In StarCraf 2 there are units that occupy more than one population slot. If you think about it abstractly, this, in addition to providing balance, involves the logistics behind it.
Elite units usually carry more resources, therefore more people must be in charge of their maintenance, supplies, etc.
You hit the nail.
The time that AOE-3 is about a later time. The castles began to become completely obsolete after the siege executed by the Ottomans against Constantinople. As someone already mentioned, in AOE-2 they are not limited by quantity, but are limited by other factors.
The fact that a limitation is not a numerical limit, does not mean that something else cannot be considered a limitation.
Multiple population is just a way to balance the game, just like building limits on something.
They are very strong and powerful hero units. It is the āMansabdarā version of the basic unit.
In addition there are the native allies of the map + the native allies that can be sent from the metropolis. They are units that do not count as population, but have a limit. In addition there are civilizations that have up to 2 shipments of this type. If we do the math it would be 200 units (In case the player has only created infantry that usually only counts one pop) + 20-30 or (even more I think) of native allies from the metropolis. Also letās add the natives on the map. On water maps you can create a huge number of ships that cost no population, and if you ally with natives, you can create even more (up to 20 canoes). More than 30 ships per player.
Also many heroes can train units that do not count population: like dogs, tigers, disciples, etc.
In a late or treaty 4vs4 game there can be as many units and buildings as in any different AOE.
Thanks for bringing up this topic in the AoE2 forum so that some AoE2 players who donāt like AoE3 can come here and talk about why they donāt like it.
Iāll tell you why: Because itās not AoE2.
Both games have their merits and demerits. I play both, but I play AoE3 a lot more because it is less boring to me.
Thereās literally no point comparing these two games because they are very different. AoE3 is not a spiritual successor to AoE2 - it has different rules and a completely different concept.
Look at them as different games made by the same studio. They are like Prince of Persia and Assassinās creed. Both made by Ubisoft, share a lot of gameplay mechanics, one is technically the successor to the other, but they are VERY different games.
I like Age of Empires 2 more than Age of Empires 3 because:
The counters are really really weird in AoE3. Really, really, really, really, weird. In Age of Empires 2, it makes sense: Archers beat infantry, infantry beats trash units, trash units beat cavalry/archers, cavalry beats infantry and archers. It all makes logical sense. In Age of Empires 3, thereās no logical reason why unit X would counter unit Y.
Age of Empires 2 has more civs, a lot more civs. The Revolution is an interesting twist that increases the number of civs, but itās far less than what we have in Age of Empires 2. And they are not fully fledged civs either.
The switch from moving quickly to not quickly is terrible.
On a good note:
I love Age of Empires 2ās graphics, but also Age of Empires 3ās grahpics. They donāt go for realistic but are both amazing in their own way.
The āHome Cityā while I would hate it in Age of Empires 2, itās a perfect concept for Age of Empires 3.
What could have been done better:
IMO, due to its time period, AoE3 should not have went for counters for the most part, but rather for different stats to make the game more different: some units are faster, others have more health, others more damage, etc. Less relying on counter bonuses and more relying on stats differences, especially when they are all primitive guns units.
AOE2 players never want to admit the two biggest things the game has going for it:
It came out at the peak of the RTS market
Almost any potato can run the game smoothly
Comments about the counter system are beyond irritating if you know the difference between a smooth-bore musket and a rifle, and that spears outclass swords in real life.
The smooth-bore is worse than a rifle, but that still doesnāt explain the whole counter system in Age of Empires 3. Itās non-intuitive, and makes no sense at times.
And that doesnāt explain other issues such as the unitsā sometimes faster other times lower movement speed. You can call it a feature, but itās a feature that makes as much sense as the counter system.
And I know that Age of Empires 2 is not perfectly accurate either, but itās far more intuitive than Age of Empires 3.
If Age of Empires 3ās counters would have been more obvious, or they would have went for it another way (for similar units - no classic counters, but rather for different stats to make the game more different. some units are faster, others have more health, others more damage, etc. Less relying on counter bonuses and more relying on stats differences, especially when they are all primitive guns units) and if they would have removed the speed variation in units, the game would have been a lot more similar to Age of Empires 2.
Age of Empires 2 had good timing. But Age of Empires 3 was the successor of the colossal that Age of Empires 2 was, there was a lot of hype around Age of Empires 3 as well, so you canāt really blame AoE3ās lack of success on bad timing when it had a lot of hype build around it. AoE3 isnāt exactly MSI GeForce RTX 3070 needed either, both games can be run perfectly well with mediocre PCs.
AoE 3 counter system is not difficult to figure out. You just have to look at what the units are good against when you play the game. The counter system is really good once you learn it which is easy.
counters are not super intuitive in aoe2 either:
why do skirmishers counter archers?
why do swordsmen counter pikes?
why do genoese xbow counter cav? etc
One big difference for new player itās the fact that army can go through forest. Itās doesnāt seem much but thatās very important. Most of low level player play black forest. Itās more peacefull and easier to defend.
The strategy of building position in aoe2 is feel more important.
Amazon, michi and black forest are the favorite for noobs because you can play against a better player and still be fun. Try to enjoy a game on arabia with someone +500 elo
A group of units moves as slow as the slowest unit in that group, that is the same in AoE2.
Aside from that, AoE3 introduced the āsnareā mechanic, which causes a unit to be slowed down for a couple seconds when struck by a melee attack. The idea behind this mechanic is that it makes unit positioning more impactful and makes it not so easy to just instantly disengage when you get into a bad fight.
the problem in his case is he didnāt bother learning WHY the unit speed changes, yes at first it seems almost random, but after a while, not a lot of time either, it becomes intuitive to snare opponents and use pull trick to speed yourself up, a lot of age 2 only players seem insanely rigid to such mechanics
my perspective is probably quite rare one tho, i started on 3 and only started with 2 after adapting to 3 solely, took quite a while to get the feel for both, but i managed it, started 3 in early 2006, 2 in early 2007
Yes, me tooā¦ I started AoE 3 in 2005 with its demo release, then AoE 2 in 2006 and I said āitās very different from 3ā and then a few days later I played aom that my cousin showed me and I said āah, now it closes everythingāā¦since AoM is the lost link between AoE2 and AoE 3ā¦then obviously I continued with the expansions of the 3 and with The Conquerors of the 2 in 2007; the AoE 1 in 2008, the AoE Online in 2011, but I could not play it back then (I was just able to play it in 2017 with Proyect Celeste),then the 2 HD and its expansions between 2013 and 2016, the AoE Castle Siege between 2014 and 2019, the 3 editions DE between 2018 and 2020 and finally the AOE 4 in 2021 which interspersed with its 3 predecessors: AoE Online, AoE 3 DE and AoE 2 DE (the AoM EE and the 1 DE do not play them)ā¦