Its weird how the video doesn’t mention 3 big chunks,
-you had to unlock cards
-AoE3 is more offensive focused, than the balanced AoE2 where you have more defences and can win by world wonder.
-you could ingame change the speed, AoE3 was for me either too slow on normal or too fast on fast.
In AoE2 I could simply set game fast during “build up phase” and slow it down to normal once you start to fight, AoE3 simply didn’t have it. And needed that much more than AoE2.
I’m just curious why a veteran aoe2 player, who accepts javelins outranging bows and crossbows, shields being useless for some infantry and blocking every projectile for others, onagers looking like a smaller trebuchet but actually acting like a medieval field gun, some feathered running guys or scimitar-throwing camel riders etc that nobody has an idea what their expertises are from the first look, and all of the above are not even explicitly stated in the game, found it so hard to accept guns countering other guns.
You completely missed the issue.
What he said is that Musketeers and Skirmishers are no visually very distinct, and therefore are not obvious in their roles.
In AoE2, Archers are countered by Skirmishers, Bow/Crossbow against Javelin and Shield. Those are two very distinct units in every aspect, and you can process which one counters the other, veary easily.
Musketeers and skirmishers carry their firearms with different poses, walks in different fashions, and the former obviously have bayonets. If you call this as not visually distinct, then light cavs and knights are just both guys with swords on the horseback and they should play the same role.
Huskarls have round shields. Swordsmen have kite shields. They both carry swords. They look visually the same with only a few cosmetic differences. The former blocks arrows and slaughters archers. The latter fall to arrows easily.
They still have similar weapons, which are difficult to distinguish at a distance.
AoE2 does not have this issue.
-Archers/Cavalry Archers use Bows, which are general purpose Ranged weapons that are good vs most units.
-Skirmishers/Genitours use Javelins which are only good against Archery Range units.
-Hand Cannoneers, Conquistadors, Janissaries use Guns, which are good vs Infantry.
Wether you prefer it or not, it clearly is a much clearer system of counters.
Sounds like guns and projectiles are the only weapons in this series.
There are so many units with swords, that are not only similar but literally the same. Some deal more damage to archers, some are less vulnerable to priests, some are just average against anything.
I guess it’s not a good idea to confuse familiarity with clarity. When I first played aoe2 in 2001 I messed up with the entire counter system as well. And after reading a few introductory texts and articles I figured out everything and never forgot about them despite not playing for several years. Same for aoe3.
I also think it’s offensive to suggest aoe2 players just lack the ability to read a few introductory sentences and forget about them after a few hours even for two units that look very different just because they both carried guns.
Now you are completely misinterpreting the argument, on purpose.
Face it. AoE3 was a bust in the series, and even though I do not agree with everything on SotL’s video about it, many of his points are valid.
AoE3 has a counter-intuitive counter system. 4 Cannons in the Artillery building, and 2 of them have the exact same function (Falconet and Horse Gun). In AoE2 you immediately kow the difference between all Siege units.
A Knight is a better version of the Scout, and you can tell so because it has Armour on it, but in AoE3 the armourless Hussar is considered Heavy Cavalry, while the cuirassed Dragoon is Light Cavalry.
Muskets have no visual indication that they have a strong attack vs Cavalry, even more so that the obvious anti-cavalry Pikeman.
In AoE2 you do not have to read the multipliers, you know what a unit does in accordance to basic Medieval warfare standards, that are present in a multitude of Media.
In AoE3, units have huge lines of multipliers that one has to pause and read to know what their purpose is.
Most players will highly prefer the AoE2 model, of obvious unit roles. I have 400+ hours of AoE3 on Steam alone, yet I can still see the superiority of AoE2’s unit design. It is just a fact.
Many of his points are valid but THIS PARTICULAR is not. I see no sense in justifying every argument just because the conclusion is acceptable.
And the knight is not simply a better version of the scout because they are vulnerable to monks. I guess it is perfectly obvious because they wear ARMOURS.
And medieval warfare standards mean javelins outranging most projectiles maybe? Which media tells you some feathered running guy acts more like cavalry but are more vulnerable to swords than spears? Which media tells you round shields block arrows while kite shields do not?
And you just stated archers and horse archers have the same function and they are from the same building.
Again, it is offensive to suggest aoe2 players, who often proclaim themselves as fans of history, know nothing about early modern warfare, where there were clearly light infantry that counters line infantry.
Put a Knight vs a Scout (Light Cavalry is the same Age equivalent) and the KNight wins. A Knight will beat a Pikeman, but a Scout/Light Cav will not.
Monks are counters to expensive units, like Knights or Elephants, this comes from Chess in which the Bishop is often used to capture Horses or Towers, and is so imbued in popular culture, that it actually makes a lot of game sense.
It means a unit with a different Ranged weapon and a Shield will beat Archers. This is also true in games like Total War.
Misrinterpreting the argument on purpose again.
They have the same purpose in AoE2, only Cav Archers are faster and have less Range (Cavalry) while Foot Archers have greater Range and slower Movement (Foot Troops).
What is offensive is that you still desperately trying to defend the falws of a game that obviously has them.
I liked bad games too. Just a few days ago I played Dark Reign, and still liked it, but I can also clearly see why it died out when faced against the titanic Command & Conquer and Starcraft games.
Dark Reign is just a bad game when compared to the other ones, no matter how much I liked it.
AoE3 is just worse than AoE2, no matter how much you defend it.
There is no Kite Shields in AoE2, Longswords have Heater Shields.
I played a lot of total war games and javelins beat archers not because they OUTRANGE them, so it seems that the shields make the difference.
Then tell me why someone with a shield and a MELEE weapon would not beat an archer.
It is you who bring up MEDIEVAL WARFARE STANDARDS. I’d prefer you stick to game designs, which would make your argument seem less flawed.
Falconts and Horse Guns have the same purpose, only Horse Guns move faster but took longer to deploy. I see little difference.
What is even more offensive is that someone takes every of his/her opinion as obvious and avoiding to respond to counter-arguments by claiming the opponent is “desparate”.
Sounds like the golden rule for the 21st century is that the player of the BETTER game can justifiably make any statement about a WORSE game and the player of the latter has no right to make any counter-argument.
Men-at-arms carry kite shields. I’m just used to calling them swordsmen because men-at-arms are mostly cavalry in medieval warfare standards.
Then tell me why heater shields do block arrows maybe?
I already posted my arguments, you just proceeded to diconstruct them because you did not like them.
These arguments are obvious because they have already been debated to oblivion, years ago.
Like it or not, the market and playerbase have spoken: AoE3 is the worse game of the series.
This perfectly justifies the statement that musketeers and skirmishers are not distinguishable.
No, the fact that they are both using guns does. 2 Infantry units using guns that cannot be told apart from a distance, makes the arguments that SotL explained.
C’mon. Guess who is defending a falwed argument by repeating “aoe3 is worse than aoe2”.
“AOE3 is worse than AOE2 because your original point is falwed.”
Because AOE3 is worse than AOE2, please do not deny the argument just because you dislike it.
And that’s why I need some explanation why the same swords and shields act so differently and people just accepted it.
This very exchange is doing far more to sabotage the perception of AoE3’s playerbase and game design, to newcomers, then a million essays of pure diss would ever hope to accomplish.
Someone just claiming everything he says is obvious just because some game is better, then picking on spelling (and misspelling himself), then avoiding to respond to a counter-argument by name calling definitely would NOT sabotage the perception of AoE2’s playerbase.
Maybe because it a better game in the series everything a player does is naturally justified.
It is obvious, like it is obvious the sky is blue, or that fire burns. You do not need extremely detailed explainations of this, because the game has been out for more than a decade, and many, many people complained about the very same issues.
This pseudo-intellectual grandstanding will not win you the argument, specially not an argument that was lost years ago.
Obvious like shields perform differently maybe?
AOE2 is out for twenty years and I see people complaining and meming about shields and javelins.
AOE3 is out for decades and this is the first time I see someone claiming musketeers and skirmishers are indistinguishable. The points that won your glorious good old argument which earned you a golden crown is mostly based on game pace, limitation of buildings and leveling up systems. NOT musketeers being indistinguishable to skirmishers.
Obvious like a Sword unit should die to a Bow unit, even if it has a Shield, but another Ranged unit that has a Shield should win because that is the diferentiation factor, that it uses visually different weapons for a similar role (Shields are weapons).