I don’t think that the drop-off buildings are the macro strategic. It is more like the micro management. The macro strategic is the distribution of resources collected by your villagers. You cannot make one or two recrudesces more than the others. Maximizing resource utilization is the macro strategic.
1 Like
I started with aoe1 when I was kid. I also bought aoe2, aom and aoe3.
I love aom > aoe3 > aoe2 > aoe1. AoM is fun for the civilization designs and the myth factors.
AoE3 is more strategic than the other series by the shipment system because it is like playing cards. Every players have their own cards to decide how to play in this game. You can decide your deck based on factors such as opponent’s civilization, map, etc. You can constantly develop new tactics, regardless of whether the version is updated or not. Can the other series do it?
My friend starting with aoe3 don’t like the AoE2 because of the outdated designs. He is the top player in RTS game and like the strategic factors in aoe3.
4 Likes
Yes it is micro, its economy mico.
What i was trying to point out, perhaps a little poorly, is that the macro comes from like you say, how many people are on what resource, but it also comes from choosing where to spend your attention, do I micro my economy? or do I micro my army? By removing economy micro, you simply push the whole game to military micro, thus removing the macro of choosing which to focus on and when.
But AoE3 have those building that you want to build.
Churches, Markets, Taverns, Mills, Houses and the other non-military building.
You have a certain prejudice against AoE3.
5 Likes
AoE2 was by far the best game out of the serie. So it seems like a pretty good starting point for a new game. AoE III and AoM are both worse games. So to me it seems logical to do a step back to AoE 2 as start of building to AoE 4.
1 Like
AoE3 have Temples and Shrines. Different civilizations have their own Churches, Temples or Shrines.
AoM have Sacred Groves and Pyramid.
AoE3 also have some Ziggurat building in the Campaign or Home City ( Aztec and Inca), but you cannot build it.
Haha, you hit the nail on the head!
Also totally agree with @TheBiz1 and @yellowjo3m6 especially on the unit counters, shipments and overall combat mechanics that aoe3 does so much better than its more successful predecessor.
We all have our favorites, and rightfully so for reasons ranging from nostalgia to it being the only game our potatoes could run back then. And of course, familiarity and the unwillingness to learn a new mechanic has had a detrimental role in downplaying anything aoeo, aoem or aoe3 got right.
So maybe look past your inherent biases and not come up with piss poor arguments such as the one below? Thanks.
3 Likes
Maybe you’re right when we’re talking about AoE2 , but the strategy will change by some systems like the shipment system in aoe3. The shipment system greatly increases the complexity and innovation of the macro strategy. Top players always develop their new tactics to deal with different civilizations or situations. I think it’s more fun than the same tactics that you played again and again.
Thanks for your great input as well.
AoE2 is just the most popular game of the franchise. Not sure why this is biased. Can you prove that AoE3 is much more popular then AoE2? I dont think so.
Re-read my post again, you’ve certainly misunderstood what I’ve said.
I suggest you to do the same with my posts. You also seem to misunderstand what i said.
Shipments were never rly a fit in the gameplay-style of AoE and people disliked it at launch. Spawning units out of thin air just removes the importance of scouting, i.e. u can get a unit type wihout éven having the appropriate building to produce those. People even hated the donjon spawing for the sicilians-civ in AoE2- lords of the west addon. This mechanic just does not work in AoE and shouldnt exist.
I also wouldn’t say that unit counters were better, they probably created more confusion. Without in depth knowledge you dont really know how to counter specific units or civs. Back on release of the first expansion it was a meme that even the aztec player himself didn’t know how to counter his army.
In AoE2 unit counters are a bit more intuitive, but there are ofc also some unic units where the counters don’t follow the general rule.
And for combat i only need to say 1 word: snaring
AoE2DE and AoE3DE are easily available and totally playable on most pc’s today. So why do still more people play AoE2 if AoE3 would be the better game? People generally tend to play newer game, even if they are worse than previous titles (see CoD-series, FIFA, Battlefield, etc.). So why is AoE2 so popular and AoE3 doesnt attract new players? I wouldnt say that it all comes from nostalgia or unwillingness to adapt. Of course some things are better implemented in AoE3 than in AoE2 but popularity is probably the most useful measurement of a games quality that someone can objectivly make to compare those 2 games. Individually people will have preferences for systems that are not the same in both games (e.g. the drop-off buildings) but the majority tends to play AoE2 more and there are many reasons for this.
3 Likes
I like the idea of needing infrastructure to exploit an area for resources and I think AOE2 did it fine for its time. I liked Rise of Nations system, your economy was still raidable and even though resources were infinite you still needed to expand because you could only gather so much from a certain area. You could enhance gathering around a specific city with economic buildings so you could have specialised areas for certain resources.
The whole system made me feel more like a ruler making big desicions rather than a micromanger shuffling individual peasants around.
I see this has turned into another this age game is better then this age game because i like it better and that equals fact. Guys, it is all based on opinions, I can see why a lot of people like age 2 best, I personally like aoe 3 the best but that’s just my opinion.
On a side note I will say one of the things that has turned me off to age 2 is that multiplayer is just to hard. I played single player for years on the original age of kings/ conquers, so I know how everything works, tech, counter system etc, but when I got de and went to play multi I just get steam rolled, and losing all the time is no fun. Age 3 I can actually win a lot of games on, there is a better balance of player skills. So age 2 is not easier for a new player to break in on playing multiplayer
2 Likes
I think this partially boils down to the fact that AoE2 was originally designed with 75 pop in mind by the original creators of the game. 200 became more fashionable, but then having that 27 villagers around a pile of gold was not an expected way to play the game.
1 Like
That is like me complaining that it isn’t a direct copy from AoE2 but I don’t think the civs should all have 1 unique unit and multiple like AoE3, so I obviously don’t just want an AoE2+2
That’s not true. I think shipments are what made aoe3 a fast action packed game, and really set it apart from the older age games. Age 3 fans would attest to this. One of the major reasons shipments turned aoe2 players off was the fact that the most important shipments were locked and one had to grind for hours to level up their home cities to gain access, which in hindsight was a big blunder from the developers and thankfully was not the case for DE. Imagine having to play just one civ because you haven’t been able to unlock the cards for the other civs?
Again, not true, any aoe3 player at a decent level scouts periodically. Also think of shipments as reinforcements? They have their place, historically speaking.
Just because it hasn’t existed before? Should the age games just be FIFA with every new release? Same mechanics with different skins?
That’s a very common misconception. If you spend just a couple of hours in any game, you’d surely pick it up, right? I mean I did, and so did everyone else. I could say the same about aoe2 as well? Just doesn’t make any sense, sorry.
I never said it’s a better game, only reiterated that they’re both different, and have a lot of different things going for them. To discredit one over the other is just not done.
3 Likes
The same thing can be accomplished with linear armour modifiers.
The AoE 2 Elite Huskarls have 0 melee armour and 8 pierce armour.
Which makes them very strong against archers and very weak against other infantry.
1 Like
I get why people might like the shipments but for a casual player, who only plays AoE3 rarely, I don’t like it.
It’s just not really approachable because not only do I have to know how to play the game but I also need to learn all the cards of a civ and put them in a deck without even knowing what is a good way to play them.
I know that there are preset decks but I just feel like being in a disadvantage when I use them instead of a special made deck. I play only multiplayer but since I play the game so rarely the shipments are just frustrating to me.
That is because most players in AoE3 are bad like me. 11
But seriously I hate that in AoE3 there are mostly treaty lobbies or that you will get kicked from the lobby if your civ level is not high enough.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s about half an half treaty and regular. I’ve never had issues with being kicked from a treaty lobby, so not sure why you would be.