Thank you very much for providing a step by step. 
Yes, it has a few steps each time you install it xd… but you get used to it quickly…
1 Like
Aoe-3 was a mistake.
Best mistake in the history of RTS.
Aoe4 was a fail.
9 Likes
Na,only they apart too much from the base saga…but now its an amazing game,unique in its form…
4 Likes
AoE 4 was anything but a fail when you look at the metrics. Sure, it doesn’t have AoE 2 DE-like figures and I certainly don’t know the Gamepass numbers but 86 % positive reviews alone on Steam indicate that people apparently like the game.
Personally, I think 4 still needs a lot of the QOL stuff from past Age games but overall, it’s a fun game to play 1 or 2 rounds before going back to the other games 
2 Likes
No, it wasn’t a mistake.
If AoE 3 was on the same engine as AoE 2 and was just something like AoE 2 with firearms then it would be a mistake. AoE 3 was the biggest advancement in the entire series, and those who didn’t like the game probably didn’t like anything that deviated from the standards of AoE 1 and 2. However, I can’t imagine AoE 3 as something like this:
10 Likes
The only era that appears in the Age of Empires series that requires modern game is Ancient. AoE 4 is “a modernized AoE 4” and AoE 3 is so attractive that it sits perfectly in the middle of the line between old games and modern games. AoE 1 is the only game that requires a modern successor - therefore AoE 5 should be about antiquity.
Finally, I will mention that there should be a completely new sub-series (something like Age of Mythology) dealing with more modern times - from the end of the Napoleonic Era to the end of World War 1; from the Interwar period to the end of World War II; Cold War.
6 Likes
Imagine if AoE 4 was a “true” reboot that went back to the setting of AoE 1
As someone who knows AoE3 I think there were some serious mistakes that were killing the game all these years.
It currently survives thanks to the casuals who play a game for the DLCs, but competitively it is dead and the numbers show it.
1 Like
AoE Online count?..
They not have too much time to do a sub-series along of AoM one…they will do one modern game from industrial age to digital age…
In fact, originally AoE Online was that…an AoE 4 reboot to AoE 1 times, but they afraid that the players appologice about the cartoon art style of the game…but AoEO IS in fact AoE 4 and AoE 4, in really, would be AoE 5 xd…so a new entry or sequel in early modern or late modern era would be AoE 6 xd…
Mistakes like be launched only with American maps and European civs until TAD;don’t have realistic historical campaigns until TWC and maybe be too much innovative in a one game…
That’s true, but i don’t appologice xd…
4 Likes
There are some Age of Empires III features that I wouldn’t mind being implemented in later games. The ability to train groups of five soldiers at a time instead of one by one is kinda neat IMO. Treasures are also a cool feature, although I don’t like that predators in AoE3 ignore you unless you made a move for their treasure.
That said, I prefer the older time periods of AoE1-2 and 4 to the colonial-era one of 3. In my current opinion, AoE5 should be to AoE1 what AoE4 is to AoE2 (i.e. set in ancient times).
3 Likes
Yes, I agree with the batch creation… but an AoE in the ancient times I don’t feel so necessary, because I’m enjoying AoEO quite a lot…
Colonial era was a FREAKING AMAZING choice for aoe3.
The aesthetics, the sound of muskets and falconetts, the micro system.
Aoe3 was WAY ahead of its time in innovation, graphics, physics and pathing.
Whereas aoe4 is (sorry to say this) lacking in every possible department and a BIG step back in innovation, in fact there is almost none.
Some things are copied from aoe2 and these are mostly the bad parts.
I mean, creating the unit type of fragile light ranged calv like dragoons, ruyts and horse archers which have a massive bonus damage against heavy calv such as hussairs and QUICK shooting animation is just a genius move.
These again get hardcountered by light ranged infantry which deletes them in splitseconds.
This is just so amazing.
You can mass age2 heavy cav to raid and DESTROY archers, but if the enemy ages quick to make dragoons, they will HUNT you down, because the move faster and DESTROY your heavy cav.
Whereas you can counter them with bows or skirmishers.
I’m also missing something like falconets in aoe4, the mangonel is just not as satisfying and PUNISHING as a falc, while being to tanky.
In aoe3 you just have to be SUPER CAREFUL with any units, because the counters are so extreme and large groups units get wiped in seconds if fighting the wrong enemies or doing a miss-step.
Having skirmishers in falc range and the enemy aims into your army?
That’s pretty much gg often times.
In aoe3 micro wins games, in aoe4 spamming macro wins games.
Also the TC is way less powerful in aoe3 and units have stronger siege, especially pikemen.
That makes age2 really interesting, whereas here in aoe4, you can only siege with rams age2, which is super onesided and boring.
I did wish aoe4 to be similar to aoe3, sadly it was just a (sorry again Relic) big disappointment in every way possible.
The graphics also don’t reflect the year 2021, in fact aoe3 is MUCH more aesthetic, realistic and full of details.
Aoe4 seems like a first alpha concept that someone developed in his freetime, but not a triple AAA game developed by a big studio.
14 Likes
basically this one…
The only thing that I dont like for aoe 3 is the pathing and this formation movement.
Hate how group of units move.
Other than that the game is sick, so much stuff , so many dynamics, micro battles, interesting units
5 Likes
AoE4 is still developing and has yet to reach its full potential. It can still rework some mechanics to make it more interesting. By the way, AoE4’s counters are also hard (compared to AoE2).
Regarding AoE3, my all-time favorite game, it has had problems that AoE4 has not wanted to imitate and I understand them:
-
AoE3 has a very difficult gameplay to understand watching and playing: Almost any player outside of AoE3 doesn’t understand the game even by watching streams, so they put it aside. The mechanics are excessively varied and deep to attract more players.
-
Innovation or originality is not always the same as good: Although I like Homecity (for example), the reality is that this polarized AoE fan players a lot (also that resources are not returned to camps or the limitation of outpost placement or not being able to build next to the enemy base), seeing it as a different game. Innovation is not always necessarily good and has to be controlled (it should look a bit like AoE2 at least).
-
Impossible to balance with so many elements: AoE3, especially in recent years, has suffered more and more from a more brutal asymmetry, added to more civs, natives, mercenaries, maps, a deficient ranked system, etc… that tires the players who want a certain “order” in the game and not anti-competitive obstacles.
-
Poor pathing, especially with large units (artillery, heavy cavalry…).
-
Reduced number of players: It is logical that AoE4 is more like AoE2 than AoE3 due to numbers.
While it is true that you can use some interesting mechanics from AoE3, I think they have to be very careful.
I’m in favor of more micro (maybe all units have some ability?) and melee units siege better.
3 Likes
Yep, well said!
Couldn’t say it better than you.
6 Likes
AOE4 has improved dramatically since release.
It’s a very good game now, one of the best.
5 Likes
Since I haven’t commented, but the idea looks interesting, I’m going to reply to the first message on the discussion. Sorry if I strayed from the current thread, although I think this one strayed from the original concept so there’s nothing I think I’m missing:
1.- Alliances with local populations.
I don’t think it applies well in this time period of Age IV, since most armies in the Middle Ages were not permanent, but levies from various towns. If one want alliance with local towns, they are already the levies of spearman and archers that you do in feudal age, so it is redundant.
2.- Mercenaries and outlaws that you can hire.
Honestly, it’s not a mechanic I like about Aoe3… in fact, I hate it. It is not because of the mechanics itself, the concept is interesting, but because of the chosen units: Cowboys in full Colonial age. It doesn’t work aesthetically well on maps where Cowboys didn’t exist, and it’s ugly to see “Aztec + Cowboy” armies in the Amazon, just because the mechanic exists and you have to build an American cantina. That many of the mercenaries are random only makes it more awful.
But well, things changed the last year 2022: When they updated the game in Aoe3:DE with the latest patches and cards, some Civs like the German one apply the mercenary system well by having mercenaries “FROM their COUNTRY” and that historically the contract makes more sense. If applied to AoE4 it should follow the same system example and only for civs that historically hired mercenaries.
On the other hand in Aoe4, there are already mercenary troops in unique units in the game: the HRE Landkechnets, and the Abbasid Ghulam. In the future if they take out Italian Civs, like the Venetian ############## or Italian City States, they should possibly have several unique mercenary units, but that would be a characteristic of their Civ, not all of them.
3.- Cattle raising.
I support the idea, although in theory it should be different between Civs and have some balance so that it doesn’t unbalance the use of Farms as the main food source. The idea of the Ottoman Feudal Madrasa Landmark, with bushes with a creation limit seems like a good model to me, it limits its production, and forces only 2 or 3 villagers with cattle, but the rest on farms.
4.- Treasures spice up exploration and give slight advantages when you get them.
I guess the monsters they added to the map this Season 5 is an attempt to see if people like this optional mechanic on some maps.
5.- Maps with a lot of details (Although all AOE have it, including AOE-O, but I don’t know why in AOE-4 there are no flying birds or crocodiles). I mean Gaia in general where the details do count.
There already exist many Topics in this forum considering adding various types of gaia units to the map, or varying the type of animals on the map, this wouldn’t be the first. By the way, i support the idea.
6.- Very unique civilizations with very unique units.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AOE-IV, it’s done.
In fact that is NOT the definition of Aoe3 “Vanilla”: The original game had only 3 Civ: European, Russian and Ottoman, NOTHING ELSE. In Vanilla, apart from the unique unit that was a substitute for the Stats of another unit, playing with the Spanish, English, French or IT WAS THE SAME, they did not have different cards, they did not have different unique technologies. Their special villagers might have different names, but they did the same thing: Gather resources. His unique units were only slight variations of other generic units. Only the Rus and Ottomans were original. It is ONLY when Warchief and Asian Dynasties come out that Aoe3 starts to have a difference between Civs, and the custom cards between civs replace the unique technologies and mechanics of 2. And it is only in the Definitive Edition in the last patches, when the Spanish began to have “decency”.
7.- ########## and experience mechanics, which in short are supplies and/or support with technologies or politics from the capital.
No, not that. It doesn’t fit the sense of the game. That would be making “Return of Medieval” for Aoe3, which would be pretty cool DLC, but the card system completely differentiates Aoe3 from Aoe4, and it’s what makes them different games, which is nice, i like both games, but is like compare “Damas” with Chess, or a choccolate ice cream with a vanilla ice cream.
8.- ‘Leader’ or ‘Hero’ type units that can scout or give Bonuses to your troops, and have different abilities.
They already exist: There is the “Mongol Khan”, the first, and then the “English King” came out.
Let’s not expect one for each Civ to come out because otherwise this becomes Warcraft III, hahaha. On the other hand, most generals in the Middle Ages rested in the camp or Town Center, or could vary between being a Man-at-Arms on foot to a general on horseback, so it doesn’t make a difference if you want to put a man-at-arms or a knight leading 9 spearmen in a mini-troop at the recreational level. With a few exceptions, that are too cool to ignore (like the Maya “Nacom” or the Aztec “Tlacocachcatl”), not all civs need to have general units or heroes.
Yes, but you can create many troops at once…
Yes, luckily they are fixing it little by little, improving the graphics with this season…
That’s true…the problem with AoE 3 is that they don’t know how to promote it to AoE 2 and 4 players…
I would add bandit camps with treasures in the middle of the maps like in some campaign missions, make them neutral and fight against players attacking the camps and if players defeat them they can choose to recruit them into their armies in exchange for gold or loot them and keep the treasures (they give you between 500 and 1000 of each resource or a permanent boost of the units until they are killed as it happens with the monsters)…I agree with everything about the rest…AoE 4 should drinking from a lot of things from AoE 3 (since it’s its direct prequel), but keeping some differentiation with AoE 3…
1 Like