Game is FAST! No Treaty Mode? No casual gameplay?

I already have another topic running about my disapointment about not having clans or a community aspect of the game. But my next biggest bummer is no treaty mode and the overly competitive fast nature of the game. I get it, Its an RTS game and the game especially multiplayer is designed for hyper competitive gameplay and split second decisions. BUT, I really feel like casual gamers were left in the dust on this one. If this is for instance your first RTS game, its going to be incredibly frustrating…

I can see the build of this game running into a few problems with a treaty match… especially a few of the civs would be at a big disadvantage. Don’t get me wrong i enjoy aspects of the fast pace style. But, sometimes I like to kick back and really delve into maximizing defenses and barracks placement in a long form setting, spreading out on a big map, and preparing for a large scale drawn out campaign against the enemy. Not just building as fast as i can, maximizing every second… But i do like to do that as well hah.

I don’t see ranked play even being entertaining for a casual player or moderate level player. Either you get leveled by mass siege or player turtles and builds game winning building. With little to no back and forth. If a player gets a push on you, your done for theres no recovery possible. (unless they fall back idiotically.) To me it seems there is one major battle and that decides everything. No tug of war unless your throwing some quick rush attacks in early. AOE3 if i lose my army in the field i can typically reform one for a defense in time. Here it seems if your 1st army goes your screwed. I get alot of the long time core fans are big on AOE2 but 3 was really fun to me and seemed to be playable for all skill levels. This seems highly developed ONLY for the hardcore RTS player. Really leaving casual or moderate level players completely out of any fun.

Am I wrong and missing something?

5 Likes

The core gameplay is also good for casuals I think.
Obviously if you play against aggressive opponents you’ll have a hard time.
And I also agree that the game should have treaty mode.

There are a few maps that are clearly designed for the defensive casual gameplay style that only have a few paths between the teams. But there are still some popular ones missing like the one where the teams are completely separated by forest or one where there is really only one small connection in the middle between the mountains.
Both things that custom maps can fix. I hope we’ll see custom random maps too.

This is perhaps a personal opinion but I honestly prefer the fast paced beginning compared to AoE2’s more slowly game-play and I think that it can take some time to get used to this new way of playing.

3 Likes

Yeah i guess i come from absolutely loving 3. Many true rts fans really enjoy the aoe2 build of the game. There are aspects of 3 i think are trash but others i thought were really innovative and it seemed the developer really tried to push the envelope despite what the long haul fans seem to think. For instance idk why everyone is so obsessed with having a drop station for resources. To me, in my opinion its worthless for 3 of the 4 resources… Wood kind of makes sense having to manage distance while you chop back the forest. The other resources are literally pointless…

Skadidesu- Yeah i think the balance will be thrown wayyy off with a treaty match. But i guess ive yet to try hah. I also love the chokepoint style combat. I just kind of feel like they developer is leaving half the game to modders rather then taking it on themselves. Which i sort of understand when man power is limited… AOE was meant to be a “city builder like Civilization” if i recall the creators quote… The community and developers have evolved with time. But i just see the game completely lacking a builder feel with a campaign against the enemy. This game seem like its about 1 major battle that decides the whole match.

I’m right there with you. AoE3 never had the competitive community that AoE2 did, but having the option to slow the early game down and allow for more of a focus on economy and staging would be a welcome addition to AoE4 for me and my friends. I have no desire to play the game ranked - I just want to build, amass an army, and have huge battles. Little quick and annoying skirmishes, which can obliterate your ability to make it out of the early game aren’t the style of play I’m looking for.

2 Likes

Faster the better. Hell, in starcraft2 we start attacking with decent armies around 4-6mins. The game pace feels like a happy middle between aoe and sc2.

That is true in comparison to SC2. My Protoss rush was fun and pretty devistating. But even in starcraft, if i’m a lower level player there is room to actually have a boom match and a “tug of war” type campaign against the enemy. I never felt forced to adapt every match to an all out rush or single battle type style. I’m really trying to speak from the perspective of a much more casual player. I would love to recommend this game to some of my more causal gaming friends but I already see extreme frustration coming from them. I can’t in the right mind convince them to drop 60 on a game where they will have to literally train themselves to even compete in a low level match.

I have experience in rts games so the AI for instance seems pretty pathetically easy if you exploit its style. But for a kid or someone without much experience; getting troops at your base in the first few minutes just makes things frustrating. Im sure AI will be improved… If your a competitve rts player this game is great. Don’t get me wrong, I am enjoying it. But, I wish the door was left open for new players and casual players as much as it is for big rts fans.

I have seen people complain about the ai, I agree the ai should be a tad easier at least on easy. It basically forces you to start unit production right as you hit second age lest you risk losing a few villagers which will frustrate people who think they have extra time. Personally I am just a platinum player in starcraft2, so I am not a fantastic player, I like to mix pvp and vs ai. It is really nice this game has random ally vs ai. Even starcraft2 didn’t have that.

1 Like

Yes, we definite need a casual mode added in the future. Im sick of playing sweat lords every other match.

Given the fact that the maps are so freakin huge - by the time i get my archers to enemy base in a 4v4, they are already in castle age - I think the game is more for casuals.

It’s all fun and games until both the AI decide to attack only you, constantly, to the point where you can’t age up, you can only train for the next wave, while your ally sits back and booms… and then you die lol

:diamond_shape_with_a_dot_inside: Has been in AoE since the dawn of AoE time so many people loved it then and still love it today. Its absence in AoE3 was an anomaly that wasn’t seen as fun to many. Personally, I find it boring to not be able to micro that aspect. I’m somewhat surprised you don’t like drop-off points because in some ways it feels like it slows the game down; which it sounds like you’d want?

  • :small_orange_diamond: With drop-off points, villys need to take time delivering to buildings that could be near or far. There’s the resource cost associated with constructing the drop-off buildings, too… so more time/money spent on econ (slow stuff) than military (fast… let’s go attack) stuff. Personally, I like having the control of placing the buildings, and having to pay attention over time to make sure villagers aren’t having to trek too far to drop off resources.

  • :small_orange_diamond: And from a strategy standpoint, if you take out enemy drop-off buildings, you’re hurting their econ; requiring their villagers to walk farther to accumulate resources, or forcing them to spend money on constructing new ones. While in AoE3, they just wander off to a different forest or mine and stand there having fun collecting until their hearts are content.

:diamond_shape_with_a_dot_inside: Drop-off points is the main point, I know, but I’m curious if you gave AoE2 much of a chance before? And if so, do you find AoE3 slower and better for casuals than AoE2? Here are some of my thoughts:

  • :small_orange_diamond: Since AoE3 gives resources and units to you hand over fist, I feel this goes contrary to slow games. You also get a lot of auto-shipments of tons of military. Speeds the game up and causes more skirmishes, but this likely aids casual players because it simplifies resource collection and creating military might

  • :small_orange_diamond: AoE3 has pretty small maps, with no option to get very large. AoE2 maps can be small, big, or pretty gigantic. Last time I checked, AoE3’s biggest map was practically equivalent to AoE2’s tiny or small map. The sheer distance alone between players in AoE2 can help make very slow and peaceful matches, at least for a while. If you make the map “All Visible” in lobby option, too, you can see the enemy as they leave their base, so you have some time to prepare or seal off choke points or obstruct their path with walls, towers, and castles; or can send some troops to weaken them. This can all help casuals.

  • :small_orange_diamond: AoE3 has build quantity limits for towers and forts, walls that don’t seal off everywhere that well, and weak structures. This contributes to my opinion that AoE3 heavily favors attacks over defense; which speeds up games, and can fluster newcomers. I feel a strong defense can help slow the game down and aid casual players’ efforts. AoE2 has pretty robust defensive capabilities – despite AoE2:DE nerfing defenses somewhat and simplifying trebuchet movements a bit. Defenses aren’t quite as robust in AoE2:DE as I remember them being in AoE2:HD and Conqueror’s Expansion; but as a new, casual player… constructing a nice turtle shell with towers and walls surround your home in a gigantic ‘all visible’ map can be pretty comforting. Create some choke-points or gauntlets away from your home with towers and walls, or some ships in water to kill troops crossing land bridges, and it’s even more comforting. This can work for pretty nicely against computer AI; doubt it’d be very successful in ranked matches, since everyone’s all about attacking early and non-stop there.

  • :small_orange_diamond: AoE2’s AI algorithm options (DE, HD, classic) along with difficulty choices can help games happen more at your pace, too. I’m not sure what options AoE3 has here.

Since you don’t wish to play ranked, it seems like AoE2 would be funner for you, in regards to slower, more drawn out games, where you can focus on econ a while?

If you hit second age this late you really need to quicken up. Play the art of war and do the build vils plus age up in 5min. Easy ai wont attack before at like 8-10 min. At this point you could be in castle age. Also you dont need units to defend cause they just send basically a scouting party and will follow you into TC fire

Im torn on the drop points aspect. The real need is to overhaul how 3 of the 4 resources work. Having a stationary very cheap building next to a stationary blob seems pointless. My villagers literally walk 2 steps to drop it off… Its pointless especially being it costs 50 wood or cheaper pending your civ. The wood mechanic works so great idk why the stone and gold in particular don’t work in a similar way… The food only makes sense while hunting really and a small bonus to farm layout… I do like the base feeling more alive with the people walking around the farms though.

Your thinking aoe2 is more for causal gamers? I guess perhaps with offline play and with friends. but, the gamers who are sill playing AOE2 have been playing for years so don’t expect to hop into a game with randoms and survive hah… I see your points about offline play or custom un ranked play with friends on AOE2… But all of this is easily fixed by adding a treaty mode like AOE3 has and it works decently well… Allowing new players to build up their base, armies and defenses allows them to somewhat compete with better ranked players. Sure an advanced player can still out micro their opponent, But this prevents the game coming down too who is mashing what button faster to spend every last resource as fast as possible… Which i get is fun to watch on the pro scene, but for a casual gamer you literally have to play training missions and have a pretty advanced knowledge of rts to play this game online at all… Where someone on AOE 3 can start with 40 minute no rush treaty and work their way down to 10 minute treaties before moving into more competitive play. Giving them a chance to learn each mechanic of the game over time.

Also the need for 10 of each military production building just seems werid. I get once again the pro scene benefits from strategizing what and how many of each one they need and how early they can get them. But for a casual gamer having build ques of 5 really prevents your whole city looking more like a military encampment with a village in the back.

Honestly im happy with the game overall but i just wish I could pull many more of my casual friends over to try this game out and have them enjoy it as much as AOE3. But, those types of friends/gamers will just be highly frustrated trying to play against other players right now.

1 Like

Yeahhh, that’s all true. Valid points, SnubEquation465!