No treaty lobbies usually don’t kick you. But the regular ones do very often and I’m not really a fan of treaty games because they are boring to me. So you can imagine that this gets pretty frustrating after a while when you are forced into playing treaty because you are kicked from the other lobbies. 11
1 Like
treaty can be a big waste of time if you get a bad team that immediately give up and you just wasted 30-40 mins building up
1 Like
Yes, or if players on your team disconnect before the time even runs out. And I have had a lot of games like that. So I honestly prefer the AoE2 multiplayer just because there are games for everyone.
problem with age two is there are not games for players who are not good. Even noob lobbies are populated by players who are 100% not noobs in any way
I was referencing Age of Empires Online — Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Indians, Celts, Babylonians, Norse, Persians
1 Like
Exactly. It sets AoE3 apart the older games, thus not really following the core identity of the franchise. Age of empires - as the name already suggests is about building empires, not small colonies. Does a fast paced action game really resembles the spirit of this franchise? AoE3 tried many things and introduced some good stuff, however it also tried changing too much which backfired in my opinion.
Maybe my phrasing was a bit bad - what i meant is that there are some instances where you dont get rewarded for scouting and sometimes even punished for a false sense of security. E.g. enemy has no stable → you attack with some ranged units and attack his villagers. Now cavs magically comes out of his TC and your army is screwed.
Of course not, however at what point is a game still “an age game”? How many things can change that it still has the key identity that people like about this franchise? Im more a fan of refining existing mechanics then throwing them away and replacing them.
I played more hours AoE3(about 400) as an aztec only player than i did play AoE2DE since release. I still have problems identifying counters. Started playing AoE2DE and i feel like i know what i have to build in order to counter my enemy. Maybe its just me - or its the inherent design differences from modern army compositions vs medieval compositions.
It’s not just you I also have still problems knowing counters in AoE3. It really isn’t obvious at a first glance what type the unit is and how to counter it. I habe to admit that I didn’t play AoE3 a whole lot I just play a game from time to time but every time I get wrecked by units and I don’t understand why they are always stronger than mine are.
I don’t know what unit I should spawn out of thin air if I don’t do proper scouting. Home city shipments also don’t ship instantly. AOE3 is the better game and had a level of strategic depth that makes AOE2 look like checkers.
2 Likes
It is not out of nowhere. It is like an abstract resource called experience and this emulates the capital nation’s support for a colony. They are not exactly free units, and in fact exploring is more necessary in age of empires 3 because treasures are key in the first minutes of play.
1 Like
The counter system in aoe 3 is very simple, also if you hover your mouse over a unit it will tell you it is good against
1 Like
“Small colonies” It is basically the extension of an empire in a foreign territory, and besides, what is wrong? It fits very well with the concept of exploring new terrain and harnessing resources. I have never understood exactly why it is seen as an inferior game compared to its sister games.
3 Likes
By age of empires, people seem to mean if it is not like aoe 2 it is not age of empires
1 Like
I don’t think so but rather that AoE3 feels really different from all other Age games because of the shipments. I enjoy AoE3 once in a while but AoE2 to me is definitely the better game.
Age 2 feels completely different from age 1. People don’t say age 2 isn’t age of empires because it is different from age 1
1 Like
Hard disagree. AoE2 felt like a natural sequel of AoE1 since I first played it in 1999.
1 Like
It feels different because it is another game. The metropolis is a misunderstood mechanic and that is why it seems strange. Everyone who doesn’t understand it says: “Ho! Soldiers and free resources, how easy, I don’t have to create them.”
2 Likes
I didn’t play Age 1 in 1999 but I did play through every campaign in AOE1 DE along with a bit of multiplayer. First thing I noticed was how different it played compared to AOE2.
In particular, AOE1 has no gates, garrisoning or castle-like structures. This has a massive impact on the direction of the gameplay. In other words, AOE1 is fast-paced, decisive and intense. Words I wouldn’t use at all to describe AOE2.
I agree that in some ways AOE2 feels like a “natural sequel” but for me that doesn’t mean they play similarly because they don’t at all.
The speed and exhilaration of AOE1 is more similar to AOE3 than 2.
Yeah it’s the same game but it is different, just like aoe 3 is the same game but different
2 Likes
For me I don’t mind drop off building but I would think aoe3 are much convenient for me to concentrate on battle.
Another thing I notice farm returned to 1 person with 1 farm, what I don’t like to see the food from farm is limited and I still need to keep clicking in the mill. Also I can’t see how we can get infinity gold in aoe4 system I hope it will not return aoe2 or aom, with massive caravan go and back.
Well, Fail to see how it’s an issue. Historically, armies have maneuvered for days at times, sometimes even months before engaging. Gameplay wise, dancing around and positioning your troops before an engage is interesting (can you hang out a little more with your Xbows or will you get caught, and do you care getting caught).
It’s just plain false that only Xbows and knights are build, siege units are build as well, and in turn, infantry to protect it. Siege is the one tool that allows to force fights as you seem fond of, maybe you overlooked it in your games.
1 Like