How should Civilizations be designed by AoE4?

How about having real sappers? Like tunnelling and trench warfare?
Also, biological warfare would be interesting vs a walled off opponent.

1 Like

Trench and Biological warfare was used on middle ages ?

1 Like

hm, as of biological warfare they were at some extend using infected corpses and throwing them to the enemies with the use of catapults. But maybe this discussion should go to the AOE 4 ideas

1 Like

Yes, for biological warfare they would hurl diseased plague victims & cows into the city using catapults, trebuchets, etc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare#Middle_Ages).
For trench warfare, sortof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castra
Basically they were used for defensive purposes until WW1 it looks like.
I was thinking more sapper-like (tunnel warfare): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Godesberg

1 Like

Well disease is ignored on AOE i don’t see the point of biological

trench would be the “same” as palisades rather have a war engineer

2 Likes

Tunnel warfare is well documented and was definitely a thing. I imagine it being used at most big sieges.
And those big thick walls that we’ve seen in the trailer would be ideal for such a feature. Could be something similar to petards.
I wonder how more powerful are those walls going to be compared to the previous age games.
It had always been an annoyance that they were working more like a fench that could be destroyed fairly easy even by foot soldiers and that you could also shot through them. Hope it’s going to be different now. AOE 4 ideas

True, that’s a good point.
I guess for biological warfare & disease, it depends on if they’re going to focus more on siege craft rather than civ building. If the game maintains the AOE civ-building style, then it doesn’t make as much sense to do disease. But if it’s more about taking fortresses and building fortresses, maintaining control, or city-maintenance, then adding in disease (and even specializing it for each civ) makes sense.

I’d love to see sappers. AoE has had that unit before. It’s a great one.

creating civilizations for a strategy game could be more difficult than you might think! Having many civilizations means risking having many similar characteristics. I prefer to have few civilizations but very different from each other, that many civilizations that however have only few differences!

2 Likes

Sure it is possible to add a lot to the game and change various things,
but the actual question is, is it going to make sense?

I rather see a problem that RTS,
tend to be not playable because something is breaking the gameplay.

Have you any example for a good game with different civilizations?

I see simply this problem happening if factions are too different:

Because faction A is missing Unit X, Faction B is using all the time Unit X.
There might be other 20 or 40 different units in the game and 2 or 3 other factions, but you see only Faction B play unit X.

That’s why I do prefer similar Factions, because you do see actually other units and factions.

And I personally think Age of Empires is not the right franchise for different factions. No matter what you would do, for different Factions historical setting will be inferior vs any fantasy. Different Factions would make rather sense for Age of Mythology 2, where you could actually do something interesting.

2 Likes

Well for me Age III scheme it’s pretty ok. Is not Starcraft 2 where every faction is completely different (but then, again, they are only three) and is not Age II when at launch had a lot of civs but were all the same with just some differences in the tech tree and new units here and there.
Age III was a medium term, had half of the civs than Age II and every one was kind of different. The base is the same for all but they had different playstyles because of the economy changes, buildings, tecnologies and of course, units. When your citizens cost gold or wood instead food, you manage tour economy different, also when you get them for free like the Otomans. Regarding the Card System (wich for me was a pretty cool thing to add, having extra things and building different decks to adecuate more to your playstyle) each civilization has the adecuate amount of changes to make them unique and different.
I know that a lot of people didn’t like much Age III but i think Ensemble Studios made the right step with it. The balance on the differences and playstyles between the civilizations was very good, the chose between generals and different people every time you advance to a new Age (like Age of Mythology) the whole new card system, even what they did with the fort (rather having ONE significative and strong building than building 18 casttles around your base and map like Age II).

Despite all the new stuff, Age III still feels like an Age game so, Relic should look in the same way at the time in how to develop Age of Empires IV. I like the way in how Adam Isegreen look at it, keeping the core base of Age, but don’t having affraid of introducing a lot of new stuff and changes to ir, whithout making it a complete different type of game. The balance between the old and the new.

2 Likes

Hmmm also i forgot my guess on the civs that they may have at launch.
China or Japanese for sure will be on the roster since i saw asian style buildings in the Behind the Scenes trailer.

I believe that 8 or 10 will be the number for that “wide spectrum” of civilizations that Adam Isegreen was talking about.

My guess:

England
France
Japan
Mongols
Aztecs
Spain
Persian
Ottomans

The building you’re referring to is definitely not in Tang Dynasty/Japan style of architecture. It could be either the Chinese or Vietnamese and of the two, the pick is pretty much obvious.

I don’t see anyone here arguing for civs to be much more different than they are in AoM, AoE3, and AoEO. Those civs share a good number of units, buildings, and techs but also differ in critical ways.

Because we already have three examples, we don’t need to guess whether it will work. It works. It works very well, in fact.

2 Likes

Indeed, the chances are quite high AoE4 might not only inherit bad traits of its predecessors, but also develop some bad on its own.

Considering those games are way less popular than something created over 20 years ago, maybe it doesn’t work?

Age of Empires 2 outnumbers by popularity all other AoEs combined.
Age of Empires 2 outnumbers AoE3 like 10 to 1
Age of Empires 2 outnumbers Age of Mythology 20 to 1.

https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=Age+of

So the real question is simple. Why?
“Ok maybe I should have started a tread with that question”

I would not call AoE3 as a good game.

1 The lackluster by card system is obvious, people need lot of time to unlock all cards for all the factions, that does quite hard hit Multiplayer experience, as simple as people are kicked from lobbies if they have too low city level.

2 yes that example with Ottomans free workers, well issue is quite obvious,
such big difference does make faction either overpowered or not playable.

So we might end up in situation where people out of 6, 12, 20 factions do play only 1.

In my opinion there is simply no good middle ground between AoE2 and Starcraft.
The impression I have by most games is always, 1 game does lack content or 2 is not creative enough.

1 Like

Well, one just can’t satisfy to h3ll & heaven at the same time. There always gonna be people who loves the game, others who do not, and others who just simply hate it.
As an AoE fan from all the saga, i enoyed pretty much AoE III and was a good game for me, as much as Age of Mythology wich is my fav and had a lot of fun with it.
Yes, there are things op, units op, civs op or whatever you want op as any other game. But like everything, ABSOLUTELY everything has a counter, and depends on you how to manage it.
There is no 100% perfect game, there always gonna be suggestions and ways to improve it much more.
So, sometimes it’s just about a matter of taste rather than anything else.

And what about Indians? You won’t have 30% of medieval gdp?

AoM, AoE3 and AoEo are all dead games. lol

1 Like

Just because AoE2 has outsold every other AoE game does not mean that every single feature in AoE2 is better than every single feature in every other AoE game. When you fall back on sales figures as authority for your position, you don’t prove your point. You reveal your inability to critically analyze these games.

AoM, AoE3, and AoEO stand for the absolute objective truth that it is possible for Age games to have fairly unique civ diversity while also maintaining balance. That AoE2 outsold these games is of no moment. Civs are either balanced or unbalanced regardless of how many people play the game. We aren’t using the sales figures of those games to discuss this issue. Of course we aren’t — it’s completely irrelevant.

2 Likes

+1

Well guys lets look around, its not like simply AoM, AoE3 and AoEo are dead.
The RTS genre itself seems to be much dead by all new released games.

Its not like people don’t play Strategy games any more, we see millions of customers even today by new Total War, Stellaris, ANNO 1800 and so on. Still lot of people do play old RTS games.

This can only mean, something fundamental must be broken by new Real Time Strategy games.

1 Like