We do not speak for all players. please read carefully before you insult.
1 Like
Really? You guys arwnt?
“We allc” sure seems to state otherwise. Especially when its ended with…
This right here. Which certainly seems to imply unity.
Ironic coming from you, who insults the devs all over the place.
8 Likes
We have two games rhat went more for things being more historically accurate and less focus on gameplay and readability
Age 3 and age 4. Neither has the sales, ratings, or playerbase that age 2 has. Food for thought
2 Likes
Funny i just provided proof he wss speaking for everyone
I have brought plenty of suggestions in the past. I do so less these days because im letting stuff settle.
And i even agree with some proposed changes.
rich coming from you.
here are some of the things you have said just today:
6 Likes
No it comes from you.
Yes, I can write criticism, it only helps the development of the game. But you do the opposite.
2 Likes
Historically yes. In game. No.
Again. When did this game ever claim to be historically accurate.
Ahh yes. More fact denial. Most the civs are balanced. Some definitely need to be nerfed but balance goes beyond just playrates.
Do you think Persians with war elephants would be balanced in team games with caravanserai buffing their trade?
5 Likes
Yes in the game too. The game has a connection to historical correctness, that is obvious. The units and buildings look as well as weapons date back to the middle ages. Why should not that be historically in the game? You are wrong.
When does it not have that? Since the game is based on the Middle Ages, it has a connection to historical accuracy, you can never deny that. Because otherwise Age of Empires 2 would have to be a fantasy game, without any reference to historical accuracy, which it is not the case.
2 Likes
Nah, I’m fine with AoE2 being AoE2. I can agree on “strategically diverse” tho, depending on what you mean with that.
Also, hi Vinfriss, long time no see
9 Likes
The incredible historical correctness of a game that includes aztecs with steel weapons, wheels and advanced siege, among the other things
6 Likes
Some historical correctnesses are wrong, that is true, like your example here. But other historical correctnesses are correct again, you cannot deny that.
2 Likes
we aren’t denying that. but this is a game that has axemen, mamelukes, ghebetos throwing away their weapons and materializing a new one, infinite ammo for archers, sheep scouting, people dropping castles inside someone else’s walls, buildings being on fire forever, resources teleporting over the map, all units suddenly upgrading; most of these are basically magic; yet you complain about a building being in what you perceive to be the wrong civ.
so we question if the reason you are doing this really is historical accuracy or if it is some nationalist pride in particular since Abbadaggus keeps trying to get Turks buffed and you also just compared pick-rate of Franks to Turks
5 Likes
Uh no. The game has always been historically influenced. Not historically accurate. The fact thst we have mamelukes riding camels and throwing swords is the first indication otherwise.
It is historically INFLUENCED. not accurate.
William wallace wins the first campaign. Yet died in real life. The narrator of joan of arc is fictional and many of the people in the final vattle were dead by then. Joan didnt use a sword in combat.
Meso civs having steel, xbows, siege, and wheels.
Frankish throwing axeman throwing a double headed axe?
Mamelukes throwing scimitars?
Gold just laying on the ground?
No disease, injuries, death to injuries, etc?
And this is just a short list.
The game is historical influenced. Not correct.
4 Likes
Totally agree with @Erasmus11585 and @Abbadaggus.
It’s beyond ridiculous, absolutely pathetic for caravanserai not being given back to Persia, Arabs and Turks. This is the absolute minimum expected. Not to stab history in the back entirely.
By the way, it is a FACT that Franks get picked 9% and Turks (the medieval powerhouse) 1%!!! LOL Talk about BALANCE ? ! ? ! ? ! What the…
2 Likes
So if some is correct anc some is wrong, wouldnt that mean it wss influenced by history but not CORRECT? Seeing as you know, some of it is in fact WRONG?
6 Likes
Just the opposite, you deny most important fact, you’re saying that Franks picked 9% and Turks picked 1% is… balance!
Good lord in the Heavens 
2 Likes
Avtuslly i didnt. See here
See this? Im all for nerfing franks. But good attempt at trying to make me look like the clown, when you ignore what i state.
3 Likes
I would be in favor of correcting these inconsistencies immediately, as long as it is technically possible and makes sense.
You validate me. I never said, that the game was 100 percent historically accurate. But your difficulty is, that you mean, that just because the game is not historically accurate in some parts, it should not be more accurate.
2 Likes
Except they arent inconsistencies. Those are the norm for this game. I gave you a small list of innacurate stuff.
You on the other hand ignore that age 3 and 4 went for more accurate approach and they failed to livd up to age 2. Whats that mean?
Id say that gameplay and readability will sell better then accuracy. And considering that what i see in this vety thread is that most are fine with that.
Funny…what is callinv it historically correct if not calling it accurate? So which is it? Is the game historically accurate and corrrect or historically influenced but historically inaccurate?
Again, i said some civs need to be nerfed. Some need to be buffed. But most are fine. Its onr of the best balanced rts games out there.
Do you really think giving a civ a late game team game buff that already excells in that situation is balanced though?
2 Likes
removing all of these things would mean age of empires becoming unrecognizable. some of us have been playing this game for 20 years, we dont want it to be changed. if you want to play as the ottoman empire play aoe3, if you want to have more historical accuracy play aoe4, etc
i am in favour of:
- (minor) changes to improve balancing
- addition of new civs
- performance improvements
- new campaigns, scenarios, game modes etc
what i dont want:
- complete overhauls of game mechanics or civs
- cosmetic changes which damage the readability of the game (unless it can be switched off)
Turks and Persians have some of the strongest late game units (BBC and BBT with extra range, War Elephants respectively) giving them caravanserai would not help them where they need it, ie the early game, and make them extremely opressive in post imp.
In the end I dont care enough about teamgame balance to be strongly opposed to addition of a building which only affects team games. But making changes exclusively for ‘historical accuracy’ reasons is not the right reason, since this opens the door to so many drastic changes.
4 Likes