You mean “aging up”? I have mixed feelings about this, on the one hand it’s true but on the other - I’d really wish to explore the 19th and 20th century in an age game, and those are prime candidates for “empires”.
The german empire.
The british empire.
The french empire.
The russian empire.
The austrian empire.
The ottoman empire.
What other time in history is marked with so many empires? Now the question should be - how aging up should work for the modern age?
No, aging up wouldn’ be an issue. technological advances have been exponential since the modern era, to the point where each decade was different from the last. The big problem is in contemporary warfare tactics. This era means the end of hand to hand combat. This era means assymetrical war (mines, bacteriological weapons, missiles, etc…) These are only a few examples but I think you get my point.
To a lesser extent, this would mean new ressource types : oil, nuclear energy, etc… (which all could be obtainable through a factory type building.
This is just my opinion, but I personnally don’t like it and I can’t imagine a game like this being called age of empires.
Why should that be a general problem? Other games (c&c) showed that it works in principle and makes for a fun gameplay.
Lack of melee battle
Can be replaced with bayonettes and pistol fights, maybe machine pistols. Maybe knifes.
asymmetrical war
Mines are modern wolf holes. Using deseases as a weapon was a thing in the middle ages, too. Artillery and rockets are modern siege weapons. All of this isn’t in age because age is relatively kid-friendly, but games like “stronghold” feature all of it.
I think you get my point
Yeah i certainly can understand, especially if aoe means primarily aoe1+2 to someone. Me, my curiosity of how such a game would feel like outweights the possibility of me not liking it (as with aoe4 unfortunately). Too bad we can’t have a “pilot episode” for a new game 11
Hence make it an aoe3 dlc would be my suggestion.
Well past AOEs do not represent formation, tactics and morale any better either.
Like skirmishers counter line infantry because the former has more accurate weapons and the latter uses close formation, not because the same bullet hits harder on some people than others.
Maybe people are more familiar with contemporary warfare so they’ll feel odd if it is presented in a very abstract way. That’s why most modern warfare games and some “futuristic” games that are no more than ww2 but in space typically have squad-based systems and emphasize equipments rather than specialized unit roles.
It would be like Empire Earth, or Rise of Nations after the modern age, but with a more detailed tech tree progression.
These games all have AOE-like resource management and classic RTS unit controls but include a modern setting.
CNC-like games have much simplified resources and base building, but these games you still need your villagers to chop trees and hunt deers to…make automatic rifles.
Same people that would be okay when cavalry and chariots, conquistadors and throwing axemen are unlocked at the same “age” XD.
Yeah of course c&c works fine, but its completely different to aoe. It’s like day and night.
Yes, but the game has to be restricted to a “certain logic” and the counter system in the game represents it well imo.
What has 90% of this topic to do with the main thread question? ^^
Sure. What I mean is people’s tolerance towards highly abstract or inaccurate representation deteriorate the more familiar they are with the setting.
Like people are happily spamming swordsmen or camel cavalry, but if you are allowed to create an all-bazooka army many would feel weird. That’s why most ww2 games have squads where maybe one member carries the bazooka.
Perhaps it is due to the technical, graphic and access to information limitations that existed in the 90’s.
Currently, the development of historical games is complicated, no one can deny that, and it is because more modern centuries have had a great technological development and are closely linked to the particular history of our countries.
And if we expand more on the RTS (or games in general), games from the CoD saga also receive criticism regarding the uniforms and weapons used (in WW2 and Cold War), even games with Lore set in fantasy like Starcraft and Diablo have a great care with its own Lore to enrich its history (like the case of Warcraft 3 where some models were changed to make them more consistent with the official Lore).
A reality that must be accepted is that times have changed, AoE 3 DE could easily have followed the same path as AoE 2 DE (don’t make big changes, and make changes that really have historical or mechanical justification like changing the architecture of the Byzantines ), but AoE 3 DE decided to go the hard way and make radical changes to be more consistent with the real story: rework of Native Americans, redesign of some civilizations like the Ottomans, etc. And whether you like it or not, you must respect the “Principium aequitatis” (principle of equity) for which you must give the same treatment of historical love for all civilizations.
Yes, that’s why I was thinking that if there is a chronological successor to AoE 3 it would address the cold war period.
I’d say also due to familiarity with the setting.
Like many people would look at a 17 century plate armour and call it a “medieval” knight, from the “same era” as vikings or King Arthur.
Or the whole classical antiquity spanning thousands of years as a whole ambiguous collection of names and popular images.
When it comes to modernity, it’s more familiar and much better documented. We see what that kind of warfare is like on TV. People would start picking on things as trivial as an ww2 tank appearing two years earlier as it should.
For example I’d consider the classical “swordsman” unit that appears in almost every strategy game (though rarely there were actual dedicated swordsmen units irl) as an abstract representation of elite, professional heavy infantry with multiple weapons and roles, distinguished from poorly trained, cheap irregulars (usually portrayed as spearmen).
But you can’t do something similar for modern settings, like one guy carrying bazooka representing all kinds of specialized heavily-equipped infantry. Most of the time you’ll have to put him into a squad with 5 other riflemen, otherwise I’d feel a little odd myself if you can amass 60 men exclusively with bazooka.
After the release of AoE 4, this series is already clearly turning back - in terms of the eras discussed.
Maybe it’s even better because modern times have resulted in huge technological progress - airplanes, motor vehicles, electricity, etc. Such a mass of content requires its own mechanics adapted to the times in question. After all, planes from WW1 will not work the same way as Balloon in AoE3. If the right AoE 4 had taken place, it would probably cover almost the entire 20th century (from the fall of Napoleon to the present day) - so it’s very good that it wasn’t made.
In my opinion, a much better option would be to create a completely new AoE sub-series - Age of Wars (it would be like Age of Mythology). This way, these games could be a bit more tactically advanced. Imagine a Victorian Era (+ WW1) AoE game with advanced CoH games style war mechanics.
I’d say it should be even narrower because of the huge technological advancements, as is the trend from AOE1-3. AOE1 covers thousands of years. AOE2 around 1000. AOE3 less than 500 and people already complain about crossbows vs gatling guns.
Maybe 1820s to ww1. Tanks and aircrafts as some sort of ultimate weapon. Then warfare changes so much that makes all previous tactics obsolete. That’s already a huge gap. I can’t imagine adding jet fighters alongside rifled muskets.
Exactly, that’s why AoE 1 covers 3000 years of history in 4 ages and for us, the modern player, it is coherent because there were no great technological leaps in that timeframe and many of those nations were geographically located at unimaginable travel distances for people of that time (such as Alexander the Great who discovered in disbelief that India was not the end of the world). AoE 2 spans 1000 years of history, its main strength (according to its lore) having as age 1 the time after the fall of the Roman Empire for which the player had to “recover and restart civilization”, and even thenand still (according to what I see) the inclusion of Rome in AoE 2 has been criticized by players despite the fact that its inclusion is consistent (it was an empire and it was in the AoE 2 timeframe), perhaps the criticism is due to the fact that they confuse the Roman Empire ( present in AoE 1) with the Western Roman Empire which is the one present in the game, even their shields have the “P for Christ”.
And well, as I said, the closer we get to our modern age, the development of a historical game is going to become more and more complicated due to the greater historical record and the particular history of our countries; I hope not to be controversial but I consider that a citizen China might be offended if a rifleman in an imperial Japanese WW2 uniform is featured as an asian regional basic infantryman, similarly if a rifleman in a German uniform is featured as the regional representative for all Europe during WW1 (this is present in AoE 2).
But well, as I said, AoE 2 DE was a remaster so it only copied the formula of AoE 2 from the 90’s and improved the gameplay and graphics (and with some well justified historical changes), but with AoE 3 DE, in addition to treating a period closer to ours, the decision was made to make the game more historical (it is something that I personally appreciate).
Yeah the original theme of AOE2 (at least for the European civs) was to found new kingdoms on the ruins of Rome as migrating barbarians. And Romans were a huge empire on the collapse. Maybe that’s why some people oppose it.
Beyond AOE1 it’s hard to justify a “small village and backwards technology” start. That’s why AOE2 forces a “dark age” starting time and AOE3 originally chooses a colonial setting (though happily discarded with TAD). If it’s modernity, then that becomes even more difficult.
So the theme becomes building a new military base like in many ww2 and modern/near future warfare games, but then that’s neglecting aspects of city building and technological advancements, and people may expect more detailed and authentic combat…and problems.
WHAT HAVE THE LAST 20 MESSAGES HERE TO DO WITH THE TOPICS QUESTION ?
Guys for real, make a new topic or smth but this is " How long should we wait "
You are right that we are straying a bit from the topic, however it must be recognized that the future pack of new skins for historical accuracy has given a lot of talk and has made us wonder about the possible DLC and how that would affect the release dates (even if new DLC might still exist).
Well, I guess someone will have to open a new topic about it, or better yet, does anyone know of an already open topic where these topics can be discussed in depth? 
In the 19th century, many huge cities were created practically from scratch - then, for example, many completely new cities were created in Upper Silesia, for example Katowice (11 September, 1865).
Thus, the emergence of a completely new settlement in the 19th century can be justified in various ways, e.g. the importance for industry.
A pleasant greeting, in order to avoid possible conflicts I decided to create this topic with the hope of being able to address in an orderly manner some topics such as the final year of AoE 3 and its possible chronological successor.
They literally made a Star Wars game with the core gampley of AoE2.
Age of Empires games are somewhat related to futuristic-style RTS games: Halo Wars was developed by Ensemble Studios and Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds uses the same engine and core gameplay elements of AOE2. But, in my opinion, the problems with having an AOE set in the future are:
-The devs would have to invent a lot of things that don’t exist yet (AOE games are supposed to be set in a historical period).
-Gameplay can deviate a lot from what players are used to, which can result in rejection by a good part of the community.
Maybe (someday…) the devs could develop a spin-off set in the future (“Age of Future?”), in a similar vibe to Age of Mythology.