How adaptable is the basic principle of the game?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

As the title suggests, I’m interested in your opinions on what changes/expansions AoE2 could use, especially in terms of gameplay, before it strays too far from its core idea.

What ideas do you have?

In my opinion, the player base consists of two large factions. Those who love the game the way it is/was (building a base, training units, destroying enemies, winning the game, and all of that with the greatest possible efficiency).

There’s also a large group that plays the game more for its flair, or perhaps more as a kind of strategy building game. Things like regional unit skins, etc., are more important to this group. Additionally, there are certainly things that would add more depth to the game. Be it additional options related to things like economics, trade, and/or diplomacy.

How far could the game, or rather the depth of the game, be developed before one of the two groups strays too far?

Let me give you a few examples of what I mean by that (all just loose ideas). These could also be ideas borrowed from other games:

  • Breeding animals (in specially designated buildings) before they can be used for their respective purposes (military or civilian) - living resources, so to speak
  • Military units must be continuously maintained and don’t just require resources to train units
  • Is a tax system conceivable?
  • General random events?
  • Games across multiple maps, not just one?
  • An expansion/splitting of the tech tree with regard to military units (e.g., archers and crossbowmen)

This could go on almost indefinitely.

So, what ideas do you have? What else could be changed and/or added before you would have to say, this is actually a completely new game and no longer has anything to do with the original idea?

2

I would say the civs we play in ranked don’t need to change much. “Issues” like Ethiopian crossbows or khmer knights would be solved with regional skins. I don’t think taxes, mercenaries, xp or random events are relevant there. Ranked should be the standard, straightforward experience.

The campagne civs often play differently in newer dlcs, I think it’s good.

Ultimately for lobbys you can add settings (like we already have for oysters): A “feudal” setting that let european civs train weak knights in feudal, a “steppe” setting that let step civ train weak ca in feudal, and so on. But not something that changes civs across all game modes.

What do you mean exactly? If it’s “previous games have an influence on your start”, it’s the case in campaigns. If it’s “you keep the exact units and upgrades from you previous game”, I would rather have everything on the same map, especially since we have very large map sizes.
If it’s something like “send your hero to the castle to recruit mercenaries”, but instead of simply giving you new units it start a new map where you play at a smaller scale in a castle…Yeah it would be cool but it’s probably simpler to do in one big map, where you reserve an area for this part of the game.

3

This is the core of the game,regardless of what is added this will not change.

First already done in chivalry mod,you can buy/train sheep.maybe a future civi will have this.
Second aom has/had mercenary units do something similar can be done for aoe2 as well.
Relics generating gold is kind of a tax system.something like villagers working generate gold is a tax system.
What does random events mean?
Across multiple maps is not clear.
Its already there called chronicles.

4

Not sure if you’re really asking for feedback on these or really proposing them, but…

Bad for competitive play, not clear to me that this would work well in a singleplayer scenario either.

I don’t think I understand what you’re suggesting here, because as far as I’m concerned this is what campaigns are.

Archers and crossbowmen were separate lines in some prerelease versions of AoK, but got merged during development. I actually think Archer → Crossbowman → Arbalest is a really well-designed unit line, because it gives the impression of technological development throughout time. This was a key design principal in AoE1, but was partially lost in AoE2, and has been lost even more in recent expansions (almost all new unit lines simply get “elite” forms – alhough at least these have separate graphics now). Some recent additions even go backwards in time now (legionary and savar), which I find really jarring personally.

The rest of your suggestions just seem like they would be fiddly and annoying to play around to me. Apologies for being so negative. I think the current (or original) level of abstraction behind the game design is very good, and what you describe as adding “more depth” to me would undermine that abstraction. I don’t think having more complicated mechanics is the same as having more depth – in fact, I think the “deepest” games I’ve played have usually had fairly simple mechanics.

I’m also not sure I agree with your premise, as I have some but not all features of both the “factions” you describe.

5

On the principles of adaptability, AOE2 is not a pure strategy game, though it has elements of pure strategy. It is not an abstract strategy game, though abstract strategy certainly helps. Leaning more towards one end or the other is a bad idea. Adding too many mechanics is also poorly conceived as there is much to manage already. Low APM players remain viable with the current number of challenges. Too few mechanics and they fall out the same as with too many mechanics.

6

You could have a mix of young and mature animals spawn on maps. You could hunt down all of them or take young sheep to mills/nurseries to be fattened up and then slaughter them.

Agree with the archer/crossbowmen line split. We have got this with the Knight/Lancer split in DE. I propose a swordsman and axeman/maceman line too. The former are faster firing/harder damage, while the swords do melee damage/while the later do crush damage.

7

Sometimes i hate how people have such good ideas early on then refuse to make tgem and just go “haha we had the power to code good things all along but decided to deny you more content!”

Granted Im not blessed with such skills so there might be more to why so many devs decide its fun to cut content

8

Would it be extra units, or would it be more like bowmen and improved bowmen in AoE1 (where bowmen do not upgrade into improved bowmen, but are a separate unit line)? Having archers and crossbows as separate lines would allow them to have different costs, but it also might mean archers that all archers become like Spanish/Bulgarian archers (good for Feudal age, but outdated afterwards due to lacking a castle age line upgrade).

9

Archers as Wood-Food and Crossbowmen as Wood-Gold. For civs that shouldn’t be getting crossbowmen like American, Goths, Huns, Cumans, some SEAsians, Africans their archer lines can have special upgrades to be stronger.

10

Anything like taxes or unit upkeep (that one is used in Cossacks) would be too far from AOE as you’d need considering passive income and expenses. It would make an interesting total conversion but would be too different for a new civ.

Archers and crossbows, I’d just solve that by reskinning the skirm line into archers and the archer into a light crossbowman. The skirm would become short-ranged (2 or 3, no longer increased by blacksmith upgrades) but very hard-hitting against infantry.

11

I also hate the unit upkeep like in Cossacks, maybe just for specific campaign scenario.

12

In the pre release version I’m talking about, archers had no gold cost and were available in Feudal Age with no upgrades in later ages. Crossbowmen/arbalests were a separate unit line that did cost gold, starting in Castle Age. It was basically the same as bowmen, improved bowmen and composite bowmen in AoE1, although the costs and stats weren’t identical. Weirdly, there was a separate foot archer unit called a composite archer, also in Castle Age and I think also costing gold – basically a crossbowman that can’t be upgraded any further.

So it’s not like this was some amazing innovative feature that got removed during development. If anything, the innovation was merging them into a single line.

2 Likes
13

Pretty sure someone can reskin the RoR units to aoe2 units and get a similar experience if they want.

Maybe it was a chariot archer replacement unit?

14

I think the Composite Archer is that version’s counterpart to the AoE1 Improved/Composite Bowman. It even has the same cost (40 food, 20 gold). The Crossbowman line has a lower attack speed than the (Composite) Archer, but also deals more damage.

This is the Composite Archer model:

composite-archer
composite-archer440×440 23.8 KB

In the released AoK, there was a hidden unit called Advanced Heavy Crossbowman, which was reworked into the Heavy Crossbowman found in the Scenario Editor of DE. Like the early Crossbowman line, it has a lower attack speed than most archers.

1 Like
15

The bow is different to a composit bow.this looks more like a longbowman.

16

Good point, I hadn’t spotted they had the same cost. Different stats and there’s no second upgrade, but that version clearly isn’t quite just a reskin of AoE1.

Crossbowmen are also more expensive, but both cost food and gold, while the archer costs wood and food. (Obviously they hadn’t had the idea yet that all archers would cost wood.)

Once it was rendered as a small sprite, I don’t think you’d be able to tell! It wasn’t finished – it turns into the AoE1 composite bowman when it shoots.

17

Interestingly, the Composite Bowman was named Long Bowman in the alpha version of AoE. While the Improved Bowman was called Composite Bowman instead.

aoe-alpha-bowmen
aoe-alpha-bowmen279×126 4.59 KB

3 Likes
18

First of all, thank you all for participating in the discussion. Secondly, I just wanted to clarify that I’m not demanding anything from what I initially proposed. I just wanted to mention a few ideas to spark a discussion.

And all of the ideas don’t have to be implemented in the game generally, perhaps simply in the form of new modes.

Regarding the “across multiple maps” point, my idea behind it was whether you could, so to speak, switch to another map upon reaching certain zones. Although that’s probably not really necessary given the map sizes available these days.

By “random events,” I mean, for example, suddenly appearing bands of robbers or something similar. Or randomly appearing new civs that want to settle somewhere on the map, and which you can and must then react to or interact with in some way.

Perhaps simply a more frequently changing diplomatic attitude of the AI ​​towards the player.

As I said, I didn’t necessarily want to collect ideas in this thread that would change the fundamental nature of the game, especially the competitive aspect. Of course, there might be ideas that could be included here. For example, the division of the Archer line into crossbowmen and bowmen, each with their own specific advantages and disadvantages.

The topic of “re-skinning” and/or “more regionalization” has also been hotly debated for a long time. It certainly fits further in this thread. Re-skinning “old” heroes, for example.

But primarily, these will be ideas that would have to be incorporated into new game modes. The point is not to ruin the game for the (sorry for the expression) “traditionalists” and perhaps to find ways to appeal to players like me who are looking for an even more realistic feel and can play individual random games almost endlessly.

So far, it’s been like this: you can delay some things (i.e., destroying your opponent) for a long time. You can let the AI ​​storm your base/city to pieces, but ultimately it always comes down to a more or less predetermined flow of the game.

Build, produce, attack in constant waves.

Perhaps there are individual ideas that can be brought into the game in a separate mode that allows players who like it to have more depth or multiple levels of battles.

As I said, this thread is not meant to be a collection of demands, merely a collection of ideas for everything that could be conceivable for or in this game.
My “ideal idea”, for example, would be to combine features from Aoe2 with those from games like Civilization (or other games like The Settlers) on the Aoe2 engine in a separate mode.

19

Preadator animals are kinda like robbers.new civis coming is not something you can add as the amount of players you can have is capped out.Something like Gaia towns would be ininteresting where you can destroy it and gain resources or leave them alone and trade.