AoE5 if it was chronological

[TheSquidEmpire]

We had a bit of a chat in the AoE3 forums about that game’s timeline and what sort of AoE game might follow on from the end date:

How long should we wait until we get the next DLC?

Yes, it could be an AoE 5… or perhaps, just maybe, they could do something “basado” and create an AoE 4ever that serves as a chronological successor to AoE 3 . Another possibility could be to explore the idea of making a standalone DLC in AoE 3 that covers a later time period (similar to AoE 2’s Return of Rome but in the future)… well, I’m just exploring ideas [image] *Reference image, I usually play the current AoE IV, but every AoE player must acknowledge that it was expected…

It ended up going pretty off topic but I had some more ideas and thought it might be fun to start a new thread here to discuss…

So here’s my rough concept!

Disclaimer: I am a euro-centric AoE3 player

Setting:

The game picks off where AoE3 roughly ends → the late 1800s. It covers the era of New Imperialism (possibly the last historical “Age of Empires”) and a bit beyond into the 1930s - the zenith of the power of the colonial empires: up to the start of the modern era.

In all Age of Empires games, the player starts as a small fledgling faction that builds up their might and becomes a powerful force by late game. In the first two games you start as a single village and end as a large nation or empire. In this game we would take the concept from AoE3 instead and have the player’s base be abstracted as some sort of new settlement from an existing world power, that grows into a powerful city or nation in its own right.

Ages

The idea of "ages" from AoE 1 is being stretched pretty far here but it's part of the series lol :p

1. Frontier Age ~1870-1890 - Franco-Prussian War, Wild West. Exploration and early econ
2. Competition Age ~1890-1910 - Great Game, Scramble for Africa. Early combat
3. War Age ~1910-1920 - World War I. Core combat age. Fortifications become common.
4. Golden Age ~1920-1930 - Roaring Twenties, Interwar Period. Peak economic age.
5. Modern Age ~1930-1940 - World War II (early). Final “Imperial Age” with super (near-future) upgrades for units and economy

Resources and Economy

As in all AoE games, the basic economy is about building workers and sending them out to gather natural materials in the early game, before switching to farming in the late game.

The base resources are:

• Food
• Coin
• Oil

In the early game, Food and Coin are used to build most units and buildings. In the later game, Oil becomes important for advanced units and upgrades.

Food is the most basic resource, which is used for units and age ups. In the early game it would be collected by tasking workers on hunting or boats on fishing. Later in the game it can be gathered through buildable farms which provide endless food.

Coin is used for construction, units, and technologies. In the early game it can be collected through mining surface deposits of minerals. In the late game, coin can be gathered in a number of ways, with the main way being factories. Otherwise perhaps certain nations or powers would allow the building of eternal “pit mines” to task workers on, or there could be an AoE1/2 style trade route mechanic.

Oil is used for advanced units and technologies. It can only be gathered by constructing and manning oil wells on resource points on the map. Because Food and Coin can be generated in-base without fear of raiding, Oil should be the resource that forces places to compete for map control.

Factories
I think it’s important to emphasise the importance of factories in the economy of the time period. Factories will be buildings that generate resources over time, automatically. In the late game a player’s economy might be almost entirely in factories.
The building should cost population and act as an alternative to worker units. I think the default factory should produce only Coin , and then perhaps there are civilisation bonuses or other abilities that allow special factories for Food or even Oil .
Factories will also be used to create many important units and while a factory is making a unit, it stops generating resources.

Buildings
Buildings are built by wokers and unlock as the player ages up. I’m not going to get super in-depth here but a main roster would look something like:

Age I:

• Town center → trains workers, does the age ups (1 only)
• House → adds to your pop limit
• Depot → worker resource drop-off point. Does economic upgrades. Provides eco/defence buff
• Trade Center → buy/sell resources here. Does civic/misc upgrades
• Mine → free, built on mineral deposits to allow workers to extract Coin .

Age II:

• Garrison → trains and upgrades infantry units
• Factory → generates Coin OR trains armoured and artillery units. Also does factory, armoured, and artillery unit upgrades
• Farm → task workers here to generate Food . Does farm upgrades
• Oil Well → task workers here to generate Oil
• Anchorage → trains, upgrades, and repairs ships
• Airstrip → trains, upgrades, and stores aircraft

Age III:

• Town center → (building unlocked)
• Bunker → base/frontline defence that slows down enemy units coming near
• Barbed wire field → large field that slows down all units moving through it (except tanks) that can only be destroyed by artillery using attack ground

Age IV:

• Redoubt → bigger, more powerful bunker that also trains units

Age V:

• Monument → special last age building for super upgrades or whatever

Units and Combat

There are no melee units at all. All combat takes place at some range. Moving units take more damage. Infantry units left alone will automatically entrench after a bit of time, increasing their defence and range.

Combat will be grindier than other AoE games, and can quickly devolve into trash wars. But the team that wins will be the one who can exploit holes made in the enemy lines quickly. Positioning will be vital at all times.

In Age II combat will be small skirmishes and raids. A defensive player can build automatic-guns to stop an infantry rush, but this will cost them factory useage.

In Age III combat begins in earnest. Most unit types are unlocked and there should be cheap technology to drastically reduce unit train time to allow massing infantry (e.g. “Rail Mobilisation”) . Players will quickly try to secure their land with infantry and bunkers, and a frontline will stablise if both sides do this at the same time. The game then will be about breaking the line with artillery and perhaps tanks, and then quickly exploiting any gaps you can force.

In Age IV combat will be much like in Age III, with the addition of special unique units to mix things up, and other specialised late game stalemate-breakers, like bombers.

Finally, Age V combat becomes quick and brutal: static defences are no longer effective due to special final age upgrades (e.g. “Stormtrooper tactics”) that remove their movement speed debuff zone and improve infantry speed and siege power, and final age factory and unique units have potent attack power.

Basic roster

---

Garrison units

Scout → Reconnaissance unit. Horse-mounted recon unit with fast movement speed and long LoS but low attack. Costs only Food . Obsolete by Age III.
Age II - Light Horse. Adds a strong attack and retains the speed and LoS but gains no extra HP.

Rifleman → Core infantry unit. Cheap, generally slow, and powerful, but with low HP. Unlocks in Age II. Costs Food and a little Coin . Each age their range and power increases. These units automatically entrench themselves if left alone for a bit, increasing their range and defence.
Age III - Frontline Rifleman
Age IV - Elite Rifleman
Age V - Automatic Rifleman

---

Factory units

Automatic gun → Anti-infantry weapon. Not effective against anything else. Unlocks in Age II. Costs Food and Coin .
Age III - Machine-gun
Age IV - Heavy Machine-gun
Age V - Universal Machine-gun - greatly improves movement speed and makes setup/teardown instant

Cannon → King of the battlefield. Anti-everything. Splash damage, good range, and extremely powerful. The only downside is it is innaccurate and very slow to move and set up or tear down. Unlocks in Age II. Costs a bit of Food and a lot of Coin . Each upgrade increases the damage and range of the unit.
Age III - Artillery
Age IV - Howitzer
Age V - Heavy Artillery

Armoured Car → very fast, good HP, weak attack. Very effective against aircraft. Unlocked in Age III. Costs Food and Oil .
Age IV - Scout Car
Age V - Half Track

Landship → slow, armoured to resist attacks below a certain strength, and with no damage penalty while moving. For breaking defensive lines. Unlocks in Age IV, but some can be aquirred in Age III somehow (e.g. civilisation bonus, or homecity cards). Requires a lot of Coin and Oil . Each upgrade increases the speed and firepower of the unit, but doesn’t increase the armour.
Age IV - Light Tank
Age V - Tank

---

Anchorage units

To be honest I wonder if boats should not be included at all. Naval combat isn't really AoE's strong suit, and with the way warship combat evolved in the time period and the power of shore bombardment I'm not sure if it would be super fun. It would be easy to include fishing boats, a fast/weak raiding ship line, a slow/strong ship line, and a special submarine ship line though.

---

Airstrip units

Aircraft are tricky because they can't be ignored but they require new systems e.g. biplanes can't just sit idle in the air and have to be moving at all times.

Balloon → Cheap, slow reconnaissance unit that can be shot down by ground units. Long line of sight but no attack. Unlocks in Age II. Costs Food and Coin .
Age III - Airship - adds an attack effective against buildings and armoured units but doesn’t increase health or speed.

Biplane → Fast flying unit for intercepting enemy units, scouting, and harassing ground units. Unlocks in Age III. Costs Food and Oil .
Age IV - Monoplane
Age V - Fighter

Bomber → Medium speed flying unit with good health and a very strong attack against buildings and units, but rather inaccurate and slow moving. Unlocks in Age IV and costs Coin and Oil .
Age V - Heavy Bomber

---

Empires

It would be really cool to think about future DLCs that could feature interesting places and underrepresented nations and empires, or obscure bits of history. However, I will stick to what I would imagine the core game would have to have - the “Great Powers”; major empires of the time.

Unique units/buildings would unlock after Age IV.

British Empire

The world’s preeminent global empire, only just beginning its decline. The British Empire should have abilities related to their Empire more than anything else. They should be able to call in unique units or resource boosts from India, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, etc… Their navy should also be more powerful than any other.

Unique Unit: Commandos → garrison infatry unit with low HP but high speed and attack, especially against buildings. Perhaps they can be paradropped via aircraft?

French Third Republic

Post-napoleonic France is a nation with damaged pride and unforgiven grudges. I think the French nation should get advantages to defence and should primarily be a turtling team. Perhaps their bunkers are much cheaper and infantry can build them? France’s large colonial holdings in Africa might come into play too.

Unique Building: Cannon bunker → like a bunker, but with a long-range artillery attack

German Empire

Bismark’s German unification came at great cost to the balance of European power, and once his stabilising influence was lost, disaster followed. The German team should get bonuses to their factories and unit production speeds. Perhaps their machine-gun units are also faster and more powerful.

Unique Unit: Heavy tank → much more powerful in all ways to a regular tank. But very expensive (especially costing a lot of Oil )

Otttoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire spent this period collapsing, but perhaps the player can instead bring them to a new golden age? I think the Ottoman team should get bonuses to Coin and Oil incomes. Perhaps they also have faster moving workers.

Unique Unit: (considering the Ottoman empire didn’t exist at the period the unique unit would be coming from I think you could just make something up, as long as it felt thematic? Any ideas?)

Russian Empire

In game unless there is some sort of revolution mechanic like AoE3, Russia will have to be an imagined enduring Tsardom. The Russians should focus on maneuver warfare. I think that their infantry will be unable to entrench and they won’t be able to build bunkers or barbed wire, but instead all their units will move much faster and have no damage penalty while moving. I think the Russians should be the only civ with an Age III upgrade to their Light Horses, allowing them to be used for longer as well.

Unique Unit: (same as with the Ottomans). It’s goofy as all hell but it would be great if the Russian unique unit was the Tsar Tank. It could be something that’s like halfway between an armoured car and a tank, way faster than a tank but not as armoured.

United States

The world’s most powerful economy by the close of this time period, the United States will be a steamroll civilisation. Their economy will be boosted compared to other nations and will reach incredible levels if left unchecked. In compensation, their units take longer to train, making them more vunerable to rushes. The US experimented with colonialism in this period and perhaps their Pacific and Philippine posessions might come into play.

Unique Unit: Army Engineers → Garrison infantry unit which ignores armour when attacking and removes barbed wire automatically. Devastating against tanks and buildings.

Empire of Japan

A rising empire with dangerous ambition, the Japanese warrior culture and seafaring ways should give them advantages to fishing yeilds and infantry combat performance. Perhaps their riflemen are the most powerul of all the nations, but their factory units are weaker.

Unique Unit: Naval Infantry → infantry trained from battleships that can’t entrench but are otherwise as good as regular Riflemen.

Great Qing

Decades of humiliation and internal struggle leave the Chinese kingdom weakened, but China still has the largest world population, by far. Can the player reawaken this ancient dragon? Again, like Russia, without a revolution mechanic we will have to have a fantasy continuation of the Qing dynasty.
I think China shouldn’t have the abilty to build factories until the final age, instead being forced to rely on workers and natural resources. In compensation, they should get free workers and an increased population limit.

Unique Unit: (sorry to say I don’t have any ideas. Any suggestions?)

Republic of the United States of Brazil

A newcomer to the world’s stage with grand ambitions and a motivated people. I think Brazil should get boosts to Food and Oil income, and should have increased raiding power. Perhaps their Light Horses do bonus damage to workers.

Unique Unit: (sorry to say I don’t have any ideas again. Suggestions welcome!)

Honourable mentions:

• Italy
• Austro-Hungary
• Mexico
• Spain
• Korea
• Ethiopia
• Argentina

Maps

I think it would be fun to have the maps mainly be about areas which were either being influenced by New-Imperialism, or might have been so in an alternative timeline.

E.g.

• Balkans
• Africa
• Caucasus
• Central American
• South Pacific
• Far East Russia / Sea of Japan
• Central/South Asia

---

Let me know what you think!

[SoullessHeathen]

It’s cool as hell, that’s what I think.

[SchwarzeGarde49]

I don’t think this time period justifies a whole “age” game. We are basically talking about one century, where the last games consisted of 5-10+.

However if the devs decided to go with it, I’d rather see a “20th century dlc” for aoe3. I’d suggest giving two additional ages, national age (corresponding from roughly 1848 to ww1) and ideological age (ww1 - ww2, similar to civ V). Cavalry units transformed into vehicles (trucks, tanks), cannons into artillery, trade routes into oil routes (exclusive resource), native camps into oil fields?. Cards could easily replicate policies like “police state” (increases damage of spies against villagers), “5 year plan” (faster construction of factories) or “new deal” (increasing efficiency of villagers). Obviously you’d have three new architecture styles, corresponding to freedom (usa, britain, france, india), order (russia, china, african countries) and autocracy (germany, italy, japan, ottomans).

The only really new element would be aviation, but considering we have baloons in aoe 3 I’d say it’s doable, similar to the iron ship of usa for naval warfare.

[SoullessHeathen]

As human technology development sped up the aoe games have gotten shorter.

AoE1 covered around 8400 years from 8000 BC to the 4th century AD.

AoE2 covered around 1200 years from the 4th century AD to the 16h century AD.

AoE3 covered around 300 years from the 16th century AD to the 19th century AD.

Hell, you could make an entire 5 ages AoE game out of just the period from 1818 to 1918, the technological advances were that fast and monumental. Just look at Victoria 3.

[Josh1Axel]

@TheSquidEmpire

It ended up going pretty off topic but I had some more ideas and thought it might be fun to start a new thread here to discuss…

I really like this concept, and the truth for veteran AoE players is that there are two fundamental truths:

1. Discussing AoE 3 always leads to trying to establish its final year.
2. Many of us have always thought (and even dreamed) of AoE 4 as the chronological successor to AoE 3, delving deeper into World Wars.

I don’t despise the current AoE 4, but it is impossible to deny that going back to the middle ages was a disappointment for many fans.

Next I will present some opinions regarding this concept, for this I will take the best of the RTS that I liked the most:

1. AoE (especially 2 and 3).
2. Starcraft (1 & 2)
3. Warcraft (2 & 3)
4. Empire Earth (1 & 2)
5. Star Wars: Empire at war.
6. Rise of Nations
7. American Conquest (Saga)

@TheSquidEmpire

Setting:

The game picks off where AoE3 roughly ends → the late 1800s. It cover the next 100 and a bit years - the zenith of the power of the colonial empires, up to the start of the modern era.

In all Age of Empires games, the player starts as a small fledgling faction that builds up their might and becomes a powerful force by late game. In the first two games you start as a single village and end as a large nation or empire. In this game we would take the concept from AoE3 instead and have the player’s base be abstracted as some sort of new settlement from an existing world power, that grows into a powerful city or nation in its own right.

I had thought of an RTS that is a hybrid between Empire Earth 1 and Starcraft:

• I know that at first they don’t seem to have anything in common but what I liked about Empire Earth 1 is that you had “several games in 1”, you could play with Roman legionnaires , French grenadiers, German Tanks or Robots that fired laser beams; on the other hand Starcraft offered different ways to play: you could go with a quick rush with marines to try to make a quick game or go with a fleet of battlecruisers in games that had already lasted a long time. These elements gave a lot of replayability to all games on a random map.
• I had to recognize the possible plot and technical flaws that a game set in the years 1870-1950 could have: 1) that due to the great technological advances during these years it was going to be difficult to develop a historical game that covers these periods of time; 2) You would have to justify the first age and “start your village on a random map” (AoE 1 justified its first age with the Stone Age where humanity was just learning to civilize, AoE 2 justified its first age as “a village that had survived the collapse of Rome and therefore would have to rebuild civilization” and AoE 3 that it was a new colony in the new world); So I thought about how to use this weakness as a strength and came to the conclusion that every age in this hypothetical AoE game each of the ages could be played independently (like in Empire Earth).

I explain it with basic examples: Age 1 could be located in the second industrial revolution (1870-1914), in this age it is possible to create barracks, stables and factories (which could produce siege weapons), these units would be simple but effective as which could generate an early rush that could have a quick end of the game, it could also be played in a decent way even if the maximum age is age I.
At higher ages you would have access to more technology (tanks, planes, etc.) and each of these ages could slightly change the gameplay of the game but would still be consistent with the previous age; For example: Let’s imagine WWI is the second age, a tank from this era still vulnerable to age I infantry, but a WWII tank would no longer be as vulnerable to infantry and more advanced weaponry would be required to destroy it.

In summary: each age could mean a single game, and if these 4 or 5 ages can be organized and staggered (which in practice could be different games) it would be a masterpiece and a challenge for programming

@TheSquidEmpire

Ages

The idea of “ages” from AoE 1 is being stretched pretty far here but it’s part of the series lol

1. Frontier Age ~1870-1890 - Franco-Prussian War, Wild West. Exploration and early econ
2. Competition Age ~1890-1910 - Great Game, Scramble for Africa. Early combat
3. War Age ~1910-1920 - World War I. Core combat age. Fortifications become common.
4. Golden Age ~1920-1930 - Roaring Twenties, Interwar Period. Peak economic age.
5. Modern Age ~1930-1940 - World War II (early). Final “Imperial Age” with super (near-future) upgrades for units and economy

I keep my previous idea, although age 4 can be divided to get 5 ages.

@Josh1Axel

• Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914): This era would address major geopolitical movements in Europe, the partition of Africa, Europe’s “influence” in Asia, and more.
• World War I (1914-1929): I know the First World War officially ended in 1918, but it would be interesting to cover a portion of the interwar period, including the Russian Revolution, the rise of totalitarianism, the Great Depression, and more.
• World War II (1930-1942): Many consider World War II to be the continuation of the Great War. Significant innovations took place from the 1930s onwards (even one of Italy’s biggest mistakes was “modernizing too early,” as their weaponry became obsolete for much of the conflict). This period could cover topics such as the Spanish Civil War and the Axis powers’ advances worldwide (the Second Sino-Japanese War, Operation Barbarossa, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Greek Campaign, etc.).
• Cold War (1943-1961?): While World War II officially ended in 1945, there were significant technological advancements during this period, warranting a division into two ages. This period would encompass the Allied counteroffensive (Battle of Stalingrad, U.S. entry into the war, the Chinese counteroffensive, etc.). Diplomatic tensions among the Allied powers existed even before the end of World War II. Winston Churchill, for political reasons, intervened to delay direct U.S. involvement in the war for several years. Additionally, plans for a massive assault against the USSR were prepared for July 1, 1945 (although it was not executed). This period would lay the foundations for the “current Western society” with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, marking the beginning of conflicts worldwide due to the Cold War and the decolonization of Africa (which would compensate for the earlier partition of Africa). I suggest ending this period in 1961, the year the Berlin Wall was constructed. It was also during this period that the first assault rifles such as the StG 44, AK-47, and M14 emerged. I also considered 1969 as a possible end year, as it marks the establishment of the first computer connection (the internet).

@TheSquidEmpire

Resources and Economy

I agree to this section (resources, buildings, etc.)

@TheSquidEmpire

Garrison units

Scout → Reconnaissance unit. Horse-mounted recon unit with fast movement speed and long LoS but low attack. Costs only Food . Obsolete by Age III.
Age II - Light Horse. Adds a strong attack and retains the speed and LoS but gains no extra HP.

I’m glad you placed a horseman with a rifle, during the Franco-Prussian War and World Wars horsemen were used as mounted infantry, scouts, and saboteurs. I know that in popular thought they consider the cavalry non-existent for the Second World War but the truth is that the powers still used cavalry corps during this conflict.

@TheSquidEmpire

Rifleman → Core infantry unit. Cheap, generally slow, and powerful, but with low HP. Unlocks in Age II. Costs Food and a little Coin . Each age their range and power increases. These units automatically entrench themselves if left alone for a bit, increasing their range and defence.
Age III - Frontline Rifleman
Age IV - Elite Rifleman
Age V - Automatic Rifleman

I imagined something like this:

Age I (single shot rifle)

Age II (mauser)

Age III (semi-auto)

Age IV (assault rifle)

Age V (Assault rifle + special ability depending on civilization?)

Hehe, I’m going to sleep now. Maybe I’ll come back later with more ideas

[MatM1996]

Yes, I like the idea… but I would be more comprehensive, at least until 2035, something to reach the present in the last age and so you have plenty of content for the game… if AoE 3 lasts 500 years (1400-1900) so AoE 5 would have to last 150 years (1880/1900-2030/2050)…

[jonasnee4671]

as i’ve states before i think WW2 is too technological ahead of the rest of the period, WW2 combat was dominated by tanks due to how few weapon systems could realistically defeat them (essentially other tanks, artillery and super close range infantry weapons), tanks would simply dominate any WW2 game due to the nature of the conflict, before and after this isn’t really the case.

i still think it should be post napoleonic (birth of the nation state and the industrial revolution) to the aftermath of the first world war. vehicles such as armoured cars and the first tanks appeared but they mostly just gave some protection from shrapnel and small arms and didn’t actually render the vehicles entirely bulletproof, which can then be mechanically implemented as say a 90% range resist. with WW2 tanks its different, small arms have no chance of defeating them.

[Josh1Axel]

@MatM1996

Yes, I like the idea… but I would be more comprehensive, at least until 2035, something to reach the present in the last age and so you have plenty of content for the game… if AoE 3 lasts 500 years (1400-1900) so AoE 5 would have to last 150 years (1880/1900-2030/2050)…

The concept is interesting, but I consider that the criteria for selecting the timeframe of an AoE should be based on technological development and events in world history:

• AoE 1 spans 3000 years.
• AoE 2 spans 1000 years.
• AoE 3, in the original concept it was going to cover from the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century, the first industrial revolution was going to be the maximum age with the Napoleonic wars as the maximum event but in the TWC expansion (driven by nationalist principles) it was decided to increase the peak year up to 1870 (covering the gold rush) and this was settled with the inclusion of the USA civilization which possesses a unique Imperial skin of the “Regular” unit referenced in the USA civil war. So it could be said that AoE 3 spans roughly 370 years.

If we are objective, we could say that an RTS game could be developed focused only on WW1, or focused only on WW2; but the AoE saga is characterized by having the ability to advance by ages, so it is a responsibility that a hypothetical new AoE must take on, although a new AoE chronologically can perfectly cover the timeframe 1870-1945 (75 years) I consider that to give it a " positive closure" to most world events, the 1960s (100 years approx) could also be covered.
As demonstrated with AoE 3, the closer we get to “current history” the more likely we are to have historical (controversial) and game mechanics (due to the great technological advancement of the last centuries) problems, so I find it unlikely that a game has the timeframe of 1870-2000, but perhaps a game spanning from the 1980s or 1990s to the near future is possible.

@jonasnee4671

as i’ve states before i think WW2 is too technological ahead of the rest of the period, WW2 combat was dominated by tanks due to how few weapon systems could realistically defeat them (essentially other tanks, artillery and super close range infantry weapons), tanks would simply dominate any WW2 game due to the nature of the conflict, before and after this isn’t really the case.

i still think it should be post napoleonic (birth of the nation state and the industrial revolution) to the aftermath of the first world war. vehicles such as armoured cars and the first tanks appeared but they mostly just gave some protection from shrapnel and small arms and didn’t actually render the vehicles entirely bulletproof, which can then be mechanically implemented as say a 90% range resist. with WW2 tanks its different, small arms have no chance of defeating them.

It is understandable that for the powers it was common to access tank corps, the Battle of Kursk (the largest tank battle in history) is taken as a reference, but it must be recognized that the tanks were a “luxury item”, for For example, in that battle the Soviet army was made up of 3 million soldiers and only 5,000 tanks. It is understandable that in our collective imagination it is thought that in the Second War each platoon was accompanied by a tank, but the reality is that the armored corps existed mainly for offensives and they were used at specific moments (and also it should be remembered that at that time few people knew how to drive a car, even few people had seen a car).

I’ll take some examples:

Germany:

Total number of combat vehicles built in WW2 (includes both tanks and Assault gun)

Price-units produced relationship

I don’t want to extend myself but historians agree that the most effective combat vehicle in Germany during ww2 was the Assault gun StuG III… and the least effective were the powerful Tiger 1 & 2 and this was due to its low quantity produced, there never were more than 300 Tiger 1 operating at the same time on the eastern front, 300 units on a 5000 km long front were not going to win any conflict (source).
*It is recognized that they were perhaps the only nation to use the heavy tank during ww2.

Japan:
Like the USA, it only managed to possess medium tanks, although the Japanese tanks were inferior to the US tanks; It is recognized that Japanese tanks were regionally powerful when facing armies like China’s but they did not compare to the technology of a Sherman tank and were often destroyed by their enemies taking advantage of their poor armor. The best Japanese tank of ww2 was the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank of which only approximately 1200 tanks were manufactured (out of an army of 6 million soldiers)

US:
They were the best combat tank industry during ww2, it was characterized by manufacturing only 1 model as the main tank (to standardize its army) building more than 49,000 M4 Sherman tanks (in an army of 16 million troops), a characteristic One of these tanks is that the tanks used to be destroyed but had a good evacuation system which allowed the tank operators to escape to fight another day.

I do not want to extend the post any further but it should also be recognized that a good part of the countries that fought in WW2 did not have large tank divisions, Greece can be taken as an example, which only had 4 tanks during the Greek campaign.

Conclusions:
It is obvious to think that if a WW2 game is designed, the most characteristic elements are tanks and planes, however, it must be recognized that most of the conflict fell on the infantryman.
There are several RTS games focused on ww2 and even games like Starcraft that also has tanks and planes, the ones I remember the most are:

Empire Earth 1:
It covers the first and second world war, it has 2 types of tanks: Armor Piercing (AP) and High Explosive (HE) which in practice could be medium tanks (like the sherman) and heavy tanks (like the panzer).
Its gameplay was acceptable, although it could be said that the tanks in this game were relatively slow and vulnerable when you knew how to counter them with anti-tank guns and bazookas (personal rating: 7/10)

Rise of Nations:
The game has tanks in the last 3 ages of the game, in my personal opinion I didn’t like the gameplay of these tanks because they were too vulnerable to “heavy infantry” (armed with anti-tank rifles, grenade launchers, bazookas or missiles), I felt that the tanks in this game were too nerfed for balance sake (Personal rating: 5/10).

Star Wars empire at war:
It’s a game of futuristic demeanor, but I loved how the tanks were in this game: few tanks were accessible in the game but they were powerful, not only difficult to destroy but also had the option to “run over soldiers” wiping out entire squads in a matter of seconds, they were valuable to have on the battlefield and painful to lose (Personal rating: 9/10).

Starcraft:

Another futuristic game, what I liked about the siege tank was the application of Starcraft gameplay mechanics based on damage type:

In my adolescence I was one of the best Starcraft players in my area, many Terran players did not know how to use this race 100% because they did not know the types of damage, thanks to the internet I was able to discover that a siege tank (explosive type attack) dealt full damage only to large units and half damage to small units (like foot soldiers), this gave me an advantage knowing when to use tanks and when not, I knew that a squad of tanks (tank mode) could destroy a group of Dragoons but those same tanks could not destroy a large group of Zergling, the tank’s big drawback in Starcraft was ironically its greatest virtue, the tank could be switched to “siege mode” which functioned as a static cannon which resulted in most players only using the “siege mode” for static defense and they didn’t used them for offensive attacks (Personal rating: 8/10)

As a final comment, my opinion is that if a historical RTS game includes tanks, they must be an expensive unit that is very useful and difficult to obtain by limiting the maximum number that can be made. It must be very, very painful for the player to lose tanks in combat

[CagierNebula24]

People have put an awful lot of work into this.

But personally I’d hate anything later than the age of exploration (aoe3). I do NOT WANT AOE to have a more modern version.

If there’s an AOE5 I’d like it to go back to the classical age.

But I don’t think we’ll be seeing any totally new games but AOM:R for the next ten years.

[jonasnee4671]

@Josh1Axel

It is understandable that for the powers it was common to access tank corps, the Battle of Kursk (the largest tank battle in history) is taken as a reference, but it must be recognized that the tanks were a “luxury item”, for For example, in that battle the Soviet army was made up of 3 million soldiers and only 5,000 tanks. It is understandable that in our collective imagination it is thought that in the Second War each platoon was accompanied by a tank, but the reality is that the armored corps existed mainly for offensives and they were used at specific moments (and also it should be remembered that at that time few people knew how to drive a car, even few people had seen a car).

I’ll take some examples:

Germany:

Total number of combat vehicles built in WW2 (includes both tanks and Assault gun)

those are still far more tanks than any modern army has or is able to produce.

as for the 3 million vs 5000, well first off if wikipedia (i really need a history book on WW2) is right the number is wrong, it’s less than 2 million soldiers, and this number includes a lot of things:

logistics

backline troops and military police

communication

officers

artillery

remove all of those and the actual frontline troops is significantly less than that, maybe around 1 million, off which not all will be used for assault.

@Josh1Axel

I don’t want to extend myself but historians agree that the most effective combat vehicle in Germany during ww2 was the Assault gun StuG III… and the least effective were the powerful Tiger 1 & 2 and this was due to its low quantity produced, there never were more than 300 Tiger 1 operating at the same time on the eastern front, 300 units on a 5000 km long front were not going to win any conflict (source).

it is not really reasonable to make such a statement. it’s not objectively reasonable to make a judgement of what tank is good for what etc. the tiger was a breakthrough tank, it was never meant to cover an entire front and it didn’t aim to do so.

@Josh1Axel

*It is recognized that they were perhaps the only nation to use the heavy tank during ww2.

the soviet and british both had tanks that could be considered heavy tanks, the french also had designs leaning that way. the americans produced tanks that where definitely heavy tanks, they just weren’t deployed into combat.

@Josh1Axel

Japan:
Like the USA, it only managed to possess medium tanks, although the Japanese tanks were inferior to the US tanks; It is recognized that Japanese tanks were regionally powerful when facing armies like China’s but they did not compare to the technology of a Sherman tank and were often destroyed by their enemies taking advantage of their poor armor. The best Japanese tank of ww2 was the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank of which only approximately 1200 tanks were manufactured (out of an army of 6 million soldiers)

this kind of backs up my claim, that even low end tanks of the second world war were close to invulnerable towards infantry.

as for the war in the pacific really neither side heavily relied on the tank there, it was a naval and air war mostly with isolated garrisons of mostly infantry being assaulted mostly by infantry backed up by naval artillery.

@Josh1Axel

I do not want to extend the post any further but it should also be recognized that a good part of the countries that fought in WW2 did not have large tank divisions, Greece can be taken as an example, which only had 4 tanks during the Greek campaign.

most modern armies have like a few dozen tanks. the largest tank reserves in the world have maybe a few 1000 in working condition. the numbers of tanks in WW2 on all the major countries, including japan, dwarfs current numbers. no country today operates 10.000 tanks.

WW2 was absolutely the peak for the tank, it is the closest it ever got to truly being “the king of the battlefield”, they were much better than WW1 tanks and existed before the advent of the ATGM which enable infantry etc. to engage tanks often from distances beyond the tanks effective fire range.

countries without tanks in WW2 suffered greatly for it, greece did okay vs italy who themselves practically did not have tanks.

[Josh1Axel]

@jonasnee4671

those are still far more tanks than any modern army has or is able to produce.

It is true, thank God we are not in a new world war.

@jonasnee4671

as for the 3 million vs 5000, well first off if wikipedia (i really need a history book on WW2) is right the number is wrong, it’s less than 2 million soldiers, and this number includes a lot of things:

logistics

backline troops and military police

communication

officers

artillery

remove all of those and the actual frontline troops is significantly less than that, maybe around 1 million, off which not all will be used for assault.

In Wikipedia itself it is mentioned that there were 1,426,352 combat soldiers during the citadel operation, during the Soviet counteroffensive 2.5 million men are mentioned. Despite this you are right that the figure of 3 million may be somewhat exaggerated since they could also count on partisans and local militias, still it must be admitted that 5000-7000 tanks is a good number for an army of that size, although it was mainly the T-34 medium tank whose main virtue was quantity over quality.

@jonasnee4671

it is not really reasonable to make such a statement. it’s not objectively reasonable to make a judgement of what tank is good for what etc. the tiger was a breakthrough tank, it was never meant to cover an entire front and it didn’t aim to do so.

Actually this is the conclusion of this video-analysis, in summary the tank destroyer (“cazacarro” in Spanish) StuG III has a higher victory rate against other combat vehicles, the objective of this vehicle was originally to support infantry but later it took the role of tank destroyer, obviously other armored vehicles of the German army were also effective in their function such as the Panzer 3 and 4, these tanks (which had a turret) had the function of opening the way for the infantry.
On the other hand, although vehicles like the Tiger 1 had some successes, the efficiency of the Tiger 2 was very low, this is possibly because the Tiger 2 was a vehicle designed for the offensive and by the date it was deployed the German army was already on the defensive resisting the Soviet advance.
​

StuG III y IV - ¿El Mejor Blindado Alemán?

@jonasnee4671

the soviet and british both had tanks that could be considered heavy tanks, the french also had designs leaning that way. the americans produced tanks that where definitely heavy tanks, they just weren’t deployed into combat.

Indeed, nations like the USSR also had heavy tanks like the T-35 at the end of the conflict, but only a few dozen units were manufactured; It was not until the end of WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War that heavy tanks such as the IS-2 began to be manufactured, which were also used in the Korean War.

@jonasnee4671

this kind of backs up my claim, that even low end tanks of the second world war were close to invulnerable towards infantry.

as for the war in the pacific really neither side heavily relied on the tank there, it was a naval and air war mostly with isolated garrisons of mostly infantry being assaulted mostly by infantry backed up by naval artillery.

A tank must generally be destroyed by another tank, but in WW2 there were various methods of destroying tanks (or at least rendering them inoperative): grenade launchers (PIAT, Panzerfaust), bazookas, anti-tank rifles and cannons among the most common, but there were also other “less conventional” methods such as: the Soviet Anti-tank dogs, the Japanese lunge mine and even the Molotov cocktails that were successful in destroying tanks during the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of Kursk.

Anti-tank weapon PIAT demonstrated (1944)

@jonasnee4671

most modern armies have like a few dozen tanks. the largest tank reserves in the world have maybe a few 1000 in working condition. the numbers of tanks in WW2 on all the major countries, including japan, dwarfs current numbers. no country today operates 10.000 tanks.

Currently there is a greater quality than quantity in the armies with respect to their tanks and aircraft… in the same way currently the infantry armies are also much smaller compared to the years of WW2, for example China currently has 1.5 million of troops in its army, but during the second Sino-Japanese war in total China had 14 million troops, I am not an expert in geopolitics but it seems to me that the amount of troops and military material increases radically when a country is at war. Personally, I would not like to see how far the arms industry of the current powers could rise if a third world war breaks out

@jonasnee4671

WW2 was absolutely the peak for the tank, it is the closest it ever got to truly being “the king of the battlefield”, they were much better than WW1 tanks and existed before the advent of the ATGM which enable infantry etc. to engage tanks often from distances beyond the tanks effective fire range.

countries without tanks in WW2 suffered greatly for it, greece did okay vs italy who themselves practically did not have tanks.

It is true that tanks during ww2 were a powerful element to take into account, but as I mentioned, even before the introduction of the ATGM it was possible for infantry to destroy (or at least render inoperative) armored units. While WW2 tank technology increased considerably from WW1 so did infantry weapons such as bazookas. The concept of “anti-tank infantry” is present in RTS games like Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, and Star Wars Empire at War. (You reminded me that I would also like to see RPG in action in some AoE )

As additional information, it must also be recognized that the ATGM has considerably reduced the efficiency of modern tanks (as can be seen in the current conflict).

[jonasnee4671]

@Josh1Axel

Indeed, nations like the USSR also had heavy tanks like the T-35 at the end of the conflict, but only a few dozen units were manufactured; It was not until the end of WW2 and the beginning of the Cold War that heavy tanks such as the IS-2 began to be manufactured, which were also used in the Korean War.

here i was more thinking KV series of tanks, which russia produced more than 5000 off.

the cold war relatively quickly saw a push away from heavy and medium tanks towards the Main Battle Tank concept, which is what most tanks today are with only the odd light tank standing out.

@Josh1Axel

A tank must generally be destroyed by another tank, but in WW2 there were various methods of destroying tanks (or at least rendering them inoperative): grenade launchers (PIAT, Panzerfaust), bazookas, anti-tank rifles and cannons among the most common, but there were also other “less conventional” methods such as: the Soviet Anti-tank dogs, the Japanese lunge mine and even the Molotov cocktails that were successful in destroying tanks during the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of Kursk.

yes but they are unreliable and often quiet suicidal to perform. now to be fair the vision of tanks wasn’t always the greatest but almost all of those weapons weren’t effective at more than a 100 meters, a fair few require being within meters like the molotov, stick grenades or magnetic mines, which ideally a tank would be protected against by infantry.

anti tank rifles existed, in fact they still sort of exist today, though usually we call them “anti material rifles” today due to the fact they are really more useful vs things like mines and lightly armoured, or no armour, vehicles. but while they in WW1 could kill the crew of a tank by WW2, esp towards the mid and late period, they became less and less effective at that, instead at best being able to take out tracks etc.

as for the molotov cocktail its name comes from the Finnish war, as a joke against the soviet foreign minister.

@Josh1Axel

Currently there is a greater quality than quantity in the armies with respect to their tanks and aircraft… in the same way currently the infantry armies are also much smaller compared to the years of WW2, for example China currently has 1.5 million of troops in its army, but during the second Sino-Japanese war in total China had 14 million troops, I am not an expert in geopolitics but it seems to me that the amount of troops and military material increases radically when a country is at war. Personally, I would not like to see how far the arms industry of the current powers could rise if a third world war breaks out

most of the worlds armies have some form of conscription system meant to supplement the army in case of a need for national defence, which allows the armies to expand quiet rapidly when needed.

my country (Denmark) has an on paper strength of about 20k+another 12k in the ready reserve and 100s of thousands in the secondary reserves, the 20k are really more the professional soldiers & sailors and specialist like officers, pilots etc. while the plan always is to be able to expand rapidly if need be.

and that is how it is for a lot of countries.

[Josh1Axel]

@jonasnee4671

here i was more thinking KV series of tanks, which russia produced more than 5000 off.

the cold war relatively quickly saw a push away from heavy and medium tanks towards the Main Battle Tank concept, which is what most tanks today are with only the odd light tank standing out.

Yes, the KV series; Although the Soviets made thousands they proved to be less effective than the T-34 (more than 80,000 were produced) and you are right that they started to change the “class” to Main battle tank taking as an example the M47 which combined the best elements of heavy, medium and light tanks; This tank concept is not related to WW2 but to the Cold War (until today).

@jonasnee4671

yes but they are unreliable and often quiet suicidal to perform. now to be fair the vision of tanks wasn’t always the greatest but almost all of those weapons weren’t effective at more than a 100 meters, a fair few require being within meters like the molotov, stick grenades or magnetic mines, which ideally a tank would be protected against by infantry.

anti tank rifles existed, in fact they still sort of exist today, though usually we call them “anti material rifles” today due to the fact they are really more useful vs things like mines and lightly armoured, or no armour, vehicles. but while they in WW1 could kill the crew of a tank by WW2, esp towards the mid and late period, they became less and less effective at that, instead at best being able to take out tracks etc.

as for the molotov cocktail its name comes from the Finnish war, as a joke against the soviet foreign minister.

Yes, many of these unconventional anti-tank weapons were used more in guerrilla wars, however, weapons such as grenade launchers or bazookas had the doctrine of stealthily approaching the tank and hitting it at a critical point such as the tracks, disabling the vehicle.
Such as I mentioned, there are many games where infantry armed with bazookas are used as a counter unit to tanks, specifically in the Rise of Nations game, the bazooka is the evolution of the anti-tank rifle.
During the Second World War there were “tank destroyers” which were cheaper, smaller, lighter and faster vehicles that aimed to destroy other heavier vehicles, currently a characteristic of tank destroyers is that they usually use tires.

@jonasnee4671

most of the worlds armies have some form of conscription system meant to supplement the army in case of a need for national defence, which allows the armies to expand quiet rapidly when needed.

my country (Denmark) has an on paper strength of about 20k+another 12k in the ready reserve and 100s of thousands in the secondary reserves, the 20k are really more the professional soldiers & sailors and specialist like officers, pilots etc. while the plan always is to be able to expand rapidly if need be.

and that is how it is for a lot of countries.

Currently there are many countries with compulsory military service, and as in the case of your country, its army can increase from 20k to hundreds of thousands, an interesting case is that of South Korea: they have about 965,000 soldiers (active personnel) and 4,000,000 (reserve personnel) which gives them a number of almost 5 million troops in a possible total war (South Korea has 50 million inhabitants), the highlight of South Korea is that it has a good war industry that could easily also be increased in case of an all out war And at the risk of being controversial, Ukraine in 2014 had 22k troops 40K reservists, in January 2022 Ukraine had between 200k-300k troops, currently Ukraine has approx. 700k troops (total population of almost 44 million).

Currently there are fewer troops (infantry, tanks, etc.) in the country-powers than in the WW2 years, but those numbers can increase exponentially in a short time if there is a war on a global scale… I hope I never see that.

[M00Z1LLA]

I think WW1 and WW2 should be in different games. WW1 is the end of an era, and there’s a huge technological and political gulf between it and WW2. Ideally they should have just started over with AoE4 and remade all the games starting with the classical era.

AoE4 Classical Era: ~400BC - 600AD (wars of the Diadochi to rise of Islam)
AoE5 Medieval Era: ~600 - 1600 (post Islam to Renaissance)
AoE6 Early Modern Era: ~1520 - 1870 (colonial era, Enlightenment, Age of Revolutions, Industrial Revolution)
AoE7 Industrial Era: ~1820s - 1920s (post Napoleonic Wars and Latin American Revolutions to conclusion of WW1 related conflicts)
AoE8 Cold War: ~1920 - 1990 (late interwar period to end of cold war)

[MatM1996]

@jonasnee4671

as i’ve states before i think WW2 is too technological ahead of the rest of the period, WW2 combat was dominated by tanks due to how few weapon systems could realistically defeat them (essentially other tanks, artillery and super close range infantry weapons), tanks would simply dominate any WW2 game due to the nature of the conflict, before and after this isn’t really the case.

It wouldn’t be that different either…you’d have 4 ages throughout the 20th century…you start with archaic units from the belle epoque (which is where AoE 3 ends) and end up with modern units from 2030…

@jonasnee4671

i still think it should be post napoleonic (birth of the nation state and the industrial revolution) to the aftermath of the first world war. vehicles such as armoured cars and the first tanks appeared but they mostly just gave some protection from shrapnel and small arms and didn’t actually render the vehicles entirely bulletproof, which can then be mechanically implemented as say a 90% range resist. with WW2 tanks its different, small arms have no chance of defeating them.

Yes, you should see it…

@Josh1Axel

• AoE 3, in the original concept it was going to cover from the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century, the first industrial revolution was going to be the maximum age with the Napoleonic wars as the maximum event but in the TWC expansion (driven by nationalist principles) it was decided to increase the peak year up to 1870 (covering the gold rush) and this was settled with the inclusion of the USA civilization which possesses a unique Imperial skin of the “Regular” unit referenced in the USA civil war. So it could be said that AoE 3 spans roughly 370 years.

Of course, the same with TAD also extended the chronology to 1421 with the Chinese campaign, but the entire fifteenth century is already represented in AoE 2 from Tamerlane and Jadwiga to Babur and Almeida…

@Josh1Axel

If we are objective, we could say that an RTS game could be developed focused only on WW1, or focused only on WW2; but the AoE saga is characterized by having the ability to advance by ages, so it is a responsibility that a hypothetical new AoE must take on, although a new AoE chronologically can perfectly cover the timeframe 1870-1945 (75 years) I consider that to give it a " positive closure" to most world events, the 1960s (100 years approx) could also be covered.

Of course, that would be the idea… from 1870 (Franco-Prussian war and the belle epoque) (which would be the Imperial Age in AoE 3) to the present/near future: 2020 with the pandemic and the end of the war in Afghanistan or 2035 with the end of fossil fuels and the beginning of the lunar and Martian colonization…

@Josh1Axel

As demonstrated with AoE 3, the closer we get to “current history” the more likely we are to have historical (controversial) and game mechanics (due to the great technological advancement of the last centuries) problems, so I find it unlikely that a game has the timeframe of 1870-2000, but perhaps a game spanning from the 1980s or 1990s to the near future is possible.

Yes, everything can be…

@Josh1Axel

It covers the first and second world war, it has 2 types of tanks: Armor Piercing (AP) and High Explosive (HE) which in practice could be medium tanks (like the sherman) and heavy tanks (like the panzer).
Its gameplay was acceptable, although it could be said that the tanks in this game were relatively slow and vulnerable when you knew how to counter them with anti-tank guns and bazookas (personal rating: 7/10)

Sure, it would be something similar… but more advanced like CoH 3…

@Josh1Axel

It’s a game of futuristic demeanor, but I loved how the tanks were in this game: few tanks were accessible in the game but they were powerful, not only difficult to destroy but also had the option to “run over soldiers” wiping out entire squads in a matter of seconds, they were valuable to have on the battlefield and painful to lose (Personal rating: 9/10).

The same thing happens in CNC Tiberian Dawn…you have super strong tanks and you can run over infantry units…the GDI would be the UN military force and the Nod would be ISIS…

@Josh1Axel

As a final comment, my opinion is that if a historical RTS game includes tanks, they must be an expensive unit that is very useful and difficult to obtain by limiting the maximum number that can be made. It must be very, very painful for the player to lose tanks in combat

Of course as in Red Alert 1,2 and 3 (which are historical RTS, or rather ahistorical or uchronic)…

@CagierNebula24

If there’s an AOE5 I’d like it to go back to the classical age.

They already did it with AoEO… you have Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, Norse, Babylonians, Persians… then with Project Celeste you have the Romans and in the near future the Indians…

@CagierNebula24

But I don’t think we’ll be seeing any totally new games but AOM:R for the next ten years.

Yes, there you have another reason…

@Josh1Axel

The concept of “anti-tank infantry” is present in RTS games like Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, and Star Wars Empire at War. (You reminded me that I would also like to see RPG in action in some AoE )

Or like Command and Conquer Remastered and CoH 3…

Tiberian Dawn Remastered (the TD Rocket Soldier use now an AT-4 instead of the Vietnam War M72 Law)

Red Alert Remastered (the RA Rocket Soldier use the Vietnam War M72 Law, but since it is WW2, he would have to use instead the PIAT or simply the Bazooka as shown below)…

@Josh1Axel

It is true, thank God we are not in a new world war.

@Josh1Axel

Currently there are fewer troops (infantry, tanks, etc.) in the country-powers than in the WW2 years, but those numbers can increase exponentially in a short time if there is a war on a global scale… I hope I never see that.

@M00Z1LLA

Ideally they should have just started over with AoE4 and remade all the games starting with the classical era.

It is that in fact technically they already did:

AoEO (Classical Age) (1200 BCE-280 BCE) (from the Trojan War and the invasion of the Sea Peoples to the Gallic invasions of Greece and Italy)

AoE 4 (Middle Ages) (1066-1552) (From Hastings to the conquest of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible)…

AoE 5 (Early Modern/Contemporary Age) (1492-1850 or 1870-1991) (same period as AoE 3 or next)

AoE 6 (Future Age) (2030-2500) (what would be the “future” of the saga/humanity) (Prequel of Halo Wars xd)…

AoE 7: Classical Age again and so on…

[jonasnee4671]

No discussion of putin, or the war, on the forum.

[MatM1996]

Ah ok ok… but could you leave me the rest of the comment xd…

[jonasnee4671]

alright, i restored it with changes.

[MatM1996]

Thanks, I could correct that, there was no need to delete the entire comment, just that part…

[MSTFA786]

There is already AoE III and its AoE III D.E. for the 17th-19th Colonial Era. AoE IV has covered classical to medieval age/period till the gunpowder age/period one, but its gameplay overall is structurally, graphically and conceptually is below average or poor and buggy. Though AoE IV Game Menu features are fine as they are very diverse and unique. AoE IV gampelay can be improved or upgraded through patch updates, which keeps the orginial AoE IV entity intact, as their is no need to launch its definitive editions, however what AoE team can do another thing is they can launch another edition like AoE IV 2 or AoE IV.2

Coming back to AoE V, so chronologically AoE V should cover medieval to gunpowder age/period by removing the classical age/period.