opinion without being criticized for having one that isn’t well-liked?
It might seem that way because..it is and they do have that reputation; I didn’t assume you were one of them (not that I think they are actually nasty), it’s just that I have a gut reaction when I read “readability”.
So…
?
1 Like
This comes across like you’re just reading AI summaries and taking them at face value. How could the Seminoles have stopped using bows in the 17th century if they didn’t coalesce into a distinct people group prior to the 18th century?
You do have a point that giving them firearms would be accurate, however there is also a reasonable basis for the existing Sharktooth Bowman:
- Shark tooth arrows were a real thing used by the Seminoles (I previously linked the comment saying they are depicted in the book The encyclopedia of Native American Bows, Arrows, and Quivers). This is a noteworthy weapon which is exactly the kind of thing that gets picked up for a unique unit.
- Seminoles are an amalgam of several different peoples, some of which are famous for their archery. They’re mostly Muscogee and Cimarones, but they also would have absorbed the remnants of other tribes that inhabited Florida. One of those tribes is the Timucua who were proficient archers that used shark tooth arrows. The following excerpt is from one of the members of the de Soto expedition.
- If every native used the most common historical weapon, there’d be verry little of the variation you’re claiming they’d bring. Giving Seminoles guns would make them the exact same as the Cherokee Rifleman and you’d have no variation on the maps in which they both appear.
With all that in mind, I think that makes Sharktooth Bowmen the superior option when compared with a generic rifleman.
2 Likes
You’re right; the most sensible approach would be for an archer unit to coexist with a rifleman unit at the Seminole trading post. In fact, that’s exactly what I was working on—verifying details about the native units—when I came across the very thing you mentioned. That’s why I updated the images of the Seminole units as well as those of other native units.
Even so, the “Shark Archer” unit in the game looks nothing like a real Seminole archer; therefore, the Seminole archer unit’s appearance would need to be changed regardless, in addition to adding a new rifleman unit.
P.S.: The Cherokee Musketeer also needs an update; these peoples originally began wearing clothing after the first Europeans settled in the 16th century, following the establishment of the arms and fur trade. The Cherokee villagers also need updating, as they currently have the appearance of European colonists, which is strangely inaccurate. From my perspective, giving all Native characters a “barbaric,” unclothed look feels somewhat offensive, considering that during the colonization of the Americas, these indigenous tribes chose to modernize their attire—switching from loincloths to trousers and shirts. I therefore don’t understand the developers’ insistence on portraying the natives at trading posts as scantily clad, barbaric, and unconventional—as if they never wore clothes or moccasins—when the reality was quite the opposite following the arrival of Europeans on the continent.
No, they aren’t going to put two light infantry in the same native site. Especially when the other native they overlap with also have light infantry.
What is the issue? This looks a lot like the pictures you posted. I guess they could add a gorget to really match the profile picture, but that’s really nitpicking.
2 Likes
I don’t have an issue with the scope expanding beyond the colonization of the Americas but holy smokes have they overloaded the game with Euro maps. It is a bit overkill to have 3 separate maps covering Heligoland. It is extra annoying when even the upcoming maps not set in Europe are full of royal houses and European outlaws.
2 Likes
Blockquote It might seem that way because..it is and they do have that reputation; I didn’t assume you were one of them (not that I think they are actually nasty), it’s just that I have a gut reaction when I read “readability”.
Age of Empires 4 is known for having good readability. That’s a good thing. Still, I’m very critical of the hidden intent behind it (attracting a mainstream audience), as well as of the execution, which makes the units feel very unrealistic and the miniature buildings hard to believe. Readability isn’t a dirty word, and it can be well thought out too.
Blockquote just because you don’t care to read
It’s precisely because I often check the stats that I can clearly see how “tedious” it can be. Don’t assume I’m a new player, you’d be wrong again…
What in the hell are you talking about?
The game where every siege unit is an undifferentiated wooden box? Or the one that has units with very different roles like horsemen/lancers and zhuge nu/crossbowmen with visually indistinguishable weapons?
Despite the claims, having comically oversized weapons and no siege operators doesn’t actually improve readability whatsoever.
2 Likes
Huh?
It’s precisely what i criticized.
Despite the claims, having comically oversized weapons and no siege operators doesn’t actually improve readability whatsoever.
Unfortunately it does, quite noticeably even, but I’m not in favor of that kind of thing since it hurts immersion. Don’t let your hatred of AoE4 blind you. I dislike it just as much as you do.
The lack of siege crews definitely worsens readability. The only indicator of player control is a muted splash of paint so it’s hard to even tell what team the unit is on without a uniformed crew. A crew also conveys information such as reload progress and packing up for movement so removing them means less information can be gleaned at a glance.
Oversized weapons will help you sort out ranged and melee units. But when vastly different units use the exact same weapons making them bigger doesn’t add clarity. Consistent weapon functions are key for clarity and AoE4 doesn’t even attempt that. Horsemen cary a lance just like a lancer despite not having a lance charge attack. If the game actually prioritized clarity, horsemen would be using swords and clubs to differentiate them.
1 Like
He always does that. Like people always praise about how much “rigor” he has for historical representation. But his work is, at best, pedantic and nitpicky and more often than not, as you realized, he’s just parroting AI slop.
There’s little rigor to what he does, it’s just that he posts reference images (half the time it’s AI slop) and he speaks authoritatively, so the fact that he rarely knows what he’s talking about is less overt.
Like even the reply to your post where he says the unit ingame doesn’t represent “authentic” attire shows the same exact type of attire the unit ingame uses. An absolute lack of critical thinking and interpretation of sources. Deeply unserious individual.
3 Likes
It’s no big deal; sooner or later, a Native American rework is bound to happen, given that more of us want to see AoE III improved in a—how should I put it—positive way. Usually, it’s the same three people who always oppose game updates; most of the time, they try to discredit the topic being discussed and make negative comments. Even when one researches and verifies actual historical records, you always say no and reject any attempt to improve the game—going so far as to claim I use AI, even though all the images I upload come from internet forums dating back years, long before AI existed. Anyway, everyone has their own point of view; you discredit forum members and refuse any changes, whereas others act more positively by accepting visual improvements—whether for units or technologies—in AoE III.
1 Like
I don’t get this reasoning. The 2023 visual changes were generally well received. One of Danes main strengths is their wide variety of royal guard units, allowing flexibility in unit choices and composition.
Regarding confusion with units, I don’t understand how a regular player will have a hard time understanding a unit’s role. Especially for the European civs.
For example, all Musketeers in AoE3 are going to have some sort of variation in regard to their stats regardless of how they look visually, even the regular musketeers. This is because each civilization has different cards/upgrades that effect these units.
A player will be able to tell what unit is what just by clicking on them. Beyond that, all Musketeers will usually follow the same general model, walking animations, etc. Anyone who’s played the game will be able to learn the general template of a AoE3 musketeer: heavy infantry ranged unit that is good against cavalry in melee and does a form of goose-stepping for their animations.
See the fully upgraded British Redcoats Musketeer:
Portuguese Legionario Musketeer
I can tell these are musketeers no problem.
What about skirmishers? Same deal. They mostly all share the same template, stance, walking animations, etc. They are light infantry ranged units effective against heavy infantry and light cavalry. They have stat variations and may look different, but their role remains the same.
Regular Imperial Skirmisher
German Needler Gunner:
All Euro pikemen units wield their pikes the same way!
Regular Imperial Pikemen
Swedish Dalkarl Pikeman
I don’t want to keep going and include a bunch of Euro artillery and cavalry variations. You get the point.
There are some exceptions like how Caroleans are effective against cavalry at range and some of the units for the Asian/Native/African civs might have unique combat animations. Shock infantry might be confusing for newer players. However, their visual looks don’t really change their main role. Stats do.
5 Likes
I partly agree with you, but stop focusing on small details, because even if what you’re saying is true, it barely changes how readable the game is overall.
And if you can spot the problems you’re talking about in a game that’s actually more readable than the one before it, how come you can’t spot the ones in Age of Empires 3, where there are tons of them?
It’s more of an overall direction the developers have taken, rather than problems specific to AoE3, which is to add as much content as possible (in that sense they’re pretty generous, but sometimes it comes at the cost of quality). But why keep piling on assets, adding more skins/abilities/hybrid roles for units and so on, if none of it gets organized, made consistent, and properly identified afterward? (And I’m afraid the upcoming DLC won’t prove me wrong.) There’s a sentence who say “when you add, you take away.” More unique assets added, and less readability left. In my opinion, it’s time to build on everything that’s already been made, to make it all more consistent, clearer, and easier to understand.
1 Like
I made no mention of AoE3’s readability, my point was merely that AoE4 is a terrible benchmark for aesthetics and readability. I would say overall, AoE3 is more readable than AoE4 due to more rigid conventions of weapon types and unit stances while not sacrificing on aesthetics. Though this has been slipping with some of the new content.
However, this is not simply because they have unique skins. Those are fine as long as they follow established conventions. The problem is new unit types like “counter-skirms” that have a radically different role from light infantry, but nothing at to differentiate them visually. Melee shock infantry are also pretty confusing, but are unfortunately somewhat of a necessary evil to give a lot of civs a cavalry equivalent.
1 Like
Lets be honest, the game support was cancelled and by some strange decision, the DLC was finally released. We don’t know if it will be the last DLC, if we will get any patch or on the contrary we will have yearly DLCs.
3 Likes
Don’t worry, something tells me there will be more content. I have a good feeling about it, believe me.
1 Like