I don’t know where this idea came from recently or why a few people earnestly believe it is viable, but it is a terrible idea. It would be incredibly draining on the dev’s resources while adding nothing of value. Even the vague notions of what adjustments would be needed that are listed here show how much of a fundamental change this would be, as well as how incredibly difficult.
The card system is integral to AOE3. Remove it, and you don’t have AOE3. You don’t get a “super-classical” or “nostalgia” version by doing this, as these terms are fundamentally incongruent with what would be done. There is no “nostalgia” factor, as AOE3 never existed without cards. It is not “super-classical” as AOE3 is not considered a classic, so changing the game to AOE2 style would not somehow make it classic. This would be a “failed pandering” mode, as it would not attract AOE2/4 players nor would it interest the vast majority of AOE3 players.
It came from this [thread]((What do you think would bring more players to age of empires 3 de?)
Someone brought it up, most people thought it was a terrible idea, but nevertheless it has been gaining traction for these two past weeks, especially thanks to some aoe3 haters that showed up on the thread (althought most of their posts have already been removed for obvious reasons)
I don’t want that either.
This classic mode idea is not related to AoE2 it’s related to “classic” RTS in general.
It’s not anymore.
Every continent is in the game (besides Australia and Antarctica) and we have civilisations from every continent.
Why should France get shipments from Paris when they are playing on the France map? Or Japan on the Honshu map? Or Inca on the Andes map.
How has anything to do with the Middle Ages at all?
But what if we want the same time period as AoE3? And all the other things about AoE3.
Also SC2 is made by a different publisher so wouldn’t it be a good idea to get those people to play AoE3 instead?
That is a completely different game genre. At last the time period is correct.
It would still be AoE3. 90% of things would be exactly like normal AoE3.
It would be more like normal Skirmisher then Tycoon mode is.
It doesn’t have to be liked by the majority.
If there are enough people that would like it I think it’s worth adding.
More then the Tycoon mode ever was. That one is something that I just can’t understand. But it’s not bad that it exists. It doesn’t ruin your game.
I also don’t think it’s a good idea to dismiss any idea with “development resources” as if the developers would have worked on your dream content and features instead.
You still receive supplies from your home city to your forward base, even if it is just 100 miles away. That still makes a lot of sense.
I’d suggest AOE2 add a mode with cards because I want a medieval game with cards and all the other things about AOE2.
Why would these people not try out the newest, heavily esports-promoted game, or the classic everyone knows, but a less known game in a less popular setting?
People may have controversies about which civs or campaigns to add. But these are after all new contents and will surely appeal to some people.
I wouldn’t suggest spending resources on something that seems to have no chance of success in the very beginning.
Or maybe it will succeed as the biggest joke of the year in gaming: “veteran players pushing the game to remove its core mechanic”.
The card system is still there.
And I think the whole tycoon mode is a bad idea.
It doesn’t have to.
Supplies, logistics, reinforcements, mercenaries, technological advancements in the home country, etc. all make a lot of sense in any setting. There is no conceptual difference between the decks of AOE3 and, say, minor gods of AOM or commander of COH. Germans still need to “summon” tiger tanks from the edge of the map even if the map is in Germany.
Napoleon Total War has a campaign in the Iberian Peninsula where the British has to rely on supply ports to access elite British units. There is nothing colonial about the campaign.
While it is true that the card and shipment system made sense as originally implemented in vanilla with European powers sending support to colonies, that “colonial” setting was essentially removed in 2006 with the release of TWC, and yet the card system remained. Why? For two reasons:
It would remove the core mechanic and innovative design from a well-received game (remember, despite its treatment by AOE2 diehards, it sold 10 mil copies, received multiple awards, and was a top selling game for years).
Shipments still make sense even if operating in a non-colonial setting. Sending resources from one area in an empire to a conflict zone has always happened, and frequently it depended on how the conflict was going. Afterall, why would a king send more gold to finance a failing campaign? Shipments actually make more sense historically than training units in game! After all, how frequently in real wars were locals recruited, professionally trained in the nearby barracks, and sent off to fight in their hometown? In reality, troops and equipment are stockpiled away from the front and shipped there to supply the forces, and local militia forces may have supported them. When Britain was fighting Napoleon in the Peninsular War, they didn’t recruit locals in Spain and Portugal, the shipped all of their troop and equipment in. In the Crimean War, Britain, France, Russia, and the Ottomans all shipped their forces and supplies to the peninsula; they weren’t setting up towns and training the locals. Shipments make sense.
Remember that AOE3 was originally designed to represent global powers like the previous two and a
half games before the scope was scaled back before release. Shipments were always intended, even with Asian and Native civs. If removing shipments was a nonstarter in 2006, why would it be seriously entertained 17 years later when the game is even more established?
I could not agree more. It would make this game the laughingstock of gaming in general and AOE in particular. This would merely justify the critics of the game who have always been opposed to AOE3, without convincing them to switch. If I were one of them and this occurred, I would think to myself “Haha! They finally admitted the game is a failure. It still sucks though.” There are a lot of kooky ideas that pop up here on the forums, but I’d be hard pushed to find a worse one than removing the shipment system for AOE3.
I don’t get your logic but still agree Stacraft 2 players are a good potential target for aoe3. Not the multiplayer people really, since they will remain in sc2 forever. They haven’t even really tried to move to aoe2.
However coop and campaign people is a different thing.
The coop factions are actually suprisingly similar to aoe3 civs, with a lot of units and unique mechanics. Even the Spear of Adun mechanics from the campaign and some protoss commanders kind of resembles the deck if you think about it.
That’s the kind of people we could try to attract to aoe3.
I know, I know, just as an example. I still love it when both game share units or other stuff.
Did you know for example the mission tree for the Knighs of Saint John makes reference to the first aoe3 campaign?
Not really, removing the deck is like removing villagers from aoe2, or the aliens from starcraft. Yeah, you can technically make it, but you would be mutilating the game for that special mode. It’s not the true game.
I’ve always wanted an aoe game set during the World Wars, but it seems not every kind of aoe game will ever exist. Anyway, the colonial mod for aoe2 is something you can always if want that kind of setting&gameplay.
It is not my dream content. New civs, maps and modes is literally what they have been doing since DE was released. Even the deck variety is now much cooler than ever was in OG aoe3 if you ask me.
To add to this, it’s not about adding “dream content”. FE, Tantalus, and World’s Edge all have limited personnel, time, and money, particularly with regards to AOE3. When dealing with limited resources, putting effort into one project invariably results in not allotting resources for other projects. The effort need to implement this “idea” would completely prevent every other concept that could actually benefit the game from being executed, regardless of whether or not I personally advocate for any of the changes being made. There is a litany of things the dev team could work on that would actually attract new players and improve the game, and this idea is not one of them.
In my opinion, this is such a disastrous proposal that it would be better if the game were completely abandoned, never to receive another update, than to have a cardless mode implemented.
imo, you are all overthinking on the hc system. so strange that lots of people here start self-denial these days.
to be short, hc is only an improved university with special mechanics compared to the one in aoe2.
what makes hc special are:
1.those “improvements” in it not only grant economy or military bonuses, also resources or units.
2.those “improvements” in it only cost the resource called xp - “shipment” just another form to show that you get certain amount of xp. so it is quite similar to favor in aom. favor is only used on myth units and myth techs, isn’t it? also, we already have norse which gather favor from combat in aom, so gather xp from building up economy and military should not be hard to accept.
3.costs of those “improvements” grow as long as you keep “researching” one after another. (more xp needed for each shipment in late game)
4.it is player who decide which “improvement” is available in this “university”. (decks building)
5.this “university” does not need to be built, and can not be destroyed. it is an extension to your town - only when your town centers and defenses (shipment arrival point) lost you can not access to this “university”.
so, if you want a “classic” mode, just give the player a pre-built deck then it is done. there are too many people confused by the presentation of this system.
There are many other cards that significantly improve the economy or the military without sending units or crates per se.
But maybe you’re right and this could also set a precedent for the eventual removal of the home city, so I will concede I didnt’t think it enough and spoke too fast in that post. I will take back my words.
Tldr, removing core mechanics from this game is a very bad move
Makes me think if the opposite idea.
A game mode where you only have your home city and nothing else.
There is this Portuguese one Historical Mission where you can’t train any troops, you can only use your Home City.
But you get some very good infinite unit cards.
A Home City only game mode would require more infinite unit cards and it would also require some ways to gain more XP.
Maybe capturable buildings on the map that trickle XP.
A game mode without villagers basically. AoE2DE hat it’s “battle royal” mode that was somewhat like that.
And AoE3 has some historical maps where your villagers are limited but you get extra resource trickles by capturing things.
I don’t mind any of these experiments as long as they are optional and the devs are not requires to work on rebalancing this or any other further work.
If people want to try to play without home cities or buildings or whatever as a fun experiment, ok. But without expecting to fin it balanced, of course, since this is not how the game was designed.
Make the gamemode. Try to balance it decently but don’t invest too much into it.
When people like it they will play it a lot and then you can invest more into balancing.
Also it’s always hard to balance a new game mode because the meta has to develop over time.
Similar to Treaty in some way.
I’m curious if anyone really plays the Tycoon mode though and how balanced that is.