Age of Empires with Company of Heroes

They exist. They aren’t age of empires.

For the same reason Madden 2024 shouldn’t be a basketball game, AoE5 shouldn’t be a tank game.



You can look at Steam.
Those games have little to no player base.

Of course, they can make an Age of Empires set in Victorian times and World Wars. Nowhere is it written that it must be medieval, as we already have one set in the classical era and one in the colonial era. The issue is that the game is old, but a game like Empire Earth set in those ages could have been an Age of Empires game. I find it surprising that conservative perspective on this matter, especially considering there are people here who are supposed to play games with a more open-minded approach.

Tanks etc are COH etc type of games.
AOE is about Empires.
Empires existed until the end of the colonial era, not during World War 1 or 2.
This is why we need to stick to the Ancient and Medieval eras.
In my opinion, AOE is just so much better without gunpowder units.
And the sales always prove my point.
Iron Harvest, COH, Steel Division, Total War: Empire, Starship Troopers etc all have a much smaller player base if you compare these with AOE1,2, Total War: Medieval, Warhammer, Shogun, Rome, and Attila.

These are way too obvious.
Most people don’t like gunpowder units in RTS games, this is proven by the number.

Imperial Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, etc.

The presence of more prominent empires during colonialism does not imply the absence of empires in the World Wars. You are not correct in pointing that out.

There has never been an AoE set in World Wars to make that claim. CoH does not have the same gameplay or the same name as AoE.

People will not buy an AOE game that is set in modern times or the world war era.
That I am pretty sure.

There are far better games out there like Wargame.
It just doesn’t work.

The height of the British Empire was literally the 1920s (?)

Like, decolonization started happening after WWII. Just check the independence days of most countries in Africa and Asia.

What do people even learn at school during history class these days? Geeze.

1 Like

I think an AoE game could be set during and right after WW 1 and that would be the final age. Once you get into WW 2 plane become a huge part of warfare and airborne troops which you could do but I wouldn’t want to have to deal with them personally. But Stars wars galactic battlegrounds had air ships they just weren’t that powerful and could be destroyed easily so it could be like that for WW 2 era.

1 Like

By that time the British Empire was beginning to fade after WW 1. The height was the 1800 s. Once napoleon was defeated. Mid to late 1800 was the peak of the British Empire

With balance and good design, anything is possible. I even know Age of Empires II players who would have liked to see Age of Empires IV as a World War game. The idea that they wouldn’t buy it (as @SubotaiMGL says) would be highly debatable, as there is also an audience beyond the Age of Empires community.

Recent polls suggest in some way that there could be future titles.

I don’t think this technology will replace the current way of playing video games, just as television didn’t make radio disappear.

1 Like

It seems people prefer to return to classical antiquity, and I agree. I even think that we could make 2 independent games from that era, since it is several thousand years old and many civilizations did not converge in time.

For an upcoming Age of Empires game post AOE-4, would Caul be the time frame to focus on?

1 Like

Lol, show me pls, Which Asian country?
Your history knowledge is simply not enough…

Helpfully (for everyone), there’s a whole Wiki page on it (with sources):

I wouldn’t say decolonisation started after WW2, but the 20th century in general is when a lot of it happened (along with some other things).

1 Like

People get to hung up on the “Empires” name.
Most civilisations in an AoE game were not Empires.
Not even in the first one.
In many ways there are still Empires in the 20th century, even in the literal sense. Most European powers kept their colonies until the second half of the century.
Especially during WW1. Almost all major powers were Empires. It was at the peak of Imperialism.
German Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Kingdom of Italy and even the Republics (France and the USA) had colonial Empires.

But it’s all just names.
Age of Mythology is an Age of Empires game. It just doesn’t have Empires in it’s name.
Age of Empires 3 is not more Age of Empires than Age of Mythology was.
Either both should be considered an Age of Empires game or both should be considered a Spinoff.

The 20th century Age of Empires could just have a different name, like Age of Mythology. Age of whatever, that would probably the best solution.

But AoE2 and AoE4 have a lot of gunpowder units!

Starship Troopers is Gunpowder?
If you count that why ignore Starcraft and Command and Conquer.
Command and Conquer is less SciFi then Starship Troopers, especially the early games.

Total War: Shogun has a lot of gunpowder units, especially in one of the two Expansions which takes you into the 19th century with things like Gatling Guns.

Total War: Empire is also a fan favourite. A lot of people want a squeal to that.

It is always funny what reasons people bring up for AoE3 not being as successful then AoE2.

I think we should run this survey again after the release of AoMR.
This was also before the RoR DLC for AoE2.
It’s not unlikely that maybe people will be less interested in more ancient content after that.

Also I think the Bronze Age and the Classic Antiquity are two very very different time periods that should be voted individually.
Maybe even Early Middle Ages should be up for voting because AoE4 clearly focuses on the second half of the Middle Ages so far and even AoE2 barely touches the Early Medieval setting.

Indeed, that is why they cannot name the modern game “AOE”.

AOE2’s gunpowder units are not as powerful as AOE4’s units.
At least in AOE2, they can miss their shots and have high damage, some with aoe damage, but in AOE4 they have less damage and a 100% hit guarantee. In which I think it is a lazy way of making gunpowder units.

Still, some people don’t use those units as much as the archers.
Archers are far superior when it comes to defensive and aggressive play.
Gunpowder units are only effective when they are at high ground, once they get suppressed by archers or attacked by melee units, they lose dramatically. And Total War games are really good at ranged units, they put realistic projectiles and everyone loves it. AOE 3 and 4 are not. This is why many AOE players joke about its physics.

It is just a true fact, you can look at the reviews and sales reports of some companies and they all illustrate less sales and appeal to players. They mostly prefer COD or 3rd person shooter games, when it comes to guns.

Do you think designing to popularity like this is important, then? Should the devs focus on what is popular, more than the niche things people sometimes want?

Again for the topic, I think WW2 is probably too late for AoE (nomatter the developer) to do justice to. It’s too rooted in our memories of the past century or so (to the extent people alive now were still directly impacted by events then, or the events that were an immediate consequence).

But I do think up until WW1 would be completely acceptable.

1 Like

They should try to release it under Age of World Wars
Then it should be acceptable
I just don’t wanna see them ruin AOE

Malaysia? Indonesia? Vietnam?

What are you even talking about…

Hell isn’t there a WORLD FAMOUS example of India obtaining their independence after WWII too?