What is an RTS?
This question is kind of meaningless, for there are too many varying degrees of games that exists in this genre. You can draw similarities between some, but for the most part, they have different appeals.
Having said that, AoE has always had a specific appeal. AoE2 specifically shared traits with contemporary games like Broodwar, traits of mechanical input being the limiter to how much the player themselves can exert their skills in the games. Starcraft featured boxy, clunky unit collision that made all the difference in whoever microed them the best. The best of players were only limited by how quickly and efficiently they could expand, control many different armies, and win battles. Each one of these things was another ball to juggle, and it results obvious differences between the casual and professional. By how many units they managed to command, how many bases they managed to build out, and how much production they were able to keep up.
AoE2 was always more economical in this sense. But, this economy was everexpanding at the hands of the player themselves. Efficiently placing drop off points, quickly putting down farms, quickwalling or dodging arrows. Of course, expansion too is part of this, and it is just another ball for a skillfull player to juggle–and successfully doing so, rewards them.
All of this talk about removing these entities is eventually going to result in a very boring game. As with my opener, what is an RTS? Do you merely wish to watch units battle each other like those mobile game ads?
What fun do YOU derive from these games? In trying to recreate the success of AoE2, I think it is paramount to not forget what made it successful or different.
I’m one of those that is of the opinion that automatic farm reseeding was a bad change. Because in my eyes, the limiting factor of how much a player can handle, absolutely should be limiting their economy–that is the point of an RTS like this. While it is less accessible, which I read in your other post, and is why you seem to believe autoqueue should be a good thing, I would argue that not every game is for everyone and trying to create something like that, as valiant as it may be, should only make sense if it keeps the quality for everyone equally.
What do I mean? Chess is a game that is accessible to everyone, and that is also somewhat the point. Yet, its fun is not lowered by this fact. What if, however, you decided to add autoaim to FPS games? this would heavily influence the very point of that game, despite making it more accessible.
And let us not mistake accessibility and empathy for those who struggle with such things as the point. The reality of big gaming doing what I described above with autoaim, is that this yields them more money–it does not make for a better product for everyone.
I already believe that AoE4 lacks a tremendous amount of depth. I do not want it to turn into an army clashing simulator more than it already is, with no real effort behind the expansion, creation and usage of armies and mechanics. Creating your villagers is the bare minimum barrier to entry.
