The graphics got improved and it made way to introduce new dlc which AoE III hasnt seen yet, its not about dlc but about the re-bringing the game to life. The new dlc also introduced balance, AoE III hasent had a new dlc sinse 2007 while AoE II has even when it is older.
AOE2 is more of a favorite tbh in the community
It feels like this thread moves a bit offtopicâŚ(age2-3 comparison?)
Nonetheless â
They have different implementations and the basic mechanics aren´t that far off. The biggest difference is obvisouly the timeframe and the homecity system + the dumbed down eco. Age3 feels more casual and faster paced for me, but essentially the philosophy should be the same.
They aged well but are outdated? I don´t think that the basic mechanics need that much polishing.
I don´t think that too much differences between PvP & singleplayer is a good idea. The transition from singleplayer to multiplayer would be worse.
The only real bad thing i can see are the locked cards â use xp mod (is a bad workaround but works)
Do you think that the other imbalances are caused by the game-design or the lack of patches?
Because i think its the latter. Its not too bad however there are some op-civs(iro/otto/france). But keep in mind that age3 didn´t get too much balance patches and the last patch is pretty old â unofficial ESOC patch helps - and I hope DE will bring life(and balance patches/new civs) into it again.
1 Like
We already know that aoe4 wonât be anything like C&C4. Competitive game play also wonât be like moba. Wide audience means there wonât be blood etc. so esrb will be lower.
Again not the point, can you please look at the point which was that AoE III didnt have such things? Thank you
Yes indeed, but do we really need to keep both modes together?
A real person does play completely different than AI.
Both game modes do heavy disagree with each other.
And basically it means we canât have fun stuff, because some people want a balanced game.
And we cant have a balanced game, because some people wanted âfunâ stuff to be added.
Especially basic mechanics need much polishing. If you compare for example old Call of Duty or Assasin Creed vs today. It did not change much, but the game is much smoother.
There are a lot of people who like AoE2 and AoE3, but do no longer play it and really enjoy it, because after so many years, it starts to feel clunky to play.
3 Likes
We canât create an improved game, without to approach the actual reasons, we lose interest into it.
A good strategy game allows players to make choices that are meaningfully different from each other.
People across the gaming world are meanwhile quite critical of the state of the genre that had lost its main identity. Complexity.
In AoE2, due to complex gameplay design, a player can choose to prioritize certain tech tree branch of many, to achieve such goal. Variety of AoE3 is meaningless as it does still make same role, just with different look.
Complexer gameplay design is better. It leads to higher opportunity of strategic decisions
1 more Incentives to go on the offence
2 more Incentives to go defense
3 more Incentives to go build up different force
4 more Macro opportunities
5 significant Differentiate player skill
Modern simplified streamlined concept is incapable to provide choices that are meaningfully different from each other.
2 Likes
So you want to relearn the game for multiplayer if you exclusively play singleplayer for a time? I âtrainedâ vs AI before jumping into multiplayer, of course you could play unranked first but the transition would be worse because all your training would be less useful.
Also devs have to invest more times, and i guess we all know where the focus in competitive game is.
Well Assasin Creed changed a lot - mechanics wise we´re at a point where the differences are more than the similarities from newer titles compared to older.
What i meant is not on the implementation of things(which you can always polish), what i meant is the basic game-idea. And basic-mechanics wont change that much for age of empires, otherwise you simply couldn´t call it age of empires anymore.
Smoother gameplay is also a product of modern gamedesign - i.e. better engines/more budget/better available specs/advanced pipelinesâŚ
You have the freedom to prioritize a tech tree that isn´t fully upgradeable, however you put yourself often into a big disadvantage. So you basically have the option to go for it - but more often than not you go for your strongest civ-composition anyway.(In general, or most upgradeable counter - whatever)
I don´t understand what you mean with that. In age 3 most of your units are fully upgradeable and they can all be used to an extent and the basic counter rules are also part of the system. Just like age2 you have a âbest unit for this civâ-thing.
That depends(as always 
).
Making a game complex just for complexity´s sake is not really a good goal - from a design perspective. Complexity should naturally emerge from your implemented systems and when those are indepth then complexity follows anyway.
Age 3 changed a lot of micro-intensive actions with the goal to make the game faster and more on the macro side. That also has to do alot with the setting(dodging a bullet is a bit harder than an arrow). We´re moving back to the middleages and also stone will make it´s comeback, so i think you can expect more Age2-mechanics than Age3 anyway.
The only real step-back from Age2 to Age3 were the limitation of some buildings(and also their strengths). Towers were really awful just like forts.
It would be no problem to make an age of empires 4 with 30 units for each civ, however just giving options without any meaning is also not really wanted. I better have 8 good designed units for my civ than 20 bad ones.
Complexity also comes with uniqueness, adapting to different playstyles/unique systems should be more complex than a having shared tech-tree which is partially locked. And this is the approach that relic wants to take.
More is always better? Balance is key.
2 Likes
Guys, there is one significant issue with simplified RTS modernization, choices turn into chores.
Guys we require here as fan base a little bit more self reflection, maybe we had defended over years bad design choices too much?
My main problem with modernized RTS, it does not feel like play a game, but rather following a chore list, by the way its gets even worse if it comes to multiplayer to fast click the meta play together.
And itâs a main complain, coming basically across any genre.
There is simply a point where people say âok do I have to?â
You can make with handful of units like 8 enough choices for gameplay.
Example Ancestors Legacy, Sure grenade thrower squad is something different than archer, they have very different skills, but they do still counter same units, itâs juster than merely another animation for same task. Same with AoE3 Abus Gun instead of Crossbowman.
I do much more prefer there AoE1 and its trash Chariot Archer and Horse Archer, depending on situation and presence I do choose there the unit. Or I could use much cheaper but slower Bowman.
By the way I also do have for gold Composite Bowman. Just think of it, access to 1 or 4 different units, and each of those 4 different units has a legit point to be in the game.
And thatâs by over 20 year old game.
My personal impression is due to this modern day Design Dogma, developers had completely lost connection to the player base.Why would you give a chance to a racing game, that is seen even by racing gamer fans as trash?
Sure I would play for 10time another new chore game, but my friends who used to play RTS are rather stuck with old stuff, that offers much more choices.
1 Like
Really? When was the last time you tried microing anything. Stuff sometimes just donât go where itâs supposed to. Very common in rts in 2000, not acceptable in 2020. Unit movement and ai are passable but certainly not 2020 level, needs a lot of polishing.
I believe this is a fallacy. Over time all games get figured out and the best strategies start conforming.
Looking at Age2, there are so many civs and in reality most are not playable because theyâre all one trick pony. Yes I can play Mayans and not make archersâŚbut thatâs just bad. Most of the top tier civs are ones that are flexible due to econ boosts and have generally average army, but they are flexible and can do anything.
I think you make it sound like thereâs more choice than there really is. But i agree complexity is important but only if it leads to choice. AOE2 I think falls into the category of not actually having much choice just under a facade of complexity due to the volume thatâs there.
completely agree.
devs donât understand it;
if you donât use your brain,why you categorize it as a STRATEGY game
for example,northgard.northgard is a ârtsâ game.look at northgard units:
warrior-generic melee unit
throwing axeman-ranged unit
shield bearer-have a defense bonus aganist ranged units
and clans have unique units.But most of unique units are more powerful warriors.not a rock-paper-scissors system.
and axe thrower have a very very short range.you canât make a hit&run
so where is the micro?
Its actually gets even more embarrassing if we compare, old vs new games.
For example C&C Tiberian Sun vs 8 bit Armies, So the old game has like 22 units, the new one just 12.
Or in general RTS vs other Strategy games.
For Example by same publisher 1 year prior to DoW3, Total War: Warhammer was launched with 5 faction at launch, with each faction like 30 units. Dawn of War 3 had just 3 factions, each had like 12 units. So 5x30 vs 3x12, is like just 1/4, so again same publisher for AAA games Sega made RTS with 4 times less content than Total War. Why? It canât be budget? Even smaller publishers/teams get more done.
Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 1 had 4 factions at launch, has now 6.
Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 had 12 factions at launch, âspace tactic gameâ.
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius, âturn based strategyâ launched with 4 factions, has now 7.
vs
Dawn of War 1 launched with 4, has now 9
Dawn of War 2 launched with 4, has now 6
Dawn of War 3 launched with 3, has now 3
I do see here the claim that RTS do mess it up as quite legitimate, core issue modern day RTS legitimately have less content than older RTS games or in general as other modern day strategy games. Coming around to say well its RTS so factions had to be unique, start to sound like a cheap and bad excuse to have less content.
Looking for upcoming AoE4, I just do not expect a success based how they do design, if they try again to compensate lack of content with wacky gameplay mechanics. Sure mobile mongol base sounds new for AoE, but it would still look lackluster vs just another total war medieval 3, with 20 factions each 30 units.
Especially for an AoE game, there should be much more content.
3 Likes
Hi everyone,
Reading some of the posts in this threat I started to realise how important itâs to have balanced civs while also keeping the historical accuracy.
Myself, I am a fan of having a large number of shared units for every civ, with a few unique units, because it allows and also requires the playerâs ability to used each type of unit in such a manner that it will counter the enemy.
That why I think the following, a new feature could be added where in any game (standard, multiplayer or campaign) a civ could trade techs with the other civs in game. This would emulate the knowledge exchange that took place in the olâ days (haha) where states weâre able to trade technologies, gift them, or buy them just as with regular resources.
This would no doubt balances the in-game play, and also shift the pressure towards the players ability, rather than a civ just being good for itself and making the entire balancing easier.
As to the aesthetics ⌠they could vary from civ to civ for each of the shared units, i.e. the man-at-arms could have a slightly different look for britons that for aztecs for instance.
i like this idea,same unit but different look
Iâm thinking if they have people with muskets in the later age the European ones will look really similar in uniform
Well I think Age of Empires 2, has some units missing that can be added for all factions to the rooster.
Something like ânew unitâ Cavalry Skirmisher vs Cavalry Archers
Its quite odd, why we do have that unit as ground version, but not as mobile.
I also wonder why Cavalry Lancers for all factions as Anti Cavalry are not a thing
While we have Sword Infantry like Swordsman, why is there no blunt weapon version of it?
Maces and Flails Infantry could be an anti Sword Infantry thing.
War dogs : War dogs have been used since canines were domesticated.
1 Like
At least your mounted Skrims exist (Genitour) although they are only available as a team bonus to one civ (and itâs allies).
What about axeman cavs and axeman infs?
They are raiders,good aganist buildings
Another idea,various swordsmen
1-Swordsmen with Shield
-A Sword
-A Shield
Melee:10
Melee Armor:1 Pierce Armor:2
2-Two-Handed Swordsmen
-A Two-Handed Sword
Melee:12
Melee Armor:1 Pierce Armor:0
2 Likes