Yeah, if me replying to your points is attacking you then I won’t reply anymore. Easy.
The fact that buildings now do not take any melee damage in AOE3 kinda makes is objective tho
All those 35 civs have unique starts on them. They can have common starts, sure
But they have unique bonuses to them so civs like Indians and Khmer feel very unique now
You run out of gold, you start trading. But it has a risk of the enemy finding your trade.
I was talking about AOE3 tho
Same as I don’t remember Fountain of Youth and a Black Family in history that was huge
I have, and I really was not a huge fan (I’ve played it for quite a while actually)
I have 400 hrs on DE alone and I was playing AOE2 since 2009
I’m not Viper or a pro, but I know that AOE2, with all the common strats, has unique strats to each civ
That’s like one of the lowest level plays
If you just wait for your opponent to attack, then maybe you’ve been playing the game wrong
And you just search “best deck for mirror dutch match aoe3”
All the unique stuff is gone
U againt fail to show anything that show aoe2 is complex strategy wise .
Market adds no strategy , it’s something u have to do it , u have no other option in long game , so what strategy a mandatory thing add to game ? Nothing . And the point of risk , u take risk that enemy can destroy ur factory when u calm it so ?? Neither trade in aoe2 nor factory in aoe3 adds anything about stretegy ,
Aoe3 is more accurate history wise in game , but if u want to talk about campaign then there are errors in aoe2 as well .
Even the best of aoe2 stretgies are basic stretgies in aoe3 , ur argument about rush, timing attack or defend is the absolute most basic stretgy in any rts game including aoe2 , aoe3 or any rts game , and u saying it’s the top level game play in aoe 2 ? , Haha , even this show aoe3 is more complex stretgy wise becoz u can do all of that in aoe3 with so many more types timings and suprises in aoe3
As I said 35 civs with more of less difference in units strength and eco strength with some missing upgrades for all and that’s all . Khemer is unique what ??? Just becoz their villi don’t need to go to drop off point from farm make the versatile stretegy vise or special ? Not at all , it just give them small food boost over all , but u still have to hunt or farm . A liitle eco boost doesn’t change the game , it’s still monotonous .
Look at civs in aoe3 , vastly different ,
japan , can’t hunt shrine ?? , That’s what is called making civ unique .
Spain shipment civ ??? U need to plan for xp
Dutch banks ??
Otto free vill , moque upgrades ?
German , free units , sw ??
Mezo civs , every civ is so much different , u need to play so much different , u can’t even play with same cards sequence
Aoe2 stands no where when it comes to uniqueness of civs in compare to aoe3
No, you still can use trash units. Especially with Byzantines
AOE2’s campaign, as I said before is based on historical events
AOE3 goes fully bonkers in that regard
No, but laming is what top levels do
Unique starts like Persian Douche, Teuton Tower Rush, etc
No tower rush, no castle drop, no laming, no douche
And AOE3 has a civ that does not use any food collecting way to get food? (Shrines in Japanese are still a method)
They still can collect berries and mill and that 400 food berry thing that you make
No super uniqueness here
Trade posts, killing people, destroying buildings, making units/buildings
No planning
That’s fair
But you seem to not realize this: I never said AOE3 lacks uniqueness, the uniqueness in the cards is simply an illusion because it is exploitable and simply a search for “best deck this civ that map” erases the uniqueness AOE3 tries to provide with the HomeCity mechanic
AOE2’s civ uniqueness comes from the bonuses and UT and UU
Not a card system (AOE3 has bonuses too, but only those add the uniqueness)
Why does it matter what damage buildings take and how does that make your subjective opinion somehow objective?
Just FYI units do siege damage, and elephants do siege damage in melee to buildings.
Tower rush , castle drop still there in aoe3 , merc start , native stat , musk stat- cav (food-coin) , crossbow pike(food wood ) stat , revolt , etc so many options .
So japan is not super unique but no aoe2 civ has more uniqueness than what japan has , they all hunt , no other ways for them .
Trade posts , killing destroying , it’s the end goal of every rts game , they r not strategy . Spain has merc stat , ff , tp start , and the fact that don’t rely on xp more than just food wood and coin.
U know xp , export ? New resources in aoe3 , and special abilities . Aoe2 lack all those . And we all know , more resources lead to more complexity .
Aoe2 has stone , but it’s just for tc/fort/tower , not as unique as export/consolate or xp .
Aoe2 is a good game , a simple game , easy to learn and play , yess more players like to play it becoz majority of players play for casual fun , they don’t want to stress much . Aoe3 has more veriety in startegy more complex and harder to learn , need to spend more time to play it properly , so casual players find it less fun when compared to aoe2
Have you seen the stats of any AOE3 unit? They have 3 different attacks minimum, there is certainly plenty of variety. And even if they had only one type of attack that wouldn’t somehow make AOE3 objectively bad. That’s a subjective claim (a matter of taste) that is completely unrelated.
And docks do resist monitor fire, just FYI.
In my opinion (subjective, much like yours) keeping things simpler and without hidden multipliers is better as this will keep confusion to a minimum and make the game more readable. With all feedback from AOE3DE it’s quite clear how game readability is a significant factor to making the game playable.
With like 13 towers, you better keep them in your own base
AOE2 has 4 resources and AOE3 in vanilla form has 3 (with Asian civs getting export as the 4th resource)
So, that’s not correct
At least it’s not like AOE3 that every building only costs wood
I’m assuming you watched Viper stream?
It’s not stressful, sure. But it’s just not the game for a chill
You play Among Us for chilling (and I love that game, let’s get this out of the way)
Honestly weird to call all of us casuals when ranked AOE2 is more popular than AOE3 too
U have no idea what a resource is in a rts game , xp has always been the 4th resource in aoe3 , with export make it 5 resources . Xp as a resource was not available in aoe2 . U lack knowledge of rts gaming if u don’t consider xp as a resource , even when there are only finite way to collect it .
Viper stream is so chill when u compare to a pro aoe3 player stream ,
And ofc At pro level none just chill . Compare a average player , pro player make only 1% player base.
Ranked aoe3 used to be popular years back when there was good player base , not any more , becoz it’s more stressing and people dont want to play ranked left in aoe3 , ranked aoe2 is more chill than a ranked aoe3 .
Look at the game play ,in aoe3 u need to herd animal , u need to scout , u need to get treasure , u need to collect heardables , u need to manage economy . Plan for market upgrades , and age up options .
And look at aoe2 , just scout and chilll , when u find boar just send a vill to get it and again chill . Manage a bit of economy and chill .
Aoe3 has no compitition left , almost all competitive player base left long back .
From the logical point of view, neither of those make sense. I’m fairly certain that the 100 year war was won by France not because they had more wood to spam trash, but for some other reasons. These are gameplay features to adjust balance between strategies. Anyways, most of your “unique strategies” in aoe 2 are what? Laming (hated by most), tower rush (hated by many, has to stay in the game for balance reasons), Persian douche (hated by most), castle drop (something you can do in aoe 3 as well, the only difference is that in aoe 2 you can sometimes place it near the starting TC of your opponent). Wow, that’s not a great record of strategies.
Which is neither good or bad. You might prefer quasi-historical campaigns in AOE 2 or non-historical campaigns in AOE 3. It’s the matter of preference.
This isn’t a counterargument. It’s an option that diversifies the gameplay in case you want to try something crazy (say, +100% resources for everyone; or +100% resource for you, but you are 1 v 6 etc.) and lets you play against less skilled or more skilled opponent, very naturally and conveniently.
Just like AOE 2 never had proper balance changes to Aztec or Mayans until 2013 or 2019, depending on your definition of “proper”. Some people think they are broken to this day. Just because devs promised civs to be OP doesn’t remove the issue of civs being OP. It’s still unfun to play against. What if devs said “there will be terrible lag and poor optimization”? Would it justify the issues.
But that’s not a downside still, because aoe 2 didn’t have homecity at all. It’s like complaining that AOE 2 is worse than AOE 3 because conversions are too random and unfair. I’m starting to see a pattern:
A feature with some issues in AOE 2 (conversion) = AOE 2 is a better game, because it has an extra feature
A feature with some issues in AOE 3 (shipments) = AOE 2 is a better game, because it doesn’t have this issue
Who said AOE 3 has failed in this regard? Even if we assume for a second, that each civ has the best Deck, it doesn’t mean civs are not unique.
Similarly, there is no “best shipment” in AOE 3, they depend on the map and on your opponent’s civ, and on your playstyle too.
Saying “still no” is not a valid way to support your claims. You pointed out that there is no reason in AOE 3 to contest for resources. I explain why that isn’t the case, and then you just disregard my reply entirely.
Luckily for me, it’s a philosophical question, unrelated to the validity of game design, so I don’t have to answer.
So, dare I say it, each game has it’s ups and downs and one is not objectively better than the other in this particular regard?
I’m telling that you can’t understand what you read. In this particular sentence, I’m not saying you are attacking me, but you are attacking just one argument while people provided you with other reasons as well that you completly ignored.
And actually you are attacking the game as well.
Can you show us that you have at least AoE3, the old version, so we aren’t speaking to someone that has no clue about anything but aoe2.
That’s your fallback argument?
Don’t worry, I own it.
There is limited resources in any war.
When you consider we are talking about a game, you’d understand that there’s no load and save in a real war either.
’
Let’s not question the choices of RTS genre entirely just because one game is doing what it wants.
The accuracy isn’t 100%, sure
But it’s about 80% in each campaign anyways
I agree, but in MP it’s kinda unnecessary to have tbh. Not a huge deal tho
But almost everyone agrees french cav (at least in AOE3 before DE) is outright broken
They already said they’ll nerf those civs after a while
So, I’m not understanding your point here
It was intentionally made OP for a few months, not 15 years
And AOE2 never promised a customization system
AOE3 did, and it was executed poorly
But there is a “best civ in AOE3”
If you criticize me for wrong comparisons, don’t do that yourself
I complained about resources being infinite
You said they are generated slower
I said they are still infinite and you take no risks with infinite resources
But it still is a valid question
Lombardia in AOE2 allows for allies to be closer
So, AOE2 does have these kinds of maps, but by design, it spreads out allies
Tell me, how many wars were won because all gold mines were exhasted and all woodlines were chopped? I think it’s about 0. It’s lack of production or area control which limits the resources in reality, not their limited amount “on the map”. Besides, real world logic isn’t relevant for game design, I can ask you a dozen of question about logic in aoe 2, which you won’t be able to answer (besides “it’s just a game, don’t nitpick”).
So, it’s alright for games to deviate from reality for the sake of gameplay. Then why do you persist in your “But which makes more sense? Limited resources or limited buildings?” Games don’t have to follow the same rules as reality. So far, you’ve failed to provide any reason for why unit or building limit is detrimental to the game. Strategies? What strategies, tower rush? Do you really think that 7 towers (13 with shipments) is a limiting factor here? Turtling? 13 towers and 2 forts is about as much as you can do in AOE 2 with limited stone. Common sense doesn’t contribute much in this debate, because, as you said, it’s just a game.
There are plenty of RTS games that use unlimited resources. Supreme commander has unlimited resources, and even unlimited (almost) production speed of resources. Yes, this game legitemately allows you to have such an overwhelmingly high resource income, that you won’t be able to come up with a way to spend all your resources, and with no tradeoffs. Company of heroes has unlimited resources, Warhammer: Dawn of War has unlimited resorces. Btw, the two last games also have different pop cost for different units.
Maybe, but how does it make the game objectively better?
Just like everyone agrees aztec have been broken for 2 decades (or at the very least before free loom removal, which only took 13 years or so), and remain insanely strong to this day (98% pick + ban rate on kotd 3).
15 years is the result of the game not being supported by the devs. Just like aoe 2 had quite a few balancing issues before HD (which also added new issues, resolved ~7 years later by DE). So why would you make balance issues as an argument against AOE 3? Maybe if we had access to winrates for different civs for both games, maybe we could compare the degree of imbalance in those two games. But, unfortunately, we don’t, so the only thing we can say for sure is that both games had some issues with balance.
Look up high ranked AOE 3 gameplay on youtube and you’ll quickly find out that most people have at least 3 decks, and many have 10. Probably some noobs that didn’t bother googling “best deck in AOE 3”.
Hello, I’m Aztecs, I have 95% pick/ban rate on most tournaments and I’m listed among one of the best civs for most maps by pro players (like Hera).
You do take a lot of risk with infinite resources, because you need to invest a lot of resources to get access to those infinite resources. The only objective benefit of finite resource concept is to force fights for map control. AOE 3 does accomplish it by making infinite resources much worse than finite ones. Otherwise it’s only a personal preference. Wait, no. You know what? Let’s say it adds variety to the game, since it enables a new way of playing with no map control, which is impossible in AOE 2. So, infinite resources provide a new approach, without taking away previously existing approaches like taking the map control from your opponent. Thus, they are objectively better.
No, it isn’t. It’s on the same level of adequacy as why swords held by infantry do so much damage to buildings. Or why the player cannot trade with themself? It’s ridiculous, especially since we don’t know, what 1 coin represents and what 1 food represents. And don’t tell me that 1 wood is 1/100 of a tree trunk, AOE 3 doesn’t follow real world scale.
There still remains a question, what is better. It doesn’t feel great when you are that lone flank on Arabia, which is closer to the enemy, than to his team, and if no one decides to help, you get wiped out pretty fast. I had a game on Arabia where 2 pockets and 1 flank attacked me first, because I was the closest enemy for all 3 of them. AOE 3 definately had some issues with map generation, but so did AOE 2 with bugged resources and unfair distribution (most have been fixed by AOE 2 DE, and AOE 3 DE advertises the same).
Why is this thread is even running , hard core aoe2 fans will never gonna accept the fact that aoe3 is superior in evry aspect except simplicity . So stop arguing . U can’t show picture to blind ones .
