Essay: Civ asymmetry vs civ depth

this has been discussed far more on reddit, so im not going to go as in depth, but basically some of the primary points:

there is a fair amount of asymmetry on eco’s

there’s a lot of asymmetry on unit skins between civs, but not really diversity between units of the same civ

there is very little assymetry between civ’s actual gameplay when it comes to non-UU (which is the vast majority)

a lot of this applies to every civ, just swap X with Y

the bigger issue being that functionally you picked one of the more asymmetrical civs, if we swap it for delhi or china, you’ll end up with extremely vanilla units, heck even if we swap in franks or britons, there are only some minor inconsequential stat changes on said units

in comparison if we compare aoe2 brit xbows, to spanish xbows (they dont have any) to ethiopian xbows, there’s already a wide degree of performance between just their xbows. yes they are all the same base unit (except for the civs that actually miss that unit) but they are used and function very differently.

aoe4? if it isnt a UU, it functions exactly the same regardless of the civ

1 Like

The game’s not even out yet, 2 of the civs have not even been played by the public yet and you think the gameplay styles, strategies and tactics are all already known?

I know you’re quoting someone else - but what is a ‘dark age ram rush’? Who’s able to build rams in the dark age?
Just from playing the betas and watching a bunch of casted games, there’s a lot more asymmetry to playstyles and gameplay options than you’re considering here.
Abassid vs HRE tactics and options for example are quite different.
HRE has prelate, men-at-arms, defensive options (emergency repairs), more impetus to go for relics (age III landmark), etc. while Abbasid is great for a fast 2 TC boom with 25 food villager tech, has camel build options, etc.
I think once the game releases with all 8 and players have more time, we will see much more variety.

1 Like

Asymmetric civs don’t need lots of playtesting to reveal their asymmetry. It’s symmetric civs with subtle passive bonuses and varying gameplay mechanics that need time to reveal themselves. That is the AoE2 model.

For the rest of players of AoM, AoE3, and AoEO, we expect both wide variety of units and buildings plus subtle strategic choices that appear over time.

3 Likes

Well put. Aoe4 definitely follows the aoe2 model of asymmetry but with one extra significant mechanical change per civ. I can see why this would disappoint people that prefer every unit, building, and most mechanics to be different. Fortunately the current implementation works for me and it feels like I’m playing a slight less asymmetrical AOM.

I think the perfect level of asymmetry for aoe4 would have been 1-2 additional unique units based on region, if knights for example were a European UU and had unique upgrades, costs, and stats compared to lancers. While I think expansion civs in aoe4 should be designed similarly to the current civs for consistency I hope that AOE5 features more experimentation and boundary pushing. I feel that this is one of the biggest strengths of the series and it is the only series of games that I find myself playing more than just the most recent version of.

As an analogy I feel AOE2 has up until recently designed civs as rectangles with different proportions so one is a square and one is a long skinny rectangle etc. AOE4 civs have been designed as 4 sided shapes so there are trapezoids, rhombuses, squares, etc. While I’m happy with AOE4 I hope that AOE5, if it is ever released, adds curved lines, squiggles, and a variety of edge counts targeting a level of asymmetry above AOM.

2 Likes

Abbasids can build rams with spearmen in the dark age. this allows for a very early ram rush that can land roughly around the time the other player reaches age 2.

Ah thank you, I did not know that. So they come with that ability already and don’t even need a siege workshop to research the tech?
One thing from the stress test patch notes was that TCs were meant to get a large increase in HP - from 2400 to ~7000 but it wasn’t actually implemented. Ram rushes in general seemed a little too good so that change would help somewhat, at least with it not being a quick game-ender.

Yes exactly. They get the tech for free at the start of the game.

To whom are you replying to? There doesn’t seem to be a linked message on your post.

If you’re replying to OP, I wasn’t trying to compare AOE2 to AOE4 and make any suggestions that tried to backpedal AOE4’s progress towards the gameplay of AOE2. My AOE4 experience lead me to believe that, despite the veil of complexity provided by each civ’s asymmetry (regardless of how asymmetrical you think the game is), each civ feels quite one-dimensional and doesn’t suggest a variety of ways to play them.

I would like to highlight this for the broader community responding to this post - the topic is not a discussion about “how asymmetric is AOE4 really?” - it doesn’t really matter. Each civ could be asymmetric as hell and still provide a shallow, one-dimensional play experience. I think many people recognise the difference in this thread, and I love all the discussion this has sparked, particularly those who attempt to counter my point and provide insight my experience with the game missed.

11, This dude is probably just sighing that a lot of reviews are comparing AOE2 to AOE4 and thinking that AOE2 is better in many ways.
However, as a veteran AOE2 player with nearly 3000 hours of experience, I feel that many of AOE4’s designs are so perfect that there is no need to change to AOE2.

Again, I think those AOE2 players think AOE2 is good, so keep playing AOE2.Don’t play AOE4, find yourself not adapted to the changes, play for a few hours and then quit, come to the forum to talk nonsense.

Too many people are pedantic, unable to gently offer their opinions and accept change.
AOE4 does have a lot of drawbacks in beta, for me, such as unsatisfactory hotkeys, no global queues, balance issues, etc. I think they are small problems, given enough time, they can be fixed.

To know, AOE2 is HD (2013) all the way to change to today, how much time? Not willing to give AOE4 a short year?

2 Likes

I mostly agree with OP here. I found all the civs from the Closed Beta + Stress Test fun to play, and had a good time “discovering” the nuances of each as I played them over several games.

I like the approach to the semi-asymmetry as well:

  • all civs have equal economy but the way they gain access to it or approach it is different.
  • some unique units that change the way each civ plays.
  • All base blacksmith upgrades available to all civs, with many unit similarities. (just different visuals)

I found the Mongols to be the most refreshing and daring gameplay design for sure - I would note that this kind of design is harder to balance… and in the closed beta the Mongols showed their power fairly quickly … this isn’t a bad thing though! The meta quite simply hasn’t developed to bring any glaring issues to light. It’s incredibly fun to have daringly different gameplay like that though!

I agree with this - I think the landmark design is excellent but the balance definitely needs tweaking… to make each landmark viable on its own, depending on the game state. I think the game has all it’s pieces in position to make this kind of decision making possible and make each civ feel “deeper” in gameplay… it just takes some balance tweaking I think.

Some potential things they could do to keep pushing the envelope in this direction:

  • tweak the landmark balance to make each one viable on its own. (glaring example here is the Council Hall)
  • add 3 landmark choices to each civilization, the third being a cultural upgrade sort of along the lines of how the Abbasid cultural upgrade works… but different of course for each landmark and each civ. Just 3, but no more… anymore would be introduce a paradox of choice.
  • more unique units. (+1 or +2 but no more or it would shift too much in asymmetry which will throw balance and make balancing much harder)

I’m curious to know what these crazy ideas were that Adam is mentioning! On AoE3’s card system, I thought it was unique and a daring move in the franchise, but personally disliked it. I would say however AoE3 is a vastly different game, and has very unique place in the RTS genre for sure. It’s fine on its own (pacing, map sizes, map shape, card system, civ asymmetry … I could go on) and I would leave it there.

4 Likes

I kind of wonder if the abbey of kings was added for people that struggle with the easy AI. It synergies well with the sim city playstle where your army sits around idle most of the time and you are only producing out of 1 or two buildings.

Anyway it still needs to be better balanced but I could see a world where abbey is better if you aren’t expecting any early aggression.

1 Like

Would it be OP if the Abbey of Kings adds the healing bonus to the network of castles?
Healing rate needs to be toned down though.

1 Like

I agree. I think they did a great job at it. They managed to do civs different enough without allowing too many cheese and lame tactics.
Also it means they can add a lot more civs in the future without causing too many balance issues

1 Like

yep that’s exactly right.

1 Like

Now that the game is out, this entire post and discussion now seems incredibly dumb. It’s so off the mark and wrong.

1 Like