AOE2 VS AOE3

False, as Javelins werent used to counter archers, as others stated they didnt outrange the archers. There is also no media, except AoE II I know of claiming this.

And this argument can be applied for AoE III too, skirmishers were used to disrupt enemy lines, musketeers were the main line unit, so thats according to history and is also portrait in media and basic warfare standarts.

Genoese crossbowman counter cav, is that according to basic military warfare standard? Longbowman dont have bonus vs cav when there are examples of them crushing French noble cavalry heavily armored. AoE II as just as much sensless units who counters others as AoE III has.

So if you take the AoE III skirmisher as example. Historicaly they were used to disrupt enemy lines and to pick off. So that is already one point towards figuring out they are good vs infantry. Then if you cant remember after looking 2 seconds at the stats that it has a multiplier against them I dont know what to tell you. You dont even need to know the exact multiplier, just that it has one.

AoE II has tons of hidden bonusses that AoE III doesnt because they wrote it all down, like the good quality of life they are. Hidden bonusses shouldnt even be a thing.

The hussar in AoE II has also heavy armor on, it even has the wings of the winged hussars which were known to be one of the best cavalry. According to military warfare they should be good units aswell, not inferior to the knight.

Hussars (AoE III) didnt wear armor in real life either, as at the point they were used armor barely stopped bullets anymore so it was pointless, hussars are heavy cav, because they are supposed to charge in deal damage and soak up enemies damage. While Dragoons are meant to scout, hit and run tactics and to be versatile in general, just like real life.

They literaly have a bayonet, look, if you dont know 16th till late 19th century warfare, I dont know why you are here advocating that AoE II protrays medieval warfare perfectly, when AoE III portrais the exact same.

Like I said, AoE II has tons of hidden bonusses one cant even pause for to read. And its not like you need to know the exact mutliplier, just that they have it. This can all be done within a day.

“its just a fact”, no it isnt lol. Tell me, how would you make skirmishers in AoE III more distinguished? Make them wear pink skirts and huge letters above their head telling the player they are skirmishers?

Like the other person said, the skirmisher in AoE III walks in a more sloppy style, carries his fire arm different (which is a trend, all units which carry their firearm like this are light infantry who do good against infantry), and in general looks very different from the musketeer.

Musketeer

Skirmisher

Honestly, if you think those look almost the exact same, I dont know man, but it isnt the games fault then.

1 Like

You can.

Lock speed is an option there.

Again, the base range is equal to archers

If they would make them anti-cav, the unit would be OP.

The winged Hussars are actually the Magyar UU in this game, not the ordinary Hussar.

If it isn’t, why is AOE2 more popular?

1 Like

Hussars were not Heavy Cavalry in any time period, they were always Light Cavalry.
In AoE2, they used Chainmail in an Age where Cavaliers and Paladins are wearing Platemail, so it does make sense that they are still Light Cavalry in comparison.

Dragoons were literally Mounted Infantry, that would dismount to disengage, not fight on horseback like in AoE3. AoE3 Dragoons should be renamed to Carbineers, because they are not Dragoons, nor do they carry the Dragon gun, from which Dragoons got the name.

Dragoons were never scouts, they were fast moving Heavy Infantry, and the horses were just used for redeployment.
You are very wrong, here.

We werent talking about the unit stats, we were talking about clear units etc and distuingishing between them and real life counterparts.

In real life Javelins dont outrage bows.

I didnt advocate for the longbowman to have bonus damage, it was to counter his claims about real medieval warfare.

The regular hussar has wings too, when you upgrade them to it.

The fact was about the units of AoE being distuingishable, compared to eachother. It has nothing to do with the popularity of AoE II.

We are both in the right and wrong.

“Dragoons originally were a class of mounted infantry
”

“Earlier dragoon responsibilities for scouting”

However indeed it became Hussars duty later, although dragoons very well had that role too.

However, I believe the AoE III dragoons to be the light dragoons:

“Starting in 1756, seven regiments of Light Dragoons were raised. These Light Dragoons were trained in reconnaissance, skirmishing and other work requiring endurance in accordance with contemporary standards of light cavalry performance.”

Also in real life Dragoons barely wore armor (which is a visial mistake in AoE III, however could be done to distuingish them from the Hussar)

Also the original weapon was mainly the Dragon, however that changed and the Musket, Caribines and Arqubusiers became also used. A dragoon can still carry a carbine withouth making it a caribineer/ caribineer sometimes were part of dragoon regiments.

In game, they act like Carbineers, not Dragoons, so they should be Carbineers.

Yes, they do. But the Winged Hussars (as the really good cavalry) is Magyar Hussar in the game.

Which the reality is AOE2 is based on historical accuracy. It’s not supposed to be 100% accurate.

AOE3 on the other hand does have an accurate unit composition but their design is very simple. Especially for each unit’s upgrade (Veteran Musketeer etc) and also the historical events are not at all depicted in AOE3, just fictional events and families.

1 Like

This all wasnt what our discussion was about. It was about unit distuingish.

You are actually proving my point with your first statement. That was the whole reason I made the point. As he stated it was all based on real medieval warfare, which clearly it isnt.

Also AoE 3 units are just as detailed as AoE 2. And if you disagree show me examples.

Oh yeah I can remember the guys complaining about the home cities. The only “reason” I remember why some ppl just not wanted to switch over to aoe3 or stopped after a few games ^^ (lost even more guys on the way from aoe3 to aoe online cause of the looks)

Veteran Musketeer vs Musketeer

Falconet vs Field Gun

Falconet and field gun are artillery, there is not much to change when they already look similar, same for AoE II onager:
Onager_aoe2DE

and siege onager:
Siege_onager_aoe2DE

Almost identical jusy like falconet and field gun.

For the musketeer, it has about the same changes as scout to light cavalry in AoE II:

Musketeer:

Veteran:

Scout:
Scoutcavalry_aoe2DE

Light cavalry:
Lightcavalry_aoe2DE

Both have small changes, but still enough distinguish among them to see they are different.

Because you find AoE II superior, doesnt mean its a fact. Its an opinion.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses and both play differently, you cant really compare them 1 on 1.

The economy in AoE III got a bit smaller, but the military part got bigger, with more counters/unit times and more upgrades to it.

Wrong, the white Iron on the wheels makes it very distinguishable for SO and Onager.

Don’t shove the model in my eyes to prove it’s unique.

It has to look different within the game zoom.

You’re being biased in this comparison because you are bringing the unit icon for AOE2 and a 1000% zoom of the AOE3 model. That’s not how it works

Bring the in-game model (for both games ofc) within the zoom of the game and then make a point

1 Like

If you look at siege onager and onager they look the exact same, with small changes like iron on the wheels and a bit bigger on the end. That doesnt make it more different then falconet and field gun. You are lieing to yourself to say the SO and onager look and are totally different.

the unit icons are litteraly the models lol, they are even more zoomed in than the musketeer and they are similar. I am not home right now, but when I got time, sure.

Onager:
image

Siege Onager:
image

Falconet:

image

Imperial Field Gun:

image

Scout:

image

Light Cav:

image

As you can see, except the hat there’s no distinguishable difference between Falconet and Field Gun

How about Ligh cav and Scout? Shield-like clothing behind the Light Cav. The hat. The difference in cloth coloring (although this might not be too visible for some)

1 Like

The onagers still look almost the same from a distance, a little bit thicker, but that is about the same change as the field guns hat.

Light cav and scout still very similar from afar, the shield is really the only distinct feature, when with the musketeer the hat is really distinct so also almost the same

Also the different stance on horse riding.

Not at all. You can argue about the Light Cav and scout, but not that.

How about Knight-Paladin? or Archer-Arblester? or Militia-Champion?

1 Like

One of the things I think AOE2 does better than AOE3 is allowing hypercasual gameplay without restraints. The empire building aspect is more fleshed out in 2 with no build limits and generous population cap which features only units which cost 1 or 1/2 pop.

That doesn’t mean that AOE3 is a worse game, it just caters more explicitly to the MP community.

The grinding in the original game was a major turn-off too which was luckily fixed in DE.

2 Likes

It was about general distinction, I can name numerous AoE III units that look very different on upgrading.