Fun fact: you cannot prove anything to people who pretend they cannot see.
Because they have their “my AOE2 is superior” in mind, they just cannot lose every single comparison.
For example some earlier argument this guy ardently supports totally neglects the different “stances” between musketeers and skirmishers by repeating “they both carry guns”.
Now he has the initiative to bring up “different stances” by himself. Let’s wait before he starts fighting with his older self.
The only argument that can be made on lower distinction is Scout-Light Cav (which I always could distinguish one from the other based on their shield and horse stance, but that’s debatable)
You also can’t post on AOE3 forums talking about its flaws, because it’s somehow heresy and must be punished. Also, ironic comment
Hence you coming back again without any points and simply to defend AOE3 without any points
Because most flaws are either minor or the same with AoE II or replaced by something better
Like the OP civs and level-restricted homecity cards?
The completely historically-inaccurate campaigns for a series that’s based on historical events?
I don’t hate AOE3. I like it as a game, but it’s not AOE in many areas.
I’ve made millions of points including STANCES before. But some superior players playing superior games like you pretend they cannot see.
I come back just to roast someone like you who believes every single thing he says is true and those who disagree simply because it’s heresy.
OP civs? They are unique that does not equel op.
Level restricted cards are minor problems, as first off all once you reach a milestone level like 20 every new deck you create for all civs has the same lvl and with DE you have no restriction.
You said it correct, based on history. You wanted a campaign of murdering natives and taking their lands? Having slaves and having them happily walk on plantations? No, and the current campaigns have fantasy elements but is still intertwined with actual history.
How does that justify “Scout Cavs are very different from Light Cavs, but Musketeers look the same as Veteran Musketeers” anyway?
Please stick to the argument before running back behind the good old argument of “AOE 2 is superior”.
I believe superior players like you would know the basic logic of “something is superior” does not mean “EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of it is superior”
Where did I imply that?
Also, do you really believe going for insults is going to prove points? You only make your own arguments weaker by relying on insults instead of a proper reply.’
The fact that you are unable to respect opinions speaks for itself
Japanese are considerably OP. The army becomes super strong after a certain point.
French Cav are broken too.
Not like there was a shitton of events other than slavery in that period…
It is. But AOE3 just goes it’s own way
Then try to go for proving points and show how
proves “Scout Cavs are very different from Light Cavs, but Musketeers look the same as Veteran Musketeers ”
and how STANCES can only be used to defend AOE2?
Fun fact: someone you ardently supports in this thread is the first to go for insults.
It seems that does not weaken his point to YOU anyway.
Thanks for literaly proofing my point lol.
Based on history doesnt mean it is 100% accurate.
Japanese have weak eco and their units can be pretty easily beaten once everyone is same age which isnt that hard.
French cav takes some time to be good and most civs have good counters to it.
Just like in AOE 2. Don’t pretend there aren’t any. Even in hidden cup 3 a good half of matches were either mirror matches, or one player holding the top civ back for another map. And that’s after some of DE patches.
AOE 2 doesn’t have cards at all. If you insist that this is an objective downside, you have to also admit that randomness of conversions in AOE 2 is an objective weakness of the game compared to AOE 3.
Purely subjective point. I have a friend who refuses to play AOE 2 campaigns, because they are based on history and therefore must be boring. Even if you insist that historical accuracy is a must for an AOE game, then you have to admit that AOE 2 does a very poor job of representing various civs than AOE 3 does. In AOE 2 mesoamericans use crossbows, two-handed swords, halberds, plate armor etc. In AOE 3 each civ has at least somewhat accurate unit lineups.
If we are going to have a campaign based on historical events, we can have Napoleon, Suleiman etc and see the rise and fall of their empires. Can’t we?
Says the one who resorts to insults.
Fun fact: you hold a grudge for something I tried to clear up with you.
Now you’re here because you still hold it.
No as the theme is colonialism, the new world you know?
Because you’re acting the same way as before of course.
I like how you were never so strict to someone who actually starts the grudge though.
Now, show me how
It makes some mistakes. But AOE2, as we both agreed is based on historical accuracy.
AOE3 is more accurate unit-wise, but not accurate at all when it comes to historical events.
Because you have started personal attacks because of someone else.
And the fact that I admitted I gave a bad first impression.
But I told you it probably did give a bad impression at first.
So I expected you to realize it was a bad impression and move on. But you didn’t.
I apologized once, not gonna do it every time you desire.
I’m here because you are using the same kind argument as I did to someone who is the first in this thread to go for insults.
Someone who is the first in this thread to go for insults totally neglects the differentiating effect of STANCES, and you agreed with almost everything said by someone who is the first in this thread to go for insults.
Now you’re bring up STANCES to defend yourself.
And whenever a counter-argument is made, you retreat back to your good old shield of “AOE2 is superior” just like someone who is the first in this thread to go for insults did.
Now show how logic is functioning here.
But I didn’t see how him going for insults weakens his point, especially when you’re trying to use the same kind of argument here.
What does that proof?
Ottomans can only be in a fantasy campaign as the Ottomans didnt colonize the new world and I believe the Ottomans are only in game because they were rivals of the Europeans who colonized, the reason they colonized and for the campaign.
Still, the timeline is there. You can make Suleiman an enemy and play as him.
Napoleon also existed in the timeline the game covers.
You can have historical campaigns.
And it wasn’t the game to promise 100% unique civs.
I honestly don’t know what this is.
People can also distinguish musketeers by the hat.
Again, a lot of the points you and those you support made here are simply because you’re more familiar with AOE2, medieval settings, etc… This goes back to the very first argument in this thread that “javelins dealing damage only to archers” makes perfect sense but “guns countering guns” is counter-intuitive.
OK, and how can they distinguish Falconets and Field Gun?
I never had issues with guns countering guns.
I actually find Skirmishers and Musketeers different enough. But their upgrades don’t make them so different
They also deal damage to spearmen and pikes
