units, civs, maps are really unbalanced this is expected though as a new game.
what strikes me as really dissapointing is the bland unit design, i mean they are almost the same 5-6 units among all civs and all ages. Visual upgrades are minor. Functionality differences are minor.
… so few army units and so many siege engines with minor differences and the uber culverin countering all.
I mean AOE II and III had this really nailed with unique units and unique mechanics.
and they did even without expansions.
Moreover units are clanky and unresponsive, like fighting in molases…
all in all it would be a good game if AOE II and III did not exist.
Personally going back to AOE II until things get better, if they do.
This is the only part that is correct. The rest is just yet another warped reaction from someone that either hasn’t taken the time or doesn’t want to learn about the game…
I mean FFS implying aoe2 units look more diverse than aoe4? Nevermind stats for crying out load…
Delhi MAA, English MAA, HRE MAA, Chinese MAA all have different stats, and look very different but not in a way that you can’t identify them.
Abbasids have pikemen that not only stab further but attack buildings and siege from double the range. Every single unit in the game is useful until Imperial age.
Please tell me how aoe2 isn’t almost purely knights and xbows in 90% of the matches
Please tell me how many DECADES it took before militia line finally got buffed
Please tell me how literally almost every single aoe 2 match doesn’t play out almost exactly the same for the first 5 min regardless of civ.
Tell us how for decades aoe2 only favoured like 5 civs.
I don’t care you’ve played every iteration of aoe, it doesn’t mean what you said is the truth… (I have 1200+ HR in aoe2de)
You mean like aoe2 where literally 90% of the time the only viable siege is the mango until Imperial, rams have the worst pathing and need ridiculous baby sitting.
Compared to aoe4 where literally the only thing that isn’t viable is the siege tower, everything else is viable and has a different use. Or are you implying that a spring can be used on mass archers?
Bombard don’t have high trajectories or the range that trebs have or the high gold cost, making them very different weapons. Culverins don’t have the raw dmg or anti building dmg of bombards.
Nevermind basic vil baby sitting. Crossing over lumber jack’s, bumping, sheep over kill.
Chinese dynasty and imperial officials, Russian hunting technology and Sultanate scholars. Do you really know what you are talking about? If you really spend some time playing AOE 4 seriously, you will find that the civilizational difference of AOE 4 is absolutely far Much larger than AOE2. Many people I know go back to play AOE2 because they can’t adapt to the too different civilizations of AOE4. It’s definitely not the other way around.
The awkwardness of the unit’s actions is the only correct point, and I really hope that they can improve soon.
I refuse to be asked to compare AoE4 to AoE2. AoE2 is a dinosaur I stopped playing the day AoM was released 19 years ago. If any Age game wants my attention, it needs to outpace the fundamental advances made in AoM, AoE3, and AoEO and truly pick up where Ensemble left off. I remain optimistic that day will come
Anyone familiar with playing AOE IV over the past month will instantly see that none of this is true. Like actual pants on head backwards kind of wrong. Even using something as basic as Men-at-Arms - look at Delhi, HRE, English and Chinese MAA - they all look different, some have unique upgrades, some have active abilities, their stats are different, etc. And these differences are not in any way minor, they change how the unit can be used and what it can go up against.
You lost me soon as you tried to say AOE 2 had it nailed with unique units. They let civs train camels that it made no sense to have camels and the knights were the same knights across all the civs. Here only the civs that historically had knights get them and they also have different versions of knights like French royal knights.
AOE 3 may have had more units overall, but I could write pages on why AOE 3 didn’t feel like an Age game to me, but my critiques of that game aren’t relevant to unit designs or variety.
Not only is the asymmetry of the 8 civilizations greater than 30 civilizations from AoE2, but comparing a 2D game with a 3D one is not to comment further.
When I first started playing aoe4 I also used to think the asymmetry was more shallow than it seemed.
most civs can be played the same, but in order to get ahead one has to play them very differently.
Comparing the “vanilla” civs even: as chinese how much someone has to leverage the Imperial official (Including boosting different structures) and how the different dynasties can be used depending on what the player wants to achieve forcing them to play differently to Delhi and their use of the scholar with early Sacred sites, easier walling, different MAA, weaker siege and UTs.
While vanilla English has to play more aggressively and keep pressuring these two vanilla civs or fall behind in eco. But it has the tools to do so .
AOE4 certainly has an edge over AOE2. I do respect your opinion however.