Age of Empires 5 should go back to the Colonial Era

After of Empires 5 should go back to the same time era as Age of Empires 3 but with the map sizes of Age of Empires 2 and with the ease of making custom maps and campaigns like in AoE 2. Obviously, I can’t compare it to AoE 4 since it isn’t out yet. Also, unlike AoE 3, the campaigns of AoE5 would be based off of historical battles and events like in AoE 2 and AoE 3. Another thing that should be addressed is what is considered to be ‘woke’ changes by some in the AoE community in AoE 3 DE. Colonial Age to Commerce Age (Commerce Age is completely made up) and changing the Colonial Militia to the Revolutionary Militia. I have heard many players are not buying the game due to changes like these. Age of Empires is a historical game (while still being fun and fair) and should not try and push any alleged agenda/narrative. They removed Crazy Horse in the Definitive Edition and replaced him with a character’s random uncle. Obviously, not all the changes are bad. The game should get people interested in the time period.

The idea of the game of AoE 3 and AoE 5 is one set in the Colonial Era. You have home shipments that come from the mother country because the player has set up a colony in another country. The Colonial Era and names should not be changed/censored because a few players got offended by the historical names. The AoE 5 campaigns should be historical and accurate. It should show the good and bad of the time period between 1492 and 1876, (the earliest and latest year in the game according to Wikipedia for AoE 3)

Things I would like to see from AoE 3 put into AoE 5:

  • Home Cities, Decks, and Cards with many civilization unique cards
  • Civilization unique heroes (example: Explorer) (Customizable?)
  • Treasures
  • Choosing a politician when going into the next age

Campaigns in the vanilla game could be conflicts in the Caribbean, Seven Years War on North American soil (aka French and Indian War), American Revolutionary War, European Colony conflicts with Native American tribes, America’s westward expansion, and the Mexican-American War.

DLC 1 could be about Central and South American conflicts between 1492 and 1876, DLC 2 could be about the Native Americans between 1492 and 1876, and DLC 3 could be about Asia during 1492 and 1876.

That’s all I got for this idea off the top of my head.

5 Likes

Do you think there will be AOE 5?

2 Likes

I think they should go back to AoE 1 times.

13 Likes

Hmm seems very interesting. But I think there will never be an Age of Empires 5. What you want to see is an Age of Empires 3 2.0 but it´s the black sheep in the series and until now every Age game is unique. I didnt play 3 a lot but it doesnt sound unique compared to it. The more likely thing to happen is a Age of Empires 1 2.0

2 Likes

I personally wouldn’t play anything past middle age but maybe i’ll change my mind in 2050 when AOE5 releases.

1 Like

That’s probably the best idea but knowing Microsoft they will just make another medieval era game.

No, just no. They should either go back to antiquity or go all the way to WW1

Noooo age of Empires is about varied combat, formations and strategy. You lose so much of that with gunshots and trains

1 Like

Ehm, Aoe3? Age2 also had gunpowder units.

1 Like

I think Age 3 is a relatively modern game set in the post-Medieval era. If anything I would like to see Ancient times like Age 1. Age 1 has a definitive edition, and it’s fun, but I’d like to see a more detailed version in that time period.

As for changing the name of the Commerce Age to Colonial Age, I think Commerce Age is more accurate. Sure, Colonial fits from the perspective of many civs in Age 3, but almost half of the civilizations in Age 3 didn’t set up colonies. Focusing the game on colonization confines the focus of the game to be centered around European history mostly. And while that’s interesting, I prefer the Age games to try to cover as much area as possible.

i think they got that cover with coh franchise

1 Like

I don’t know a Company of Heroes game that covers WW1, do you? Besides, CoH isn’t Age, I’d like to see their take on that time period WW1 and WW2

2 Likes

Honestly, I would prefer a return to ancient times and classical era (like the first Age of Empires) than the colonial era. It fits more the Age of Empires franchise -AoE III was pretty good, but it’s not the same-, and they would be able to make pretty asymmetrical civs, too, even if they are not as much asymmetrical as in AoE IV. Not gonna lie, medieval era probably has the biggest potential amount of clearly differentiated big factions, but I still can see several ancient civilizations with pretty diferent gameplay styles fitting into the formula. And we still haven’t got a core 3D-engine ancient era AoE. I need to see Babylon with awesome graphics.

That said, this would only be taken into consideration if AoE IV is a real success in sales, and after some DLCs and so. And even if that’s the case, Age of Mythology Definitive Edition (or maybe a less likely Age of Mythology II) would happen before imo.

2 Likes

I don’t think Age 3 is the “black sheep”. For the wonderful experience I had - especially for the end of the story about “eternal life” - I think Age 3 is really cool, but in a different way. I understand the mechanics of Age 2, but to say that Age 3 is “black sheep” does not seem fair. Oh, and hopefully there is an Age 5, and if you follow a line of 3, even better (at least for me).

3 Likes

Im sorry with black sheep I didnt mean it sucks. Never, I played the campaign of the game and I liked it a lot. Black sheep meant it doesnt follow the Age of Empires formula. The game tried so many new things, that it doesnt really fell like an Age of Empires game to me (Grew up with aoe 1 and 2)

1 Like

The problem with going further into history is that “Empires” cease to have their distinct cultures/units and become more of just a reskin of the same units. I can see why that wouldn’t be appealing to most people as a lot of the attraction to the AoE series is the unique cultures you can play as. And then there’s unit design which gets really hard to utilize the further you get with tech. That was even a problem with AoE3, what dictates that one type of guy with a gun counters another?

I think they should move forwards finally and have an 1820s to 1920s game.

Age1 and 2 just had generic units with age 2 only having 1-2 unique units. Heck, even American civs had the same units, Arbalest and Halbs? Really?

There would still be unique cultures, as I said it would be no different than Aoe1 and Aoe2

Imo, it would work like this

You don’t have unit counters, you just have units that excel at different situations. For WW1 I don’t know how it would work due to it mostly just being a trench war, but for WW2 you would have troops with SMGs excel at close-quarters combat, troops with Rifles excel at mid-range combat, troops with sniper rifles excel at long-range combat, troops with MGs just wreak havoc where ever but are very vulnerable if they are flanked. There would be a little variation depending on the country/civ and what terrain they are on but that is the basic gist of it (imo)
Tanks are similar
Light tanks>Tank Destroyers
Medium Tanks>light tanks
heavy tanks>medium tanks
Tank destroyers>heavy tanks
Or something like that. Planes would just depend on what plane as the higher specs.

1 Like

If you really want to refer to the actual history, all units in antiquity or medieval should be “reskinned spearmen”, “reskinned archers”, “reskinned lancers”, etc. and most other weapons do not make their appearance on the battlefield. But they still manage to design “unique units”.

“Gun” is not one type of weapon. Just like you don’t consider pike and javelin as the same weapon because they are both “spears”.

There would have to be completely new mechanics added to the game to simulate volley fire and line formations. In the game engine’s current state as has been for most of their games unit vs unit has always been the norm. And there the visual difference between units becomes important. Have one skirmisher fight a single line infantry guy and tell me which one will win? The true distinction between skirmishers in the 16th-17th century is the tactics that’s it.

You are missing my point, you are telling me what AoE should be in a historical context not what it is. My point is to say that that units are far more distinct in their medieval/ancient settings from graphic perspective at minimum. Which is a useful element for RTS game design. Want to counter horses? Use those guys that wield pointy spears.

I mean of course not, the visuals are completely different as well as the gameplay. Skirmishers are ranged units whereas spear units are melee. The problem here is 80% of units in more modern settings will be ranged units wielding super similar weapons and there’s no armour or unit stats that you can argue from an intuitive perspective that means getting shot with a musket hurts less than getting shot with a Springfield rifle.

There are RTS games that already exist that are far better at depicting that time period, for example: Napoleon Total war