Hope it's better than AOE 3


#21

@Teutonic_knight said:

@CostlierParrot3 said:

@Teutonic_knight said:

The only thing you’d run out of is wood

hello, if you play in the treaties, even wood is not a real problem … there are indeed industrial factories.

That’s true, although I always used my factories for heavy artillery. Do they make wood fast enough?

Hello! yes, factories are good for resource production. Do you think that in no rush 40 minutes, the only factories are (in most cases) sufficient for the production of wood throughout the game. So for the creation of artillery, walls, towers, fortresses and barracks. Only rarely did I have to employ wood-burning people after the 40-minute treaty (and I sent the factories before the 40-minute deadline). I agree to use the factories in heavy artillery production in rush or treated modes of less than 30/40 minutes, but not in 40 minute no rushes.


#22

@Teutonic_knight said:
Everyone in AoE III basically had the same technologies, just different units and home city cards.

How many technologies does the British share with the Indians?

Economy was so easy to build in AoE III that there were many games that became stalemates because resources are basically infinite (except wood).
Economy definitely didn’t take as much micromanaging though once you got to age 3 or 4 because all you have to do is build mills, plantations etc that last forever.

Few AoE3 games ever get to the point where building mills/plantations is a viable option. Since they cost a lot of resources to build and gather very slowly, you always want to first take map control and use up all natural resources on the map before making the switch. The first player who is forced or would be forced to make the switch is usually on their way to resign, unless both players really run out of natural res at about the same time.


#23

@Eaglemut said:

@Teutonic_knight said:
Everyone in AoE III basically had the same technologies, just different units and home city cards.

How many technologies does the British share with the Indians?

Economy was so easy to build in AoE III that there were many games that became stalemates because resources are basically infinite (except wood).
Economy definitely didn’t take as much micromanaging though once you got to age 3 or 4 because all you have to do is build mills, plantations etc that last forever.

Few AoE3 games ever get to the point where building mills/plantations is a viable option. Since they cost a lot of resources to build and gather very slowly, you always want to first take map control and use up all natural resources on the map before making the switch. The first player who is forced or would be forced to make the switch is usually on their way to resign, unless both players really run out of natural res at about the same time.

Hello! in AoE3, factories are an excellent option during the 30 and 40 min treaties: they allow the collection of resources within the space planned for the construction of the cities and the highest borders before the expiry of the treaty. You can easily fight outside the walls, without letting the inhabitants out to collect resources, if not to build barracks defended by the entire army.


#24

@Eaglemut said:

@Teutonic_knight said:
Everyone in AoE III basically had the same technologies, just different units and home city cards.

How many technologies does the British share with the Indians?

Economy was so easy to build in AoE III that there were many games that became stalemates because resources are basically infinite (except wood).
Economy definitely didn’t take as much micromanaging though once you got to age 3 or 4 because all you have to do is build mills, plantations etc that last forever.

Few AoE3 games ever get to the point where building mills/plantations is a viable option. Since they cost a lot of resources to build and gather very slowly, you always want to first take map control and use up all natural resources on the map before making the switch. The first player who is forced or would be forced to make the switch is usually on their way to resign, unless both players really run out of natural res at about the same time.

I never played the expansions much, I meant the Old World civs. Yes the Indians are different of course

Mills/plantations are a necessity in RM if there is treaty / no rush

Even in DM with rush I found them to be necessary so you could make your base smaller and easier to defend


#25

AoE3’s treaty mode may be the single strangest and most decisive feature of any of our games. God, I hope AoE4 lets me rush people.


#26

Yep. Rushing is good.


#27

While I do prefer titles that enable rush as a viable option, I do hope it doesn’t go the other way by making it the -only- viable option. I do want viable defensive play paths as well.


#28

Yeah, I was talking about Supremacy Standard mode. In Treaty 40m you have enough time to transition onto mills and plantations of course.


#29

If you want to rush why are you playing treaty lol. If all you care about is winning then rushing is a viable option, I like to take my time and enjoy the game. I find both stand supremacy and treaty fun for different reasons.


#30

You need to have in mind that a lot of AOE players like to take their time in chill games, so a treaty mode should be there, but not default.


#31

Perhaps I’m misinterpreting something here, but the treaty is just a game type for random maps games. You’re not forced into playing treaty.


#32

I believe you are correct.


#33

AOE2 had some major flaws in it if you compare it to today’s standards.

1.The pathing is very horrible.
2.The civs are all the same with just a few bonusses and some small differences in techtree.
3.Besides that the game is extremely slow. It takes 9-11 minutes to go to the feudel age and do a flush. An average game takes like 35 minutes at least.
4. There wasn’t a big amount of strategies like in aoe3. More like: drush,Trush, flush, crush, mush ±5 strategies at most.
5. Most civs where never used at all. Huns and mongols where like 50%+ of the standard random map games played.


#34

Pathing is the only flaw I see in that, you are wrong with #5 and miss the idea with #4.
Other than that, people liked AoE2 most for what it was, it’s the most played and best received game in the franchise for these reasons as well.


#35

AOE3 by all standards was much better then aoe2. First of all aoe2 is ugly and has horrible pathing and the amount of strategies is small, the gameplay is horrible slow. AOE3 is still beautiful by today’s standards, it has decent pathing and the amount of strategies is so large that even today new things are being done. Besides that the gameplay is nice and quick.

The only thing aoe2 has going for it is nostalgia. And yes i do feel it to with aoe1 and 2, but by today’s standards those games aren’t good anymore.


#36

Mmm, nope, AoE2 is not just sitting on nostalgia, AoE1 is, and you can see the results of that, where people just came and went since the gameplay is actually quite mediocre.
AoE2’s gameplay on the other hand is the reason for its success and people keep playing it because it really is good. Nostalgia can’t feed playtime/continous play, nor new players, nor proffesional level play, nor much bigger player numbers than AoE3.

The thing with you is that you have opinions based on your own personal preferences. It’s like one would come and say something like the following: ~ AoE3 is ugly because, like all the 3D games of the past, it has aged a lot, you can now see the awful textures and few polygons by today’s standards while AoE2’s 2D art just like a painting is still beautiful. Besides that AoE2 has slower nice depth gameplay where you are able to be very busy mentally in masterfully planning and executing your strategy, and where economy micro, building placement are of utmost importance too, not just the army, and you can have nice long games especially in 4v4s with lots of comebacks and unforseen developments of the game. Unlike AoE3 which is horrible fast and small scale and focus is just on army etc etc…

That would seem like an argument but it’s more a personal preference yelling. The only arguments you gave me are pathing and large amount of strategies?! Which I can’t really tell because I coudnt be bothered with AoE3 long enough to get to know the metas, I was kept from playing it more by its many, many design flaws. But it would be surprising indeed to find out AoE3 actually had depth with lots of strategies and executions, which I can tell you for a fact AoE2 has. Not really sure what is your understanding of the game.


#37

Well I played AoE2 since the start until AoE3 was out, for many years I really enjoyed AoE2 but as for me, I loved how AoE3 was made and finally ended playing more AoE3 and enjoying it more than AoE2. So its a matter of who you ask. Both games were 10/10 (for me)


#38

I really don’t get the AoE3 hate. In my opinion, AOE III is a better overall game compared I and II. I don’t get the aversion to changes as well. Age of Empires 2 and 3 were good games, but there’s much room to improvements, the gaming industry has advanced a lot since AOE3. With that in mind there’s some things I’d like to see in AOE4:

  • The maximization of viable strategies by enforcing intelligent trade-offs. I’ve played AOE3 high-level matches for many years, and I didn’t like playing treaties. Back then, there was only one viable option for no-treaty supremacy games: rush. There wasn’t really any trade-off in playing rush strategy. You didn’t get offensive penalties, so even if your first early attacks failed all you had to do is manage your economy and you would be fine, whereas people being attacked early on were in risk of losing some economy units. So every game high-level game came down to your ability to micro manage your economy units more efficiently than your adversaries and manage to strike first, 90% of the games would end in ten minutes, or the first couple of battles fought. I would like to see penalties for failed strategies. i.e. let’s suppose your strategy is based in offensive early game tactics (rush), if you failed to achieve your initial goal, you’d be in disadvantage for making decisions that predicted a faster win.

  • I would like to see genuine conflict of interests, economy wise. There wasn’t really a battle for resources in AOE3. You pretty much only attacked your adversary when you had to, because that was the mechanic to win the game. I would like to see a more complex game, that lead to territory control and a more dynamic trading route system. There should be a bigger focus on creating a set of subgoals that lead to the main goal (triumphing over your enemy). Like in MOBA genre: you may choose to kill the dragon, but then the other team can push your tower. There’s 2 important aspects in this kind of game mechanic, 1. there’s a trade-off, 2. there’s freedom to create a strategy that consists of accomplishing a certain set of subgoals aiming to achieve the higher goal, and then there are occasional mid-game battles when two adversaries choose to pursue the same subgoal or any conflict of economic interest happens.

  • More complex combat mechanics, even if that means adding a little bit of player skill of micro management. The terrain should play a bigger role on the combat. Even if that means having to create bigger maps with more diverse terrains. Territory should be taken into consideration by players. i.e.: let’s imagine I’m playing musket infantry and my adversary is focusing on cavalry. I shouldn’t attack him on open field, because I’d be vulnerable to a charge and exposed to being overwhelmed by his superior maneuverability. But he’s taking a territory of plain open fields with certain important strategic resource. Then I’d have to weight the trade-off between letting him control that strategic resource versus the inherent risk of fighting him in that type of terrain. Combat too would be challenging and very strategic, demanding that the players make decisions all the time, with implicit trade-offs in every choice made.


#39

Well, I’m a bit confused since all those three points are already present in AoE3 to a rather huge extent. Maybe this is a case of old meta vs new meta, but rushing is currently not seen that often in competitive games and resource contention is typically the key point that decides a match. Picking a fight with cavalry in chokes or in a forest is also a very beneficial strategy, since the cav’s higher obstruction radius makes it tough for them to path and engage units in such situations. Unit positioning on the battlefield can easily swing an otherwise unfavorable fight and by extent even the whole match sometimes.

I invite you to check out the latest tournament’s finals if you’re interested, there’s a good mix of rush/defensive/water gameplay to be seen.


#40

I didn’t know people still played this game. I couldn’t watch all 9 games, but I watched the first 3. But sorry, I don’t think the game has changed much. Sure, they’ve tried some variations on strategies. But most weren’t much effective. At least the 3 first games were narrowed down to 1. early economic micro-management, 2. quickly capitalizing on the first battle and snow balling the game from that point on. There’s pretty much no downside on early agressiveness. Back when I used to play, my two friends and I gathered some stats, over a month. In over 120 games, 98 were won by whoever won the first military engagement, and 115 games ended before the 20 minutes mark. That’s a little bit worrying, for a RTS game. There should be mechanics in play to diversify the possibles outcomes…