The plantations are not taking something out of the game. They are adding something. Longer, richer late game and more strategies
They gather way slower and require many costly upgrades, on top of that you can’t build them before age3, so they definitely do not take you the chance to deny resources to your enemy.
Instead they make you think ahead or plan alternate strategies. When am I going to do the transition to them? Do I want to drag the game late or not? Is it worth it? Ok, my enemy has map control but maybe I still have the chance in the game by switching to plantations. You may regard the depletable gold as the smartest and most skillful thing ever, but many would disagree and say that the game forces you down to a specific kind of play.
In addition AoE3 also has 5 ages instead of 4, I don’t see it being dumped down at any rate.
The big question is, what kind of game do people actually want these days?
“AoE4 sounds right now” like AoE3 with Starcraft Abilities in Middle Age Setting. For over 2 decades we had too many those lacklustre soulless attempts to dethrone Starcraft. Do we need such game again?
I personally assumed after first video it might be something about base building, sieges and big army leading, like AoE2 was, back to something that is decent about tactical strategy and formations, not fast key board smashing to babysit each unit.
In my opinion the worst thing they could to, is to copy things from Starcraft into Age of Empires. Such hybrid game won’t make people happy. Sure people will give it a try, but in the end come back to a pure game.
Well I kind of agree with you about the gameplay, but medieval era is not really that diverse to me, at least not more diverse than any other period in history.
I guess some players of this franchise dislike early modern period, and much more dislike wwi or wwii, but even in wwi and wwii there are quite a lot of alternatives in strategy as well as diversity across nations (though they might not fit in the mechanism of AoE very well of course).
However that’s a whole different topic.
AoE3 was simply a mess,
good example like Ottomans with just 1 infantry unit.
I mean there are 5 by France.
Pikeman
Crossbowman
Musketeer
Halberdier
Skirmisher
What kind of strategy is it? By only 1 infantry unit available you have only 1 strategy available. France had there 5 times more possibilities. Without that odd “diversity factions” AoE3 might have been a decent game.
I want to make a correction. Regarding abilities, I was talking about the mongol bird which scouts map. In an interview they call it ‘ability’ and in another they call it ‘scouting unit’. So we are not sure if there are actual abilities, yet. My mistake.
Also, AOE3 having 5 ages is needless. 4 is a good ground for multiplayer, more than 4 is an annoyance. Depth and quality does not come with quantity. Empire Earth proved that.
Could you cite some authority for this position, because it seems awfully contrary to my experiences playing AoE1, AoE2, AoM, AoE3, and AoEO. The latter three games contain the more diverse rosters of civs, and they also feature some of the most diverse strategies I have seen.
I am most familiar with AoM and AoEO. In these games, depending on your civ, your opponent’s civ, and your opponent’s opening strategy, players frequently can choose among any number of different strategies – age 1 rushes, early age 2 rushes, mid-game pushes, booms, turtles, etc. I do not observe the same flexibility in AoE2 at all. In AoE2, I see very few games seeing much action in the first two Ages.
Aztecs and Ottomans in AoE 3 are not unplayable. Aztecs have units that play similar roles as cavalry, just as Eagle Warriors in AoE2. Ottomans have their skirmishers (Abus Guns) and also Grenadiers in their infantry roster though they are produced by the artillery building.
In fact, despite great differences in unit rosters and techtrees, there isn’t really a faction in AoE3 that completely lacks any strategical options while others have access to them, though some factions may be better at some strategies.
And I do not think Aztecs with blacksmiths and metalwork and trebuchets as in AoE2 is a good design, though I understand it was somewhat due to limitations of game production 20 years ago. I would prefer visually different units and technologies that fulfill similar roles, maybe with slight differences in stats, something in between AoE 2 and 3.
Ottomans have Abus Guns that function like skirmishers, though they are produced by artillery buildings.
Crossbowmen and Pikemen are early game options for most factions and they are replaced by Skirmishers and Musketeers in later game. Halberdiers are Pikemen that are superior but more advantageous when facing other infantry. Janissaries are Musketeers and Abus Guns are Skirmishers that can be used in both early and late games for Ottomans. Also, Janissaries have higher HP and melee but lower range, which is kind of a hybrid between Musketeers and Halberdiers.
That is to say the infantry units you listed can be categorized into 2 or 3 functional roles and Ottomans do not lack any one of them. The only difference is you need to construct one more artillery building in the early game — and Ottoman infantry can construct buildings which somewhat makes up for it. This only result in different game paces not different game options for these factions.
And a minor correction — Grenadiers are also infantry, and Ottomans have them. Those factions with no Grenadiers have other options of siege units.
I was just asking. I haven’t read anything about abilities in Age IV. I don’t know the source of information that guy has or where he read about abilities on the new Age so i was kind of asking is that was real
In my opinion global abilities like in AoM or Halo Wars 2 would work fine in Age 4 rather than individual ones per unit as SC 2
I think they should borrow a system similar to the one in Coh and Coh 2. Relic killed it with these games and the mod ding community as well. These game are based off of real historical units and factions , and there is only 5 different factions in the game. Just 5 factions and you have a massive pool of units and variations to choose from each faction completely unique. The coh mod Europe at War or Blitzkrieg are perfect exampless of what you can do with only a few factions. …same as the Coh2 mod 179 unit mod. That being said its an aoe game so why not have all the civs like in the aoe2 series (because it seems the game is going medieval ) but just customize them and tailor them more toward each civ…add more units per factions but make them completely unique to that faction , and there for doing the same thing on a grander scale than aoe2. Instead of everyone getting long swords maybe only European nations have a sword unit with that type of weapon, and say an Islamic nation would have a unit using sabers or weapons from the area of the world at the time. More units! Same amount of factions! More historically accurate!
5 civilizations in an AOE game are way too few. It need 10-15 to offer enough differences and diversity. 5 factions in AOE would make it non-buyable for me, or play it long term and support it.
I never said 5 civs dude I said the exact opposite of that…I was saying how much versatility and options came from just having 5 in coh …I said to use that as a base and apply it to all the civs that are for example in aoe2
We know AoE4 will launch with fewer than 12.
It just depends in the way you take it. Look at Halo Wars 2. There is only 2 factions, but each one has a lot of different generals with some different units in some cases and different abilities too and it’s fun as h3ll and you don’t pick always the same.
:* 
I would even extend my Statement for all games genres. There are just no successful PvP games with different teams. I started to form this “theory” after I did play Evolve and Primal Carnage, both games did die quite fast online.
Let’s look at the big name games, both teams in Overwatch, DOTA, Battlefield, Counterstrike, Call of Duty and so on have quite comparable equipment. I can’t even call a single game alive where you play different teams.
While its completely normal for any genre to have comparable teams, for a very odd reason only RTS have to do, something nobody else does.
Ottomans in AoE3 are a very good example how “different Factions” did reduce different Strategy. Sure, some kind of intended work around does exist, but still its much less than in AoE2 for same faction.
While you had 6 different types of infantry and 4 for calvary in AoE2. Having just 2 of each type was quite weird for AoE3.
The impression was simply to have less.
https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Ottomans/Tree
In AoE3 they have
1* Imam
2* Spy
3* Janissary
4* Hussar
5* Cavalry Archer
6* Abus Gun
7* Grenadier
8* Falconet
9* Culverin
11* Mortar
12* Horse Artillery
13* Petard
14*Settler
15* Great Bombard.
in AoE2 there are like 20 units.
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→ 
→
→ 
→ 
→
For example same faction in Total War, Turks have
https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Units_in_Medieval_II:_Total_War.html#The_Turks
2 Light infantry
4 Spear infantry
3 Heavy infantry
8 Missile infantry
4 Heavy cavalry
3 Missile cavalry
7 Siege engines
Thats are like 31 Unit types
The big problem with Aztec was this for me, even Zerg have some kind of Artillery, Aztec in AoE3 dont have Artillery. In AoE3 enemies did simply spam walls and cannon behind them. A combination that wasn’t easy to beat. Sure in hands of an experienced and fast player you can see the “intended” design work. For an average player, who plays for fun, he has just not the units he needs to play.
By basically by every Strategy game with “different factions” I did notice, quite a lot of people who did question the design of the Strategy. And even more to simply dislike"different factions", because practically people are missing something.
The big problem is, we have here factions that have a very limited way how they can be played. Because you are not simply missing a tier “level” of unit, you are missing entire varieties of units. Even if there is some kind of “work around”, its still questionable if people are able to use them, or even do find them out.
In same time I do see people to be much happier with Total War, that does not even simply make for each faction an existing unit variant “like all have some kind of artillery”, no they go even way further to offer several tiers of same unit type.
That’s why I do meanwhile doubt the concept of different factions.
We don’t even need unique unit sets for every civilization but sets to match say the building sets we have - West European, North European, East European, South European, Middle Eastern, Central Asian , Southeast Asian, Indian, East Asian, African and American. That itself would be a huge and welcome step up.
Well maybe they could do it like by C&C Generals or Halo Wars 2. Where you have your core civilization and lot of side factions.
I think each faction simply should have enough reliable backbone general units and buildings, so unique units are a choice, not a must.
Also for American like Aztec, I always wondered why they did not simply add there option by AoE3 to make them advance into the colony. If Spain can become Mexico, why not Aztec too? Its not like Aztec did disappear, they did become part of Mexico. So wouldn’t it make more sense simply to let them for the end Age become Spain colony and so get gunpowder units and ships? This way it would make sense and you would have access to technology they did not have. Well I did not like that you did lose your economy by Revolt, in case for AoE4 a native faction should simply receive option to obtain gun powder units and ships.