Yes there are arhers、 spearman and something like that.But their armour，weapon and appearance are totally different. For example,Chinese army haven’t used two handed sword but broadsword. So the basic units in AOE2 were fine for Europan players but were a nightmare for us Asian players.
Don’t worry they are gonna make unique visual for each civ (race).
Yeah, the visuals are amazing. I am just saying they need the units themselves to be unique.
I mean, if they’re going to go through the trouble of giving unique graphics to each faction’s roster then why not just give them unique units in the first place? Most of the generics ended up ‘somewhat’ unique relative to each other anyways due to tech and civ bonus differences, so just build that into the units themselves to begin with.
For example, rather than giving the Persians spearmen that are just complete crap after feudal you could give them a spear unit that’s still fairly weak, but cheap to compensate for when you desperately need an anti-cav trash unit.
This doesn’t have to be exactly like Starcraft where pretty much every unit has a completely unique role on their faction’s roster - everyone will likely have some sort of footman, archer and cavalry at the very least to fill basic roles, but with some basic stat differences to give them flavor.
There’s nothing wrong to have common/regular units. I just hope to see different look and stats. You may have a Mongol archer who does look differently from those Britons. They might also set it to deal abit more damage but with less range. There are many things they can do so I just hope they can do it in the right way.
About unique units they are gonna make some for sure. They said this at Gamestar interview. We get also Hero units with powers so I imagine something like W3.
There was an interview a while back ago where Adam Isgreen talked about the future of AOE 4 and most importantly he talked about Red Alert and how he wanted to bring similar technology tree/unit choices as seen in the RA franchise.
but in Red Alert 2 they made it more interesting by introducing different harvesting trucks to different factions (teleporting Allies, armored Soviet).
Based on that it seems unlikely that the civilizations would showcase as extreme differences as StarCraft does. But It does seem like the units would be more diverse than what they are in AOE 2.
IE small tweaks to units damage, health, upgrade path, etc based on the civilization type. Main thing being that all civilizations would have Archer, Cavalry, Swordsman and Siege unit line which all would work similarly enough to make playing against them simple enough so that no one would have to learn every match up in order to play the game competitively.
Haha, had to make this joke.
While I do think they should add more asymmetry then we currently have with the AoE2 civs, I don’t think they can go full asymmetric, it’s humans we are talking about after all, not aliens.
I personally would want a pretty generic but extensive unit roster but with slightly more unique units (3-4) per civ and maybe more differences between the generic unit lines if they have to feel more different to each other.
I personally am pretty happy with how the units are handled in AOE2, so in my opinion they shouldn’t feel too different.
Prepare to be quoted, Andy!
I enjoyed AoM but I can’t say the same about AoE3/AoEO.
Anyway as I said before it’s not possible to be fully unique because most civz got the same kind of units - the differences are minimal.
To be very clear, I 100 percent agree that AoE4 should not include fully asymmetric civs, and I apologize if I did not make that clear. I tried to specifically cite three other Age of Empires games as examples of the kinds of asymmetry I am suggesting we see in AoE4.
All of those games include a basic set of Buildings that all civs draw from and that most civs have without any modification but that are modified in some civs in intelligent ways that improve gameplay and harken back to history. The civs also often contain some buildings that only certain civs share and also some civ-specific buildings.
Similarly, the civs in these games contain a number of Units that are fairly universal (such as villagers, market caravans, fishing boats, spearmen) and another set of units that appear in some, but not all civs (such as archers, slingers, melee cavalry, some siege weapons), and a third set of units that are unique to each civ.
I am being very general here and we could certainly be more specific. But I think the idea is pretty noncontroversial: after AoE2, Ensemble Studios and Age of Empires moved in a direction of fewer, more diverse civs. It makes for much more compelling gameplay and exploration.
Certainly AoE2 still has plenty of lessons in other areas of game design to teach us, but we should not blindly copy it.
One of the joys of us who prefer the games after AoE2 is knowing how easily it is for people to misunderstand our opinions and attack things we aren’t saying. I am not trying to disown AoE2. AoE2 is great. But we need a game that draws from the entire corpus of AoE.
I think the sales numbers disagree with you quite a lot…
Just so I am sure I understand your understanding of the facts, are you suggesting that Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3 were both commercial failures?
To me this is the worst of the series. The only good thing for that time was the new graphic except that AoE1-2-M were far better.
I do not deny it, I would be curious to know how much the various titles have sold.
I do not prefer AoE3, either. But that does not mean I believe it does not contain lots of lessons and improvements that are important for AoE4 to use. Every video game is a bundle of features and ideas. Just because I overall prefer the bundles in other titles does not mean that I think we should completely ignore the other games and completely clone my favorite version.
All too often, this community seems to face some bizarre and unhelpful slippery slope arguments when someone suggests anything. Players for whose favorite Age game does not contain that feature fly off the handle and argue that any idea from any other game than theirs is valueless.
This is seen worst where players in favor of AoE2 prop up its sales numbers and playerbase as the authority that we should adopt every single feature in AoE2. It’s blind loyalty and not how good games are designed.
AoE2 obviously does lot of things right, but as a community, we should be intelligent enough to be able to hold that concept in our heads at the same time as the concept that other Age games may have done other things better.
One good example of this is how Ensemble replaced the reseedable Farms of AoE1 and AoE2 with infinite farms in AoM, AoE3, and AoEO. This feature was roundly lauded and now the new updated AoE1DE and AoE2DE include mechanics similar.
Another example are Walls. In AoE2, you had wooden palisade walls in Age 2 and then had to remake brand new stone walls all over again in Age 3. Again, Ensemble replaced this AoE2 feature in AoM, AoE3, and AoEO with Age 1 wooden walls that simply upgrade up to stone walls starting in Age 2. There are dozens more examples.
What do you think is unique of AoE3 and that would be good?
It’s something I dislike but okey.
Does not make much sense but okey.
Sorry, I edited it above to cut you off. For starters, Farms and Walls. Also civ design.
Another one Siege engine crew, workhorses
The only good thing was the fact melee units could use torches to destroy buildings. But for example the gameplay was not the same as was in AoE1-2-M, the card system was a fail. Dunno I had a bad experience and I’m one of those who bought the collectors edition XD
Yeah that’s something related to graphic like the melee using torches.