6-8 civs is fine for mp.but campaigns?as a campaign player it is a big problem for me.for example we have these civs
Mongols
English
Chinese
Byzantine
Aztects
Arabians
So which campaigns we can see?
Mongols vs Chinese
Crusade(Englishs)vs Arabians.Yes a crusader without other europeans and turks.
So i can’t find another campaign with this civs…
So i prefer aoe3 style civs.if they make aom/sc2 style,i think they must add at least 8 civs.
Sc2 is fine with 3 civs.But aoe isn’t a utopian game such as warcraft or starcraft.it is a medieval game.we need more civs for campaigns.but probably 6 civs don’t a problem for multiplayer players.
In my opinion each modern Strategy game did approach the issue from wrong angle.
They try to balance an entire faction, that does completely lack access to critical technologies.
Classic games did simply design from similar unit to unit by each faction, without to remove tech.
Problem is, balancing problems turn into gameplay problems.
Gameplay problems turn into impression game is broken and bad.
My question is, why do we have to,
as usual go into balancing problems with different factions in the first place ?
I mean what’s wrong with 35 factions in AoE2?
Relic did try already even themselves by Dawn of War 3, Adam Isgreen by Universe at War,
Microsoft by Rise of Legends, to make some kind of own Starcraft2.
Result was same, game did flop.
I am just realistic, the team we have for AoE4 cant do it.
They didn’t say different civs sikilar to sc2.they said fewer civs but distinct.
They said mongols would play the most different,englishs would be more similar to a classic AoE civs.
I am not hopeful,but not pessimist too.Im waiting new details.
I hope they won’t make it.At least we saw english archers and mongol archers,we saw english horsemans and mongol horsemans,we saw english infantries and mongol infantries.So i think they won’t make a civ without critical techs.I think they will make distinc civs similar to aom.
aom,scouting
egyptians have priests for scouting.but scout unit is priest’s towers
greeks have a classic aoe scout unit,a horsemen
norses have a ulf(standard infantry unit for norse) for scouting.slower than greek scout but stronger.
also greeks and norse have another scout unit:pegasus and raven
maybe viking faction can have a raven for scouting in aoe4
at
atlanteans an unit named oracle. While moving, the Oracle’s is tiny, barely showing where he’s walking. After he has been standing still for a while, the line of sight grows out to an extreme range
or gathering
greeks have two drop-off buildings.granary for foods,storehouse for wood&good
egyptians have two drop-off buildings.first one is for food,second for wood,third for gold.classic aoe system.
norse have one drop-off building but works differently.it is movable.
atlanteans don’t have a drop off building.aoe3 style they don’t need a drop-off building.
AoM have very nice distincts for factions.I hope they will do a job similar to aom
I hope AOE4 stays true to AOE2 but I doubt it.
This is a great point.
In my opinion the civ design should be more like AoE III, the AoE III civs are more unique with mechanics while AoE II civs mostly come down to buffs. Also i like the unique units of AoE III more where you have multiple.
I agree.aoe3’s civ design is good.
Here an example why I think Relic is not the right team to do such factions.
Dawn of War 3 suffers from many design issues, among them the way how they did make Dawn of War 3 factions is gameplay breaking. For Example Space Marines from DoW3 unlike other factions do not have a transport unit. How much does such change affect the game? Ah, yes you can’t relocate or evacuate unlike other factions your soldiers. So people are not experiencing there a distinct faction, but a broken faction and so a broken game.
Create unique a faction without to removing entirely key RTS assets,
is a task modern developer’s apparently cant do.
But Age of Empires 3, has way less people play it.
Do we really want another game with different factions, that probably going to flop and kill the franchise for years
or the thing Total War is doing, yes its no so fresh after dozens of installments, but at least we can have it. frequent ?
Yes relic isn’t a perfect studio but you can’t find a rts developer nowadays.you said creative assembly,but they didn’t make a base building game except halo wars 2,they only made total wars.also halo wars 2 very different from aoe,and it isn’t a great game.
relic made a terrible game,dow3.but also they made dow2,coh2 and they are good games.i don’t think relic is a bad developer.
Doesnt matter AoE III has lesser players, you are mistaken to think it is a dead game. Almost every day there are at the same time 1000-2000 players online and now with the De comming most of the time it is around 4000.
Like it or hate it AoE III is part of the game franchise and should also get looked at. The AoE III factions didnt kill the franchise. Also wouldnt argue AoE III itself killed the franchise. They made enough money of it and it still has a big fanbase.
AoE III added a lot of interesting ideas that do work and do not break the game. Example to this is the livestock pen, trade posts/natives and more unique units.
Edit: and mercenaries/saloon and treasures
When playing AoE III, I could feel as if I was closer to the actual landscape.
The proportions and reflections brought visual enjoyment.
Whilst the field and having multiple civilations to explore through added diversity and longevity for myself to find myself on new maps & in clashes occuring many many years after AoE III’s release.
Those ideas from AoE3 arent good.
-Treasures mean annoying early game goose chase
-Trade Posts turn game into boring key location Football field, breaking turtling
Hallo Wars 2 is a decent sequel and light year ahead compared to DoW3 and Universe at War.
Yes, they had decent products in the past,
but in last years we had to see so many bad RTS games,
people did loose their confidence in the genre.
It just sounds to me, like AoE4 Team did not learn from it.
Especially AoE4 is not a game where team is free to do what ever they want, without financial consequences, like we had seen by Dawn of War 3 and C&C4 Tiberian Twilight. Using bad design choices from AoE3 and AoE Online, to justify their recreation in AoE4 is the worst thing possible, Because people knew them and told not to do so.
The modern RTS do flop, because their design is not convincing.
And that’s the main issue that should be approach.
A game has to look, like it does justify to pay 60 Dollars for it.
I mean something being good afther all is an opinion. Still would argue they are good mechanics. Trade posts dont make it a football field or break turtling. Treasures arent a goose chase you can just pick them up with your explorer, and you dont have to pick them up. I guess you dont play AoE III or you would have known these things. Also i made more points about interessting deas you didnt respond to, why they are not.
Because you disliked AoE III doesnt mean everyone did. There is still a huge fanbase and just to ignore that is stupid. You probably just want a AoE II clone well guess what you got AoE II De not that long ago. Play that if AoE II is so superior.
Well lets take a look at those AOE3 maps. Again, do they provide as much freedom and variety like the maps from AoE2? Of course not. Trade posts are resource generating buildings.
This maps are prime example of those simplified footballs fields, where they do force people to take middle. And completely are breaking Turtling gameplay.
It’s an issue if the map does force you to play it merely a limited and intended way.
AoE3 map is already shaped and pre-defined.
Compare it to AoE2 map, you are the one who does discover and shape the map.
As its up to you where you build your base and you can play as turtle, actually AoE2 is one of the handful games, where it’s not a simplified rush for key locations.
Its very clear which game is more popular.
Age of Empires II (2013) 30-Day Avg. 12,733.1
Age of Empires® III: 30-Day Avg. 3,725.6
I had from AoE3 a very negative impression
-the Ottoman faction with only 1 available trooper was a point where I did think the game must be bugged.
I mean it did cost after all 50 Dollars, and you see only 1 soldier available to buy. I understand this janissary were supposed to be unique, but we had them already in AoE2. My first question was, ok where are all the other soldier unit types? They had some artillery units and horse units, but the thing is, they lacked strategies that are available with cheap infantry.
I also do not understand why developers are including chores into games. This collecting of XP to update city new cards and each early game collecting of treasures feels like s Quick-Time-Event in a shooter or RPG, completely unnecessary.
PvP gameplay experience was quite awful, once you have secured middle of the map, people are leaving the game. This is a main issue by Foodball maps, once you have the key position , people do leave the game. This is extremely annoying.
And worst of all, you don’t have your base build freedom. In AoE3 you merely need to follow the way from trade post, to find enemy base. As I really like to use siege equipment vs buildings, but in AoE3 nice defense structures area a rarity as most people have to focus on mobile units.
I think AoE III is one of prime examples, where RTS are heading in wrong direction. You have ideas stitched together, without a proper consistence and gameplay variety, with some quite annoying parts. And that where ideas become not important, as you are going to have overall bad gameplay experience.
I am simply against gameplay breaking ideas.
Well if you ask me how AoE4 should be approached?
The main factor of AoE2 is the variety how it can be played.
Your point about the map being shaped by yourself in AoE II is false. Mostly players head to piles of gold to secure their late game gold for 1v1 and most of the times also team games. AoE III trade posts arent overpowered and you can easily win withouth claiming them. Pro players generaly dont build trading posts. They also do not shape the map like you say that you are forced to take them. Map control is always a thing in strategy and AoE II is no different.
I didnt say AoE III was more popular i said there are still a lot of fans. You forget that the 2013 release of AoE II was also a improvement which saw new things added. AoE III hasent had such thingd sinse 2007.
You act like the Ottoman civ is the only on in the game. The ottomans have extra artillery foundry troops and a unique unit is also send via Home city. And the reason they dont have a trash infantry is because their settlers are free. If you didnt liked the Ottoman civ you still have 7 others and 13 others with dlc. All more unique from eachother and except for French and Japanese they are very balanced.
AoE IV shouldnt be a copy of AoE IV anf you just want to hate some things about AoE III where there is no reason to why. Mercenaries, treasures, natives, livestock pen are all interessting and not game breaking additions. I dont say they should make an AoE III clone but they should not look away of one fifth of the player base when looked at AoE III and II added. Like i said, if you only want to live in your little bubble of AoE II play that, otherwise let them experiment and have their creativity. Bug fixes and balancing is a thing. Ofcourse a game should be bug free but there are always things that slip by.