Then this has nothing to do with medieval warfare conventions. This becomes obvious because aoe2 is out for so many years and people just take it for granted, not the other way round.
[Correction: people accept it as a game concept, but keep making fun of it because it is counter-intuitive]
For someone familiar with medieval warfare he/she should know about shield walls, which were intended to block arrows, and which were mainly used by melee units.
And then come the good old huskarls which use shields and swords just like every regular swordsman and perform entirely differently.
Again, they should not be obvious at first glance, if people carrying guns are indistinguishable even though they act differently.
It does. Infantry always lose to Archers, unless it is Skirmishers (Ranged Infantry with Shields and Javelins/Hatchets/Throwing Daggers/Darts).
AoE2 plays to a lot of Medieval tropes exceedingly well.
-Cavalry always beats Archers, unless the Archers are behind (or on top, in other games) a Wall.
-Archers always beat Infantry. Skirmishers and Catapults/Mangonels always beat Archers.
-Pikes always beat Cavalry.
-Heavy Infantry always beats Pikes.
-Monks/Holymen/Religious Icons always beat High Value troops.
AoE2 is classically Medieval, at least by gaming standards. The classic basis of AoE2 are in Chess, a game that transcends time.
Huskarls and Eagle Warriors are other abstractions, they represent the classic Runner type of Medium Infantry, that was armoured enough they could approach Archers, but not so much they would be able to clash with Heavy Infantry.
It is all very, very obvious.
But it is not, and most players did not stick around to find out the difference.
I remember when I first played AoE3 at release, and made Skirms, and just though they were some kind of upgraded Musketeers. It was not at all obvious they were counter to the Musketeers, specially because I already had Crossbowmen and Falconets, both of which countered the Musks.
It felt like a very superfluous unit.
It was only later that I actually figured out they are a replacement to the Crossbow at the Barracks.
If this is obvious because someone knows about medieval warfare, then someone knows about early modern warfare should definitely distinguish between light infantry and line infantry.
Just a friendly reminder that shield wall is not a skirmishing formation, though.
Again Iām not saying which game is more obvious. AOE2 does not fit medieval warfare perfectly. AOE3 does not fit early modern warfare perfectly. Neither makes much sense if you really take history into consideration (and it is you who drags history into this argument while I simply began with visual differences).
And the poor old huskarl is ignored again, along with the javelin which outranges everything because the thrower is simply carrying a shield.
That is why I disagree with your logic.
AOE3 did not receive as large an audience than AOE2 and many AOE2 players did not spend much time on it, due to many design issues, leveling systems, faster pacing, you name it.
THAT makes people feel the units are indistinguishable.
AOE2 players stick to AOE2 much longer and that makes every design just perfect and fine. I did not figure out what the skirmishers and many unique units do the first time I played AOE2 either.
Itās not because units are not distinguishable that people dropped the game.
It is obvious because almost EVERYONE knows about Medieval warfare, or at least itās videogame incarnations. Even in Warcraft Footmen/Grunts were countered by Archers, Archers were countered by Knights/Raiders/Ogres and Ballistae/Catapults, and Knights/Raiders/Ogres were counted by Daemons/Water Elementals and Flyers.
This kind of transposition of Medieval warfare to games, has been around forever, while Early Modern combat has not, and the Era is considered boring in terms of combat.
Just go any Hollywwod movie that has Early Modern combat, and all you see is blocks of Infantry marching against Cannon fire, and then trading volleys with other Infantry square formations, almost Turn Based.
That is how people see Early Modern warfare. Most will not be able to tell you that you did not aim a Musket and it was a close-ranged formation weapon, while a Rifle was a skirmishing weapon for long-ranged engagements.
The vast majority of gamers will not know the difference between a Culverin and a Serpenrtine or a Basilisk, all they see is a Cannon, which was even itās own type of weapon.
There is also a design issue in AoE3.
When I started playing, I saw a Pikeman and a Crossbowman in the Barracks, and knew they were anti-Cavalry and anti-Infantry units respectively. Then I saw the Musketeer and thought it would be the advanced anti-Infantry unit, but it turns out that it is an anti-Cavalry unit instead, which is not only historically inaccurate, but also runs counter to the syatem that AoE2 had placed down.
And that is totally a different topic.
People being more familiar with medieval warfare ā people naturally accepting every design in a medieval game.
I canāt see how this relates back to the visual design of the games.
If you really wish to bring Warcraft into the argument, donāt forget their javelin throwers and bows/guns play exactly the same role, and footmen can raise their shields to block arrows.
Just a kind reminder that this is totally biased. If you look at hollywood movies on medieval or classical combat, most of them were just hordes clashing into each other with little formation or tactics.
Fun fact:
One claiming AOE3 counter systems is confusing compared to AOE2.
The other claiming AOE2 counter systems is more intricate and has more depth
They agree with each other instantly.
They do not.
And I donāt understand why someone familiar with medieval warfare would consider something like a SPEAR countering cavalry is unacceptable.
You make this whole lot of argument that AOE2 counter design is more acceptable because people are more familiar with medieval settings, and that is exactly my point ā people familiar with AOE2, and medieval settings overall, can easily accept these designs.
People are not familiar with early modern warfare, and they make mistakes like you have made about it, so they cannot see the difference.
This has little to do with game design.
As for other disagreements I would consider them simply as minor digressions from the topic.
It has everything to do with game design. AoE3 has to do itās job in presenting itās combat system in an effective and clear way.
I never had the same issues playing any Cossacks game, which has combat in the same Era. A Musket counters Infantry, a Pike Counters Cavalry, a Swordsman counters Pikemen, an Archer counters unarmoured units and buildings (Fire Arrows) and a Grenadier counters close formations and buildings.
Cossacks managed to make it clear. Why didnāt AoE3?
If you really consider early medieval warfare, massed muskets almost counter everything except scattered skirmishers because the muskets are inaccurate.
Even when cavalry charged head towards line formations, they would be severely damaged from the volley fire, and not to mention the bayonets which act like SPEARS. Tbh I even think aoe3 musketeer should have a ranged bonus against cavalry, though they didnāt implement it.
You mentioned total war games. In Empire and Napoleon, artillery deals even more damage to cavalry, especially at closer range with canister shots.
Grapeshot, not Canister Rounds, which is something that AoE3 should have had.
In TW games, even if Artillery can heavily damage Cavalry, it does not counter it either, specially Hussar-style Light Cavalry.
Cossacks are not doing this right because musketeers are not designed as infantry counters in early modern warfare.
Again, because you are familiar with the good old medieval (game) setting. Early modern warfare is nothing like before.
In 16 and 17th centuries pikes are a major offensive weapon. Massed pike formations are devastating even to INFANTRY. Then people added musketeers to harass the opponentsāthatās when you can say muskets are infantry counters.
In the age of line battles, where muskets were more advanced, fire faster, and can be equipped with bayonets, and soldiers were trained to keep in their formations, musketeers in linear formation played the central role because it were much less vulnerable to cavalry charge. Then people started to deploy scatter skirmishers to harass them before a head-on combats.
You are now comparing real world warfare with videogame warfare. In the real world, Pike lines were a pushing tactic that overpowered enemy Infantry and made Cavalry charges ineffective.
In videogame warfare, Pikes are an anti-Cavalry defensive unit.
Gamers expect the anti-Cavalry defensive unit.
As far as game design is concerned, Cossacks definitely did it right. All units had clear and easily recognizeable roles.
You did not need to read a list of multipliers, you knew what the unit would do by name alone.
Total war is different because formations and morale play a huge role. Not many counters are implemented as bonuses statwise except anti-cavalry. However if a round of cannon balls hit a cavalry unit, much more men are killed because they were knocked off the horse. While for infantry many were just knocked down and were able to stand up again.
And javelins in the games do not deal any bonus damage to archers.
Nice that you finally discarded the āmedieval warfare conventionā argument.
In Warcraft 3, which is conceptually a medieval GAME setting, javelins and guns and bows are the same type of weapon.
You mentioned media and hollywood movies, where pikes are often represented as offensive weapons (like in Alexander the Great ). You claimed they justify the game designs, and now you are separating them.
Nobody ever makes the statement that āmuskets are infantry countersā, not to mention āmuskets with bayonets are infantry countersā. Indeed as bayonets were underrepresented in video games, I wonder why a newcomer would find bayonets countering cavalry unacceptable.
Again, you are always mistaking your familiarity (and many other gamersā too) with design clarity. If anyone knows a little with early modern warfare, which is underrepresented in video games, this just makes sense.
And guess who is bringing up history to justify a GAME DESIGN.
I did not, I always posed under the way it is presented in gaming, which is very consistent.
They are, because there is only one Foot Archer type in the game per race, but you can easily understand what I said, and why I said it. In Warcraft 1-2, Archer type units are countered by Siege type units. Warcraft 3 had a different system because it was widely different as a general game.
They are not, Pikes in movies are often portrayed defending from incoming Cavalry, like in the movie Alexander the Great. They are permanently portrayed as a defensive formation.
It is design clarity. Clear design is easily recognizable with just minimal previous knowledge.
This is something that AoE3 failed at, and Cossacks succeeded in.
No, I brought it up because you brought the bayonet up.
That really sounds like a game design concept.
I thought it was OBVIOUS you were talking about history. Thatās why I brought this up.
If you stick to visual designs, I canāt understand why someone seeing a bayonet VISUALLY cannot relate it to cavalry-counters.
Minimal previous knowledge like round shields are the best at blocking arrows while other shields are not, or javelins outranging everything.
I learned them from primary school and these are justifiably minimal.
