I know. I was just mentioning that the official distribution of mods in not well suited for big mods like that.
It’s always a pain getting people to install a 5 GB mod from a 3rd party website to play together with them.
Also every mod needs to continuously be supported by someone forever or it will stop working correctly at some point.
I think it’s an outdated concept to have 1 unique unit being build in the 1 special unique unit building.
Unique units should replace normal units like they do in every other AoE game that is not AoE2. That might have been innovative in 1999 but it’s not very outdated game design now.
The academy would still be a good place for truly unique units.
But that’s kinda off topic anyway.
The problem with Datamods it’s a single file you are replacing. That means your mod overwrites everything. Even if your mod just changes a single value it still has to overwrite everything. Once the game updates you either have to keep using the old Data with your changes or update the mod. If a mod creator loses interest in updating the mod it will stay on an old Data version and eventually have bugs or even stop working.
The developers don’t have that problem because they are the ones shipping the official Dataset. That means if they add AoE1 units they could just not touch them if they don’t care.
They are already broken in AoE1DE. They improved the AI but forgot to change the Scenarios so some missions like the first Babylonian one are nearly unplayable because the AI is just too good, even on low difficulty. The whole AoE1 forums, discord and reddit are full of people trying to beat that mission for years now.
It would also provide more revenue. People would but the ancient DLC and the ancient DLC would allow for more future ancient civilisation DLCs that also make more money.
That’s the same for every content.
It doesn’t really make sense to “port” AoE2 to AoE3 but it would be absolutely stupid to do the opposite.
You would have to create Home Cities for those AoE2 civilisations and probably also change a lot of units because AoE3 unit types are different. An AoE2 Eagle Warrior is pretty different to an AoE3 Coyote Runner and very different compared to an Eagle Runner Knight.
AoE1 and AoE2 use the same damage type and armour system while AoE3 (like AoM) only knows 3 damage types, no armour (but the completely differently working resistance instead) but has unit tags which AoE1 and AoE2 only have for armour types.
And there is a huge overlap for some civilisations.
Aztecs = Aztecs
Inca = Inca
Spanish are also covering a similar time period in both games.
Japanese are also more or less the same time period.
You say for Holy Man?.. Yes, I did it in AoE Online the second time, but of course it is easier when you have fortresses that protect the town center from enemy attacks…
Yes, it can be, maybe the last word about it is the devs…
Sure, in fact I saw one who knew how to adapt AoE 3 units very well in AoE 2…
That could work but it’s completely pointless.
It’s a demake basically. Purposely downgrading a game just for the challenge. No real value in that.
But I think any civilisation that is at the end of the AoE2 time frame could technically also be in AoE3 because AoE3 already has civilisations that did stop existing (in the way presented in the game) before 1600 AD.
The Mamluk Sultanate for example would be very early in the AoE3 time frame but still doable.
We updated our file structure, now it should be one Large DL and small patches going forward.
I have been involved in the modding scene on and off for close to 20 years. It’s true that original Mod creators move on, but often others take over and the torch gets passed.
I would point out, the time spent in this forum post, writing out your thoughts, would be better spent making them a reality. Learn to Mod, its fun, and you get to make your ideas come to life.
I did learn to mod AoE2DE a year ago. Sadly even visual mods often require data editing because changing the number of frames per angle and action are technically data editing.
But the thing that I really want to do is impossible with mods, for now.
If AoE2 introduced the Romans and Vandals, it was also because they were active in the AoE2 timeline (even at a very early stage), not because they were civilizations that belonged to AoE1. Even if AoE1’s unit sprites are brought into AoE2 as scenario editor units, not every unit is worth doing so. And any idea of making AoE2 a platform for AoE1 is stupid, it’s about making developers make a lot of unnecessary efforts just to negate their other efforts in the past. I don’t even understand why the community should take this advice seriously.
Yes, in fact any civ from 1400 onwards could and can be in AoE 3…for example the Chinese campaign… Japanese pirates, Indian sultanates and even the Aztec empire itself…
Of course, it’s as if you told the devs, “oh they did the AoE 1 DE wrong, better erase it from existence and put all its content in AoE 2” when the devs obviously put all their effort and resources into adapting the game to modern times with its definitive version …
Prior to release of Dynasties of India, I’d have agreed with you – but part of the problem with Shrivamsha Riders is that they’re trained from the same building as Camels, so now I’m not so sure.
Also, using “outdated” as a criticism of a feature of a computer game is kind of silly, especially in a series in which the most popular installment is over 20 years old, and the most recent installment has been something of a flop.
That is a specific problem of a specific unit. Many many other games have shown that it’s possible to balance a game where unique units can be built from generic buildings. In some way generic units that receive civilisation bonuses or unique technologies are just boring looking unique units.
A lot of unique units have the same roles as generic ones and would make the generic ones pointless if they wouldn’t require such an expensive building.
Many AoE2 games are decided before either player can put down a castle. So effectively most games are decided by units every civilisation can build, kind of removing the uniqueness of civilisations.
The success of AoE2 doesn’t mean that each and every feature of the game is better then from any other AoE game. Also AoE is not the only RTS out there In Starcraft there are no shared units at all.
Also AoE4 is doing pretty well for a game that has gotten 0 new concent since release while AoE2DE got 1 DLC and AoE3DE even 2 DLC in the same time.
And regarding AoE3DE, I have no idea why it’s so much less popular. I feel like many people never gave it a second chance. But tastes are different, maybe people just don’t like gunpowder that much. But then again, people are supper hyped for the Ottomans in AoE4 with Janissaries and Great Bombards.
That’s great for the other games, but the design of AoE2’s Castle as the most powerful building due to its stats and near-exclusive ability to train certain units (including UUs) is a central aspect of the game. The handful of civs that have UUs available outside the castle (Goths, Huns, Gurjaras, Incas) are considered exceptional in that regard, and half of them have to pay for it via a UT. So this is one dimension along which a hypothetical new civ could be made exceptional, but ought to remain a rarity.
No, but it implies that most of its features hit the mark far more often than not, and that the sum total of its features (as well as the aspects that are not included) create an overall experience that is better for more people than the other games.
Wayyy too gimmicky for my tastes. Didn’t really feel like it even belonged in the same series as 1 and 2. The only thing I sort of liked about it was the highly asymmetrical civ design (vs. the fairly rigid format of AoE2 civs), but even then, I didn’t really care for the implementation.
Of course, they already got a bad impression with the game and no longer wanted to give it another chance…
Well the issue is that AoE 3 used the Havoc physics engine (which used the shotthers of the moment) and how they wanted to impress, because they went more for the graphics, more than for the gameplay itself…
I kinda do want to make a study now of why people prefer AoE2 over AoE3 or other games in the series.
AoE2 vs. AoE3 seems the most interesting comparison.
The reverse question is obviously also interesting.
I wonder if some of the reasons why many like AoE3 over AoE2 are also reasons for others don’t.
I’ve seen a lot of posts claiming that X was the one reason why AoE2 is better then AoE1/3/4. But everyone has a different one.
I do see value in being able to rain a special unit in the Castle because that makes the Castle more interesting.
That kinda makes the Keep in AoE4 feel boring.
If I’d design an AoE5 (that also has to be Medieval) I’d probably make Knights only be trainable in the Keep/Castle for Europeans.
Knights are super strong units in AoE2 and AoE4 so that could make for some interesting design.
I agree, and I think some (maybe even many) of the existing Castle unique units would work better if they came from standard production buildings. On the other, some unique units really require a special building. For example, imagine if War Wagons were trained at Archery Ranges – they’d have to be a much less interesting unit to balance that.
Similarly, I think there are two ways to balance Shrivamsha Riders: one is to water them down, and the other is to have them trained from Castles. I’d definitely prefer the latter (and they might still need some nerfs after that).
You missed my point (which probably means I didn’t explain it well enough). “Outdated” just doesn’t make sense as a criticism. You’re just saying training unique units is bad because the game it appears in is old. Do you think old things are inherently bad? I don’t suppose so. But if it’s really bad, you should be able to explain what’s actually bad about it.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but when AoE3 was new, there were a few reasons I was less interested in it than AoE2: (a) Fewer civs, all European except Ottomans; non-Europeans got what appeared to be second rate treatment. (b) It felt like every unit was either a man with a gun or some kind of cannon. (In hindsight, this doesn’t actually seem to be true.) (c) Advancing through the ages didn’t seem to make so much sense in the colonial era. (d) I found the time period much less interesting than the Middle Ages. Now that I’m older and wiser, add to that (e) the colonial era is the most shameful period of my nation’s history (I’m English) – I don’t really want to play that kind of game in that setting.
A) Menos civilizaciones, menos parecidas entre si (sobre todo la otomana tenia mas unidades unicas) el aoe 2 tendra más pero mas iguales tambien y ahora con el aoe 3 DE las civs son mas unicas aun
B) Si conoces de historia militar de entre los años 1500-1800 Sabras reconocer de manera sencilla los uniformes, El guerrillero Portuges tiene un uniforme de los regimientos de Cazadores de las guerras napoleonicas, Los guerrilleros Poseen ropajes ligeros y gorras de cazadores sin mencionar los pantalones verdes.
C) A que te refieres colega? tiene todo el sentido del mundo, los paises europeos que llegaron a america comenzaron con pequeños asentamientos de aventureros (edad de los descubrimientos) Luego crearon colonias (edad colonial) despues de haberse asentado crearian fuertes y cuarteles militares y a crear cañones en las americas (edad de las fortalezas) y el desarrollo industrial (edad insdutrial) Tiene todo el sentido del mundo colega.
D) En mi caso la edad media me saturo, muchas novelas de fantasia medieval, libros, series, peliculas y videojuegos me dejaron muy seco, por eso la era de los descubrimientos me parecio una bocanada de aire fresco.
e) haber, haber que te guste un juego en donde se retrate hechos historicos terribles no significa que apoyes eso, yo no veo a los alemanes quejarse de los juegos de la segunda guerra mundial, ademas en la edad media ocurrieron cosas terribles tambien, la persecucion religiosa, las masacres mongolas, el saqueo de pueblos y ciudades a manos de los vikingos, la peste negra etc.
Knights are strong, not OP.
There is a reason why Pikeman have the highest bonus damage to base damage ratio in the game.
Pikeman are 4+25 against cavalry.
Elite Skirmishers are only 3+4 against archers.
In AOE4 it’s less extreme.
Having a building like the Academy could be nice for units like a War Wagon.
Interesting. That’s the main reason I don’t like AoE2 as much. Nearly all generic units look European (Camel Riders are considered a Regional Unit) and totally out of place for the Aztecs for example.
In AoE3 all Aztec units look Aztec and only a few are generic Native American, none are European.
Same goes for China or Ethiopia.
The other reasons come down to historical preference.
Maybe I should start doing a survey thread here. But I feel like it was done before.
The 1st thread to collect reasons and then make a 2nd one to let people vote which ones they agree with. But not sure if that’d make sense.
Could be interesting to see it for AoE1/4/O and AoM too but AoE3 is the most interesting.
Yes, Spirit of the Law made a video about it and then other youtubers who play AoE 3 like Aussie Drongo and Mayorcete replicated that same video… SOTL said that AoE 2 was more popular because of the issue that it has a metagame easier to understand for everyone without having to worry about asymmetric civs, cards or gunpowder units that work a little counterintuitively, as it happens in AoE 3, and so a long etc…
Yes, that gives for a whole topic…
Pfff…medieval again, after having AoE 2 DE and 4 set in the same period? No, god please…I would throw the house out the window and take out AoM 2 or go straight to the twentieth century (from the Belle Epoque to the present)… then it would release an AoE 6 in the future with space colonization and would be similar to AoE 3 but in space xd… and then reboot the saga with an AoE reboot in ancient times and ready…
Yes, it’s a valid argument…
Yo igual,de hecho en mi caso nunca había jugado RTS antes y justo mi tío segundo (primo de mi padre) sabía que me gustaba la historia y me pasó la demo de AoE 3…después de probarlo me gustó y en 2005 ví su caratula en una tienda de videojuegos que salía un mosquetero y dije “uy,lo compro” y después supe que tenía piratas (en aquella época era muy popular la trilogía de Piratas del Caribe,de hecho yo tenía el juego de la primera película) y dije “wow,tiene mosqueteros y piratas” y tenía gráficos y físicas espectaculares…y bueno el resto es historia,jugué el resto de la saga entre 2006 y 2008,los empire earth en 2012,RoN en 2014 y bueno ahora le estoy dando al AoE4 y al AoEO xd…
Sure, but that only makes sense if you interpret, say, “British” to mean “British explorers and colonists in America”, rather than “British people in general”. Thus the “civilisations” in AoE3 were not actually civilisations, they were just explorers and colonists from a particular nation. That’s a huge change relative to AoE1 and AoE2.
From a game design point of view it probably makes sense to limit the scope like that, but the fact that AoE3 had a much more limited scope relative to AoE2 was part of the reason I didn’t like it as much.
That’s irrelevant: other people’s preferences have no bearing on my reasoning behind my preferences. Even so, it’s a bad example, since Germany heavily censors games about World War II.
I’m not pretending the Middle Ages were all fun and games – if I felt I had to agree morally with the protagonists of games I play, I’d have to forgo playing most of the AoE2 campaigns.
I said “when AoE3 was new” – the original release almost exclusively had European civilisations. Most non-Europeans were non-player “tribes”. That’s what I mean by second rate treatment. I haven’t played AoE3 since 2006, I think, since it so completely failed to interest me.
That’s fair, I never really played it enough to have deeper criticisms, although I do remember thinking the gameplay was less straightforward and more gimmicky than AoE2 – as if they felt they had to add new features to avoid it being just AoE2 in a different time period.
I’d argue that “every unit was either a man with a gun or some kind of cannon” is primarily a readability issue, not historical preference. For instance, you have to distinguish between different types of cannon that look almost identical (not helped by the terrible graphics of the original) but have completely different roles.
A ver en su versión vainilla era simple de diferenciar un falconete de una culebrina o de un mortero, o un mosqueteros de un guerrillero, además el aoe 3 si esta ambientado en la época colonial está bien el hecho de que sólo sean colonos, por que? Porque la edad media ya había terminado los imperios europeos ya tenían su hegemonía y buscaban nuevas tierras, además la metrópoli representa eso, tu imperio y tu lo que eres en el juego eres un gobernador administrando una nueva colonia de tu imperio (por cierto, el aoe 3 De no sólo tiene europeos, que si son la mayoría, pero tenemos: houdenosaune, lakotas, incas, aztecas, japoneses, chinos, indios, hausa, etíopes, Usa y México agregando más cosas para jugar y diferentes tipos de avanze de edad)