How should Civilizations be designed by AoE4?

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
331

What do you mean with changed the context. He stated that Ottomans had to few units to choose from and compared them to AoE II unit types. You did see those things were a reaction on someone else not you?

And to continue, do you play AoE III? mercenaries are very usefull, swiss pike one of the best anti cav, emireti almost best anti infantery unit etc. Outlaws are also better options in Age II and III then most counterparts. The rifle outlaw one does 40 damage with a multiplier of 2 against heavy infantry. I almost always build a saloon to see the options and if i see good mercenaries like emirite, jeager, swiss pike, black rider (best dragoon type unit) etc i use them. Not to forget what i forgot that ottomans can train ronin from saloon.

Natives are always usefull, always. Example Comanche from great plains, they have upgrades to decrease all coin cost and upgrades for cav. Why wouldnt you want it? Their comanche unit doesnt take pop space, because natives do not do that. The cheyenne of the same map can be beasts against cav with a upgrade.

And to say some units are lesser used than others is being hypocrit. The person i reacted to posted all land units. Siege tower, useless. Petard almost always useless. Scorpion sees also almost no use because mostly useless. You play 1v1 and gold just ran out? Almost all gold units became more hard to get.

Afther this i think you either thought i replied to you which isnt the case, or you just bullshitting something that isnt taken out of context. And if you believe so state why it is taken out of context.

Edit:
And it is prove that the person i reacted to does not play AoE III he had more things like this in previous posts, also it is a pretty big mess up to do that as an AoE III player. Like you said yourself the icon doesnt change.

Also almost to everything you said i was wrong i literally said my opinion. I did not say it was a fact or that you should agree i just said that it was more interesting in my opinion. And just to add to it, an icon must show which unit you have selected it is not required for it to be a good icon to show upgrades on the icon itself, search for once the definition of icon. Also the AoE II icons do not convay all the information iT dOeSnT sHoW tHe BlAcKsMiTh UpGrAdEs EtC.

And still i believe you confuse my replies to be directed to you, the first thing about being superior was about the game itself for having more unqiue units.

332

First of all, I like you ignored my post about Ottoman units. Second of all the RTS market isnt as it was anymore. There is less demand for it, you have to come with new and interessting ideas (but still hold true to the originals, both AoE I to III) to make people buy your game. All those games that you listed was not criticized for unique units unless one of them was just unbalanced.

You have force of habit where you take game examples that flop and post them like they relate to what people wrote. Those games didnt flop because unique factions, those games didnt flop because of unique units. Atleast the games i know on that list and if i am wron state which games on that list were critizised for having unique factions and units.

AoE online was critizised because it was basically pay to win and almost everything was locked behind a paywall. Thats why it flopped.

Like i said a thousend times, there are things as bug fixes and balance patches just like AoE II De had plenty off. Were units balance gets fixed because they overlooked things.

333

There is “no defintion” for a “AAA-game”. Therefore, unless you first state the “definition” you are using, then EVERYTHING can be classified as a “AAA-game”. :smiley:

334

I already did reply that the AoE3 card system progression is broken and that Ottomans dont have an option for cheap trash food/wood soldiers, the units you do mention are either expensive for coins or locked behind a huge grind.

There is a RTS market, but not for the type of RTS they try to make.
-“original” ideas are not going to work, if they turn out gameplay breaking.
-“unique” factions are not going to work, if they turn out broken.

And I try to put it in 1 sentence:
How is AoE4 supposed to be any different than a flop,
if they basically try to pull same stuff again that did already fail?

335

1 Mobile Base Build:

Adam Isgreen worked on Universe at War and does at least know Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight, those games had mobile bases, its very clear that did not turn out great.
Why are they even trying to pull it off by Mongols in AoE4 ?

Inst it clear for them by now that a mobile base build does not work ?

2 People did very clearly dislike cartoony art style,
as they have obviously bought instead more mature designed games.
best examples would be Rise of Legends, Dawn of War 3, Age of Empires Online

So why is AoE4 made cartoony ? Like Rise of Legends. Rise of Legends was a flop.
Did Microsoft collect no own experience after Rise of Legends and Age of Empires Online?

900×675 361 KB


DAWN OF WAR 3 was by the way criticized too for be too cartoony.

So why is AoE4 made cartoony ?
Inst it clears by now that such designed game has not good chances ?

3 And now about unique and different factions by those games.
Done so bad, people can’t enjoy or even play.

We are not talking about something where is required to slightly change stats of the units. We always had by each title massive design and game-play flow issues, because specifically this feature implies to add mechanics that are going to be seen as broken.

The backbone of a Strategy game, is to have a Strategy to counter.
And this can’t work if due to “unique factions difference” counters and counterparts are not added.

If they already didn’t achieve it with fictional and fantasy scenarios, where you have relatively more design freedom, a historical game just does come a point, where certain things can not exist and same units have to be implemented for each faction. So why did they pick Age of Empires 4, if they try to make factions different ?

Let me simply quote this.

Blockquote
I don’t think that messing around with the finale in a franchise and story that’s 15 years in the making was the right moment to get experimental.

I am extremely skeptical about AoE4.
They never had a successful RTS with unique and different factions.
We did not see such RTS in last 10 years from anybody else.

I don’t think Microsoft would any time soon after a flop pull more energy into it.
That’s why I think AoE4, should rather pick a functional concept.

1 Like
336

You didnt read it appeariantly. Even without the home city ottomans still have more options to choose from that in AoE II, the coin is not a problem either seeing you have plantations in this game and gold mines are also not a problem to get for early game. In AoE III you will lose if you go for cheap units.

What do you mean with the the RTS market is there, if you mean also games like EU 4 you are wrong seeing those are grand strategy games.

Like i said, all your RTS examples are of games that most part did NOT get critizised for unqiue units and factions. And like i already said multiple times there are things like balance patches, AoE II De had also a rough start with the balance dont act like AoE II did everything amazing when they simply didnt.

337

With 100 units ingame that would amount to 400 words.
Even more if you add in various Mercenaries etc.

Unless all civs only use the base format of units that is about 12 x 4 = 48 words, which could work.

However, such a change + Civs are designed as in AoE3;
having only the ‘general’ units use the Name-formatting whilst all civ-dependent use: (Basic)/Veteran, Elite/Guard & Imperial naming, could work.
Mercenaries, Natives etc would work like Civ-specific units.

As an AoE3 player I could definately welcome such a (phramed) change.
But the names got to be historically accurate, otherwise they could have given them names like ‘54241’.

1 Like
338

Please watch this 15 Min Video about their previous game Dawn of War 3.
So my point might be a little bit more, clearer.

So apparently as they tried to combine the first and the second game, that are very different,
the third one did become even more different, so in the end people did not like the result.
We ended up indeed by DoW3, with a game that had very little to do with its predecessors.

The announced concept ideas for AoE4, sound pretty much like a direct repeat of DoW3.
We might end up with a game that is going to be very different than AoE2 and AoE3.

The expectation of people who preferred AoE2 or AoE3, probably won’t be satisfied.
For some people it is a big deal, for some isn’t. Like the example with Ottomans in AoE3.

2 Likes
339

welcome to the world of " balancing a game " xD what is odd about this? you want every single civilization have every single regular unit on top of their unique bonuses and unique techs and unique units?
they did it to imply " franks had one of the greatest cavalry army back then, while ethiopions mastered archery ". ofc it would be ALOT better if they could show it by giving different looking unit sets or even completely different tech tree to each civilization, but they didnt. and that is why im personally so excited about age of empires 4 because they said they will do it

2 Likes
340

Well I would extend to such conclusion, different concept means different people.
It simply seems like RTS “modernization”, did reduce our ranks.

It would be quite a shame not to have the large Audience who prefer classic and complex games on board, just because content that does exist already in the game, is not aligned the way they like.

1 Like
341

I watched your video about dawn of war 3. I’m unable to understand how you came to the conclusion that the problem was that it was different. The problem wasn’t that it was different. The problem was that it was a bland game that watered down all elements that were good in the previous two games and made an arcadey game with nothing in particular interesting about it, attempting to pander to every audience possible and ending up with a game no one enjoyed.

Age of mythology and age of empires 3 are big divergences from age 2, and I liked both of those, as well as age 2. Actually I prefer both newer games to age 2 because the factions are more different, but that’s anecdotal so not really relevant. In any case, I think the idea that factions can’t be different or people don’t like them as much is overblown. Starcraft did it. AoM and AoE 3 did it. Dawn of war 1 certainly did it. You just need to have meaningful differences that don’t detract from the gameplay experience. It also feels a heck of a lot more historically accurate if every nation is not just a cut and paste of each other with slightly different bonuses.

IMO, as long as age 4 attempts to be a compelling game, with meaningful strategic and/or tactical choices, it has every possibility of succeeding, regardless of the route it takes. If they try to make the game more “approachable” by watering down the mechanics/making it so you can just spam your way to victory, that game will only be fun for casual players. Provide depth and players will follow.

342

It is perhaps a small thing, but the civs in all the AoE games have been not really civs, but people. For example AoE II franks, not frankia. Spanish not Spain etc. This way you do prevent timeline stuff with some civs that didnt make it till the end of the game or started later in the games period. But with making it the nations you include more regions. For example the Holy Roman Empire, this way you have incoperated Czechs, Dutch, Germans, Austrians, Swiss and Italians. For a game that probably isnt going to have a lot of civs this could be a solution to include more within one civ.

Edit: i forgot i clicked on reply this isnt a reply to you.

343

AoE III isnt that different than AoE II, to just make a copy of AoE II what you seem to want isnt going to work either seeing people just bought DE, also AoE II had enough versions already, with hd and now de.

Your example of Ottomans was flawed like i said, you made a comparrison that was false seeing Ottomans can make more units then in AoE II and that withouth using natives. Your opinion of card system being flawed is only correct for progression system not the thing itself.

344

Indeed, just a copy won’t suffice. That’s why I think we require a game that does build upon the prequel.

Watering down the mechanics is the symptom, not the cause.

First of Developers assume the new game has to be very different, developers take there very high risk.
From fan base view point, the gameplay they liked, is thrown out of the window for the worse, is the common reaction. The stakes customers might accept the changes is very low. And such happens only by RTS games, Its not like Call of Duty sequel is suddenly an asymmetrical overwatch?

Secondly, the developers we have, do approach this way factions too,
there is just a limit how much a faction can be different and still be playable.

Considering their “concept” to approach new games and sequels,
its very doubtful AoE4 could benefit from it.

2 Likes
345

I still do not understand why you do not want some of AoE III and some of AoE II, you say now that it needs to be build on the prequel, you cant just ignore a still big part of the fanbase.

Explain what would be the breaking point if such things as villages, home city and mercenaries etc. got added? And dont just look at AoE III for this but also what could be improved, so not say home city shouldnt be added because the progression, because that can be simply removed.

1 Like
346

1 It’s not so simple, because a bad idea, might grove very deep roots. People did heavily criticize progression in their RTS games, still it wasn’t removed.

2 I do not say “native villages, home city and mercenaries” are bad mechanics , I just don’t have the feeling like they could properly handle it. It does require to realize an Idea is bad and act.

2 Problem is how they do handle their games, we do not see them to:
-actually make any kind of charts how they did actually intend the strategy to work
-actually make patches that do approach issues where units are clearly not working

To make a game work, you need a plan, rules should be clear.
You should be able to change rules, to make the game work.

Like this here for example: Where its clear what unit does counter what unit.

1920×1080 1.17 MB

1 Like
347

1 The Problem I do see with Native Villages and Mercenaries by AoE3 its very random what units you can hire. And I really do not like the idea of forced key point locations.

In my opinion Cossacks and Stronghold Crusader do it much better, as you know exactly the units and do build where you want the building to hire those units.

2 City card system is very difficult to implement into game flow and balance.
It’s OK feature for Co-op and single player. But should really stay out of pvp.

What I do find bad, by home city card system you can very fast summon very strong cards, at a point where you don’t have jet the means to deal with it. For Example, I played a match vs Aztec. “Was by the way 6 times prior kicked from lobby because had low city level”. So he summoned 3 times his 20 guys card and did easy win.

1259×605 623 KB

So by design a home city card system, they should keep in mind to create a clear counter chart.
And such information must be ingame.

1570×883 253 KB

1 Like
348

///
In regard to the AoE3 Card system:
I believe any system allowing for outside-game-progression will be considered ’rigged’ or ’unfair’ to the less-progressed players.

If the Card system allowed for ’insight’ value rather than progression
 that could/would stabilize the entire hierarchy crap-trap we’ve seen in AoE3.
I loved the cards and its progression, but also hated it, the level-span was too vast for fresh players/new accounts.
For Civs, I’d like to see less dependency on cards and slightly more focus on early-game scouting for each civ.
And I’d like to be able to split my screen so I can see multiple areas at the same time.

2 Likes
349

Like touchierfiend said, there’s no particular reason that you have to have card progression. If they used it as a kind of “skill gating” and the progression was there to stop you from picking trickier cards until you’d used easier to use ones
 that would have made a lot more sense than what they did. But there’s no need to have a progression at all. I’d have been much happier with it if they had just unlocked all cards at the start and gotten rid of some of the lower level filler cards. And they could easily have done that. These days there’s a mod you can use to easily get experience to unlock cards so at least you don’t have to go through that grind now.

The ESOC patch makes it much more obvious what native units/mercs are available at the start of the match, by putting that on the game loading screen while you’re waiting for the game to start. Pretty easy fix. Having you be required to take points on the map to hire the units is a very good thing IMO. It rewards map control and presence, which ups the pace in the early game. Personally I really like AoE3’s increased early activity levels, and the trade posts are a big help in convincing players to not just sit in their bases running scared.

If your opponent is spamming the 20x macehualtins shipment, he’s in age 4. It takes a lot of time and resources to get into age 4, unless you don’t pressure them at all. If he’s just rushing age 4 then you can easily build a big army, and send your own unit cards. You really need to use mostly the resource crate and unit cards, plus some upgrade cards in supremacy. Other cards are more useful for treaty games. It’s a well designed system as long as you understand it, but it may be that the card system is a bit too open ended for players with less experience to make good choices.

And for the record the counter system is available in the game, if you examine individual units and read unit tooltips. It probably takes a few games to recognize all the units on sight, but the info is there on each unit’s unit card what kind of damage it does and the bonuses to what kinds of units.

I do think that a new game needs to be more than just a re-skin. For a game in a series like AoE, you should try to keep what’s good and then build onto it. AoE 3 cards were an interesting idea, a bit poorly implemented but adds some strategic planning to the game, though I know a lot of people didn’t like it. They don’t need cards in age 4, but making a clone of age 2 with just nicer graphics would be boring. At minimum, better pathfinding, perhaps some quality of life command improvements (a-la Zero-K, which btw is an amazing Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander-esque game on steam) would be a must, I could imagine things like letting units stand on walls or siege ladders being things you could add to age 4 without making people too miffed.

1 Like
350

The issue I see how extremely lacklustre it can turn out,
if they try to please everybody like by their last game.

You have in DOW3 base build, but it’s much less than in DoW1,
you have doctrines, but it’s much less significant than in Company of Heroes.

Having handful home city cards, like 10 or 15, won’t please either AoE2 who don’t want them at all,
or AoE3 who want there a development and focus.

I think all this “modernization Ideas” should be reserved for a franchise that can actually do something with it, like Age of Mythology, different factions would make sense, as you can anytime make up any fantasy creature like Penguin with Rocket Launcher. Where you can use magic as support and city cards could be Hundreds of different god powers.
In such setting you could be creative without, em sorry this here is historical game.