Dissecting all the skepticism of Age2+2 for AoE-IV that is growing

I understand those with Age 2+2 skepticism and those who were hoping for WW1 era for Age4. But why I don’t agree with them, I want to share my opinion.

1. There is no doubt that Age2 is the most anticipated, and most played of the Age series. Medieval Era of Age2 is presumably the most chivalrous with well documented battles and many Expanding and lasting Empires. But still that must not be the only reason for Age2’s popularity.

2. The battle mechanics of Age2 is also simpler yet effective of all the age series in my opinion of course. The research and resource extraction mechanics are also very effective and engaging in Age2.

3. Building walls around cities makes sense in Age2 and preceding eras than Age3 and succeeding eras. Because walls became almost obsolete with the introduction of better artillery like bombard units.

4. Medieval Era is also longer than Industrial and modern era and that can give more flexibility in civilization selection and campaigns.

5. The failure of Age3 formula with more gunpowder units which did not cash out as much as the developers were hoping for might also be the reason for choosing medieval era. I know there are many successful entries with WW1 and more modern theme but it simply doesn’t fit in Age of Empires universe. In my opinion of-course.

So those who say, it is an Age2+2 not 4 and people will refuse to buy it when they already have an Age2 with much less price are totally wrong.
I think in next 15 - 20 years there will be another Age4+4 with the same medieval theme and people will love it.




They are hiding now… :rofl:

But seriously I read many posts and a topic regarding this… So instead of replying to all of them I thought to make a topic regarding this concern. :innocent:


AGE ll mechanics are from 1998! we are in 2021 and still siege has no crew lol! I don’t see why some people want an age of empires 2.5 instead of a age IV, currently it looks like age of empires Disney Edition anyways so I think it is not going to appeal to any age fans. may be only esports.


Agreed, fundamental mechanics can stay, but I definitely hope new things get added too, hopefully there are extra gameplay mechanics we haven’t seen yet, I hope this isn’t aoe2.5, and rather it be aoe2 reimagined with tons of new overhauled features, gameplay mechanics, and stuff like that.

The closer you get to our time the more well documented they will get.

Can you actually explain this instead of just stating it?

Whats the difference between building trebuchets and bombard cannons and mortars?

Is this in reference to AoE III or a possible ww1 game?

Why was it a failure?

You didnt explain any of your points so this conclusion doesnt work.

I mean I would rather have had them begin in the Napoleonic era (~1789) untill the end of the first world war (1918). I think it has a lot of potential for interessting mechanics and gameplay and is more fun then to go again to medieval age.

1 Like

are you asking if age 3 was a failure? then yes, it most definitely was.
Are you asking why?
I would have a multitude of reasons, the most important one being

  • The battles there are much, much faster. Therefore the gameplay changes a lot. This would be nice for a new IP, but breaking the game pace of an existing IP will mean not taking over much of the fans of OG Gamplay.

Other reasons, randomly picked and very short

  • the campaigns are basically 1 prolonged story played with not that many civs
  • they take around 20h to complete with ALL DLC
  • they told a story, not history. At least I believe the fountain of youth is somewhat not historic
  • Gunpowder units were very dominant in the game
1 Like

I dont think etm that the skepticism is growing, but it IS there.
And its a valid point that ppl dont want a second medieval age game.
BUT age 4 does change a LOT, from mannable walls to ambushes and, last but not least, more assymetric civs - which imo means its NOT age 2+2, and precisely why the devs did what they did.

Define failure, as they sold more then 1 million copies.

Is it a failure because you just didnt like it and it not being an AoE II clone?

Its the logical step of progression in the franchise, as in AoE I your army creation had to be micromanaged, not being able to queue multiple units or upgrades. AoE I Rome I think atleast added this option, in AoE II they began adding upgrades allowing for faster creation speed and in AoE III you can just train units in sets of 5. You cant honestly say you enjoy having to wait 30 minutes for an army?

Also AoE II feudal rushes exist aswell, in AoE III a game can also easily turn into a longer game if both teams are equally matched.

This is pureley preference. Also the story is pretty good.

Also Asian Dynasties had historical campaigns of the 3 civs.

And why is this bad? You know the time period right?


I’m not a big fan of AoE 3 but I actually think the campaign was one of the better things about the game.
It was mechanically more interesting than the campaigns in AoE 2.

1 Like

Honestly, why are you trying to justify your purchase? It’s another game, sure, it has the same setting as AOE2, sure, it will have its fans, sure.

Doesn’t prevent though that some people like me are kinda uninterested in a revisit of an era in which an Age game already succeeds fine, especially considering the uninspired line-up of civs.

I’ll wait for the first reviews and check out some gameplay videos. I’m not in a hurry in regards to AOE4. If they’d done a Modern era game, I would have purchased it right out, but my excitment for Medieval Age game 2 is rather limited.


what is 1 million copies form the newst ntry in an IP? It sold nothing.
I was able to buy it including all Addons for 10€ after the last Addon was sold. That shows a LOT.

for comparison, age 2 sold 3 million, thrice as much. And as said, if age 3 would have been a success in the eyes of MS, surely we would have seen a successor far earlier.

And no, I am calling it a failure becasue it didnt sell well.

And no, it is not natural progression of an IP to make the game last 20 Minutes instead of up to 60. You saw that in he age 4 dev interview actually where they said they asked if city building was something important to age. It was. And age 3 doesnt really deliver that, if we are honest.

Of course its preference, yet AoE 1 and 2, and luckily 4, are about real history, not some weird mythology style campaign. Which is why I didnt like said campaign personally and its also breaking with the AoE IP standards.

Yep, gunpowder being OP fits the time period. It also fits the faster gameplay. It doesnt fit the general Age thematic though, basically rock paper scissors, and arty is like a nuke, mostly effective against itself (I think culverines were the anty arty arty?), and not countered by a lot of units.

To conclude- i personally dont dislike the game, it just doesnt fit my playstyle. I like the slower pace of age 2.
BUT on a neutral position, it did break with a LOT of standard age traditions, making the gameplay much faster. Which of course, some ppl liked, but according to sales, only 1/3 of the age 2 sales. So yes, it could be seen as a failure.
Unless MS though 1/3 of the predecessors sales to be a success.

I read here AoE III actually sold over 2 million.

Also how is one million copies nothing? I dont think you understand scale. If its nothing then you also would agree that AoE III and II sales figure differences is nothing :wink:

Its natural progression to change gameplay over the years while the core stays true. AoE III games also often go into 60 minutes, the difference is that most casual games do that, while the pro players usually dont.

Its a natural progression to remove stuff that isnt fun. Again, do you find it fun that you can only train one unit at a time? Having to wait ages for your army?

Do you enjoy late game when big battles are happening to have to place multiple mining camps and lumber camps? Enjoyed in vanilla to have to manually replant the farms?

Depends really I see a lot of treaty games or just casual games were players have layers upon layers of walls and tons of buildings.

Inside the new world game it was a good campaign as it was based on the stories that reached Europe about possible stuff like el dorado and the fountain of youth. Ofcourse in real life we know it doesnt exist but in that time they did. Its a nice and fun story. And again purely preference, I wouldnt say this is a failure campaign.

Have you ever played AoE III? It seems you dont. Arty is countered by cavalry… just like in real life. In AoE II siege is also countered not really by archers is it?

Also how is it not rock paper siccors like AoE II?

Exactly, so why do you then say its a failure?

You see it often thats it harder to life up to a succesful installment, that was so for star wars after ep V and for many more franchises. That doesnt mean the sequals are failures, thats just not how it works. If bill gates has 50 billion, and some other person 50 million, do you consider that guy a failure?


when I played age 3, cav had nothing to do against my amassed artillery. I played all campaigns where it was possible using only gunpowder because it was that easy.

I still say its a failure by MS Standpoint because THEY DIDNT DO ANOTHER ONE. Until now.
Not calling the campaign a failure and yes, you are right, they did believe it back in the time. Which makes it a bit more fitting to me, but I still like nowadays perspecitive more.

also its natural progression if you change some things, but the core principles were changed. many of them. Many of them which were fun and part of strategies :wink:

I checked, it seems the game was selling well and receiving awards and good critiques. I however only remember the bad ones, especially the hardcore grind. Maybe I am quite biased there. But also MS cant have seen it as huge success either , as mentioned, because we get age 4 now, 14 years or so later :wink:

cause ur potato pc will be unable to handle completely useless rendering.
U can think BUT…
no exceptions, cause we love to play 4vs4 with many siege units on the screen(not 1 or 2).

It always did and still does. If you come with 20 cannons (basically the limit as it costs 5 pop or so per unit) and I go with 60 hussars or any other heavy cav you will notice soon enough that your arty isnt invincible.

Thats because they closed ensamble studios, and fun fact, they were planning on shutting down the studio while they were developing AoE II, but because the company decided to stop untill they gave them more guarantees they were able to finish the game and even make a third installment.

Which were both fun and now missing? You say many so one isnt really sufficient.

Like I stated, because ensable studios was closed.


Siege with crew isn’t a mechanic, lol

I still play Age3 more than Age2. One of that reason is short play. And being 35 years old I can’t play longer games now. So I don’t dislike Age3. In-fact I was worried that Age3 didn’t sell as much as Age2 and the fan base is also smaller compare to Age2 so Age series might end here. I was not wrong in my fears. So it was a failure if you compare Age3 fan base with Age2 which is much smaller. Even in Definitive Edition they introduce much more improvements in Age2 than Age3.

It is certainly not a failure as a great RTS Game, only when you compare it with Age2

1 Like

You should play Empire Wars ladder on aoe2 they just introduce it, the
The game is much much faster than before in RM, it makes me worried about aoe4 setting
because it’s extremely fast-paced with empire wars then the gathering rate in aoe4 is much faster I think it gonna be too much, they should add vills at the start then slow the gathering rate a bit in AOE4 but as I never play the game lets play the game before :slight_smile:

It’s like why death match is not very popular in both aoe2 and aoe3, or why empire wars isn’t very popular in aoe2, people don’t like the idea of innovation for some reason, and that’s likely the reason why aoe4 is revealing things slowly but surely, so that it doesn’t ever feel like a major leap with a whole lot to take in at once.