But you’re not controlling them in groups of 5, so I can’t see how it matters for micro. They are still independently controlled units, you just have the option to produce 5 units within the same time frame as 1 unit if you have the resources to do so - which is nice for building quick defence against small-scale attacks on your base.
5 Likes
I could surely live without Aoe 1-2 villagers carrying back and forth of resources between source and building.
4 Likes
You control them individually in AoE3.
In AoE3 you can train them individually (unless you are Russian or Chinese) but up to 5 units are trained together. Also you can always add more the the group while they are training so if you only have the resources for 1 you can start training and than before that one guy spawns you add up to 4 more. So instead of quickly building one by one in AoE3 you build up to 5 but slower. (Villagers and ships are trained alone)
Not sure if that’s what you mean.
Or do you mean in early game fights when you’re only able to afford 2-3 units having to wait for 5 is slowing your production?
I kinda get the second point if you have numbers like in Tool/Feudal Age in AoE 1/2 than training 5 can be a bigger investment.
I’d love to see something like the Techlab/Reactor for Terran in SC2 where you can chose between being able to train elite units with adding a Techlab to your production building or training twice as many units with the Reactor.
I think something like this could work well for an Age of Empires game. Could be a civilisation feature.
For example Japanese can upgrade each Barracks to either train Samurai or twice as many Ashigaru.
3 Likes
You can spawn your units in the barracks for example if you don’t want to feed them one-by-one and then suddenly ungarrisson them for a surprise army. So what you want is already possible in aoe2. If you force everyone to wait on 5 units, then you take away the choice for others to go attack with 3 scouts for example. So in my opinion this would only lessen the strategic choices and adds no real benefit (because it is already possible in aoe2, just requires some extra micro if you want it)
1 Like
I like II’s graphics because my computer can actually run the game.
1 Like
I liked 3, indeed I like all of them for what they are but AoE4 needs to be AoE4, not be AoE2 2. I don’t mind them taking ideas and other mechanics from other games but it needs to be its own thing so long as it follows the basic formula that is building, resource gathering, and training armies.
But it doesn’t matter what AoE4 turns out because for the majority of players it’ll ‘suck’ for simply not being AoE2. Still, I’ll get it.
7 Likes
I don’t really expect it to be a copy of AoE2, there are some specific mechanics from AoE3 that I do not like and hope are not in AoE4, if a few of them wind up in it it won’t be too much of an annoyance to me but if they have moved all of them into it I probably will find the game boring / not the type of RTS I like and continue to play AoE2 instead - AoE 1 and 2 feel like two games in a series with improvements made but keeping the same general idea, AoE3 feels like a different game in the RTS genre
Easily accessible infinite resources - I do not like that most civs in AoE3 can access endless amounts of all resources even after the map has been stripped of them / or turtle and continue to collect resources without having to fight for the resources present on the map - some civs do not gain access to unlimited wood but they are in the minority - this makes conserving resources not a factor in decision making during the game
The treasure hunting mechanic to me seems like unnecessary addition of RNG, you can get lucky and find things that help you early, or you can find things you don’t really need - RNG is not nearly as impactful in the other 2 games, there is some RNG in the placement of resources in AoE2 on the map but it gives less of an overt advantage if one player gets lucky and the other not (1 extra relic easily accessed, possibly an extra stone/gold pile on their half of the map but still not right next to their starting location) - I dislike too much randomness in any competitive game, both people should be on relatively equal footing and the outcome should come from their actions only as much as possible (This only applies to multiplayer obviously - I don’t dislike the mechanic in singleplayer)
Strict limits on the amount of certain structures that can be placed - AoE 1 and 2 limit defensive structures by the amount of stone you manage to gather, if you cannot secure much stone you can build less, if you can secure more you can build more - I don’t like that AoE3 places a hard cap on the amount you can build instead of a variable/soft cap on how many you can reasonably afford
Non-grid based building system - this is probably the thing I detest in AoE3 the most, it’s great in theory but it makes everything look like a toddler attacked it with crayons in practice and building in a confined space / building walls is a massive headache
Now some things I do like
Ability to customize civilization bonuses / play style with the card system - you have less of an idea exactly what your opponent is going to do with a civilization in AoE3 because they can alter the deck to support a different playstyle, in AoE2 civilizations do not vary in their bonuses, you can play them in a different than optimal way but most of them are good at a pretty defined playstyle and unit composition so if you are utilizing the advantages they have your opponent is going to know what you are going to do (Customization doesn’t necessarily have to be with shipment cards, could be ability to select from a list of bonuses the civilization can access before the game starts but not be able to turn all of them on at the same time etc.)
Civilizations are more different from each other, they have radically different mechanics instead of minor ones and consequently play differently - the biggest differences in civs in AoE2 by contrast are honestly very minor and don’t apply to many of them (Mesoamerican civs missing stables and Goths lack of stone walls and ability to quickly create massive amounts of relatively cheap units are some of the largest differences present)
Livestock gaining food if not slaughtered right away
Not needing buildings to drop off resources(removes some micromanagement of villagers, some people may dislike this for the same reason though)
3 Likes
So wait, you’re basing this opinion on how clunky the AoE 3:DE beta was compared to the original AoE 3?
Wat.
3 Likes
I would say only follow Age III for sound and graphics and not for gameplay. In fact, don’t follow Age I for gameplay either, follow Age I for… I don’t even know what, that game’s mechanics are outdated. Just follow Age II.
3 Likes
This is exactly why I chose not to play AOE 3 and i love AOE 2 so much. In AOE 3, Its so hard to distinguish between units and buildings. Thank you for bringing up this important detail. I did not know the technical terms - non-perspective view in AOE 2 is perfect.
I thought they would move away from this non-perspective view in AOE 2 DE, but they did not thank heavens and still made it look so good.
Are there limitations with the non-perspective view - like inability to do more animations or anything else and that is why more games are moving away from this?
3 Likes
I think it should follow all 3 games because every game has it’s own merits and since they are going for 3D with AoE IV they should try to use a lot of mechanics in AoE III as it’s the best 3D RTS of all time.
4 Likes
No, there’s no limitations like that, it’s just a different calculation of how to draw the world on the screen.
As to why most games use a perspective view, I can only speculate. Obviously it makes sense for first person games, and it’s also not as much of a problem for 3rd person games where you’re viewing a smaller region of the world. If I look at League of Legends footage, for example, the view it uses looks fine for that game as you’re looking at such a small area. It’s when you want to see the big picture in a game like AoE where the action is spread out over a large area that the perspective effect becomes really annoying. There is perhaps also an element of feeling that non-perspective is “old fashioned” in appearance, because it’s possible to achieve it with a less technologically challenging implementation, which is why it was used in older games. A fully generic modern 3D engine can present any type of view, but an engine like AoE II’s cannot easily be made to present a perspective view, which is why AoE III’s graphics are totally different rather than an evolution of AoE II’s.
The perspective view is only part of the reason why it’s so hard to identify things in AoE III. It certainly doesn’t help, because you aren’t viewing things from a consistent direction, but it’s also an issue with the design of the graphics of units.
1 Like
I agree about the feeling that non-perpective is “old fashioned”. Most RTS’s or strategy games in early 2000’s went 3D because graphics and technology are so valued in a game’s marketing, and I think in this case it hurts the genre rather then aiding it.
For example there was this much loved game called - Rail Road Tycoon 2 - which was released in 1998 by Pop Top software which was later acquired by Sid Meir’s Firaxis. That game had a very similar AOE2 style non-perpective UI which was so easy on the eye.
Then they released Rail Road Tycoon 3 which went 3D and the magic was gone. Everything looked pretty but something was not right.
I find AOE2 units and buildings look way cleaner than say AoM or AOE3. Terrain/water/effects though looks much nicer in 3D though.
But then in an RTS ability to quickly and easily navigate through units and buildings which makes an instant connection to your mind is very important. AOE2 gets that. Unfortunately AOE 3 just does not give you that connection.
If AOE4 goes that way, it wont be as fun.
2 Likes
Batch training should be a last Age upgrade, like Conscription is AoE2.
Agreed. It was a historically inaccurate mass but new Historical Battles are good enough.
1 Like
Batch training could be an upgrade for each age.
Like +1 training batch instead of training speed like in AoM.
So for example 1/2/3/5 in Dark/Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
I can absolutely not relate to that. I never had a problem with 3D RTS.
3D RTS can also keep the building grid like Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 showed.
I never understood why people say AoE3 is less readable than AoE2. I feel the other way round.
Also a parallel perspective view can be done in a 3D engine too (and it doesn’t look that nice). Most 3D modelling tools or Game Engine tools have a parallel perspective view mode.
It could be done in a game easily but I haven’t seen that yet.
AoE1/2 cheated a bit because each of the building sprites themselves aren’t done in perfect parallel perspective.
Also this type of perspective feels more wrong the bigger screens get. On an old 4:3 CRT that’s fine but on an modern 4K monitor that starts looking wrong.
3 Likes
It could be, but that seems like it will just make matches play by numbers swelling, with each Age Up. I think it would be better as an expensive upgrade in the last Age, instead of Conscription (faster training), you would get Standing Armies (batch training).
It would also make historical sense, since Standing Armies were only common at the end of the period, and were trained in units, by professional instructors, and not just levied directly from the populace.
Because of how lighting, shapes and colours work in a 3D environment, 3D RTS games always had legibility issues, when compared to 2D RTS game, unless the units are given cartoonish proportions (like Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2).
2 Likes
Yeah I agree with you to the extent that AoE IV needs to revive the legacy of AoE 1 & II and not III. Because AoE III is completely a different concept.
But AoE IV needs to add a new historically resourcefull, marvellous and rich epoch of Gunpowder/Renisannce/ Da Vinci eras, which is next in line to the epoch of middle ages eras. This will define AoE IV of being IV.
1 Like
I think those disliking AOE 3 have not really played it enough, or tried it on the release of DE which was flawed from what the original game was.
people say it is too fast and can not defend… watch people who actually know the game, you can fend off rushes with good building placement, and good timing of a batch of units/ card/ and minute men, negating a rush for a fraction of the cost. Then its like a push n pull type of game of whether the attacker keeps feeding in units or steps back to reorganize. It can be faster and not many games actually go to imperial, but that is because of the huge leap in cost, which can easily be changed. Its much more entertaining to watch because of these features. Fewer towers means most of the action is happening between units and not buildings, yet towers add so much protection.
The main flaw is the walls are too cheap and build too fast which in some games can get spammy.
The art is beautiful, and while so many complain at the graphics I really do not see how aoe 2 is better. about the only difference is saturation of color, which is a motif/ theme. AOE 3 units (before DE) were much more readable and smoother in action. Aoe2 buildings have nice textures and cool destruction but they really look like they are sitting on the grids and not apart of the landscape.
AOE3 is also less defensive because units can pass through trees, making it harder to wall off when you then have to wall around your tree lines and build gates. AOE 3 is not perfect but it is ensembles studios masterpiece. It would be a shame to scare away devs from some of its innovations.
3 Likes