I think that the game have issues with readability, and some times is pretty difficult to distinguish one unit or building from another. Color, lightning and contrast correction could improve the game a lot
Any thoughts?
How have been your experience with the game so far?
1 Like
Honestly, never had that issue myself.
Well… there was this 1 single thing where I kept confusing sentries with irregulars on the asian civilizations, but it has now been modded by a known fella here in the community.
Here is the topic:
3 Likes
Colours can be customized tho. My biggest issue comes from European units reskin, specially Voltigeurs. For some reason they dont look as skirmishers to me
1 Like
Yep!
Totally agree a unit should be recognized easily
As a skirmisher, the Voltigeur should stand out like that!
Readability is necessary for real-time strategy games with e-sports appeal.
However, if the “readability” here refers to the unified Western European model of all units on the planet in Age of Empires 2, or the unrealistic unification of “leather” helmets, “brass” helmets, player-colored iron lamellar armour, inappropriate global weapon unification in Age of Empires 4, I find it completely unacceptable.
7 Likes
I think a lot of this could be fixed if animations were more standardized, so that you can immediately tell what type of unit you’re dealing with just from how they stand.
6 Likes
The readability of the game in general is very good considering the enormous number of units possible to create (with very few exceptions).
4 Likes
Don’t play zoomed far out. You look at AoMR some people are complaining about readability and its because they zoomed out to much. Closer views makes it easier to recognize things.
It would be very interesting for AOE2 to have shared unit model sets, where each generic unit of a civilization has a model designated according to its continent, for example a different one for West Asia, East Asia, Africa, America and Europe. So I wonder, if AOE2 is supposed to be the star of the franchise, why doesn’t it have more model diversity like AOE3? Are there developers and players who, for reasons of clarity and readability, oppose this change?
Because in AOE3 the problem is the other way around, where sometimes there are many different models for the same type of unit (Musket infantry, Rifle infantry, etc.), and there are also units that look like one type but are another (Shock Infantry, Ranged Cavalry that does not behave similar to a Dragoon, etc.), which can hinder clarity and readability, so it can be difficult to find a balance between one thing and the other.
2 Likes
Unit animation/posture plus maybe a key shortcut to display unit symbol/icons over them (i.e. Heavy Infantry get their HI symbol floating above their head), so you can hide/display it if need be.
Standardizing unit animations is a good way.
BUT the only reason why AOE2 does not have more diversity is because the base game was made in 1999 and you only had ~200mb space for it.
The same reason why siege were manless
But time after time people try to find millions of excuses to justify them as brilliant design principles. Like they really had the resources and abilities to make diverse models back in 1999 but just intentionally chose not to.
And believe me, if you really ask the AOE2 subforum, you’ll see less opposition to variable models than here.
Why doesn’t it have more gunpowder?
Are these developers and players who, for reasons of blahblahah, oppose this change?
Why doesn’t it have 3D graphics?
Why doesn’t it have customizable color panels?
Why doesn’t it have cards?
Why does its “spiritual successor” have more model diversity?
2 Likes
There really aren’t that many units with inconsistent stances. Just a handful of exceptions like Streltsy and Maigadi. There’s totally room for improvement, but it’s not a major issue.
What is needed is to be more measured and consistent with unit design and stop making units who’s function is the exact opposite of what their stance indicates.
The worst offenders are the new ranged cavalry that counter light infantry (Mounted Riflemen, Mounted Infantry, etc). Making a unit that looks exactly like a Dragoon that hard counters all the normal counters for Dragoons is not okay at all even if their tags technically fit the counter system.
Counter Skirmishers are another big issue for readability and unit roles in general. There’s really nothing that visually distinguishes them from regular Skirmishers at all and their role is so hyper specialized that their usable niche is limited. It seems like they were added just for uniqueness without any regard for how they would look or work. The best solution I can think of is to link the role with dismounting units so they at least have something to make them stand out.
The last big readability issue would be shock infantry looking way too similar to speedy melee heavy infantry. There’s not really any intuitive or visual differentiation between Pirates and Barbary Corsairs that would justify them being different unit types. In this case it seems more like an unavoidable necessity if there’s going to be a cavalry equivalent for some civs. Ideally they could have restricted the unit type a bit more and limited it to units with short knives and clubs and an animal association (Coyote Runner, Tiger Claw, etc). But it’s too late when there’s already units with big swords like Pirates and Shotels. And even then there are heavy infantry units like Club Warriors that still might be ambiguous.
There are a few other confusing things like the ambiguity between mercenaries and outlaws. I think it would be justified to give Spies a bonus versus both to avoid the issue of getting smoked by an army who you thought were mercs but were actually outlaws.
Baffling changes like making Arrow Knights into heavy infantry also need to be reverted. Making them ranged shock infantry could fit their role, but a heavy infantry archer unit is ludicrous.
3 Likes
It depends on what you are willing to sacrifice to make the game more readable.
In the regular roster there are only three real hand shock infantry and four “speedy melee heavy infantry” with the same stance. Those are not difficult to remember and will be expected when you face the civs. The only frequent confusion from the same civ would be JPK and coyote, and they are visually very different.
Outside the regular roster, I always thought making tiger claws (look like rajout) and rattan shields (look like rodelero) being shock infantry is an odd one. And pirates changed to shock infantry (but not Barbary corsair) is another. They can just be melee infantry. I actually think there is no need to give shock infantry access beyond the “no horse” civs.
1 Like
Nothing will be sacrificed only improved!
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in this case that’s not possible. If you’re interested in making the game more readable, you’re going to need to sacrifice something. For example, it’s much easier to tell which unit is a guerrilla type by its animation and stats, but it could be much easier if they shared a skin as well.
For the game to be much more readable, it would be necessary to sacrifice everything that makes the civilizations unique and leave them with the most basic, just like AOEII does, but I think everyone on this forum would hate that, for obvious reasons.
What I would change about the game to make it better is. 
- All civilizations would have the same Age UP system, the American/African one.
- All civilizations would have the same units and the same distribution, but not the same stats and appearance. (this is currently partially fulfilled)
- all cards in the decks would be generic cards and the unique cards would be unlocked through Age UP.
- All revolutions would get a rework and can be used from the beginning to the end of the game.
- I would remove the start bonuses of the civilizations so that we can choose four passive bonuses for each custom deck. (this is so that the civilization does not condition us)
- All civilizations will get the 4 standard artillery units, to avoid artillery units that can do everything. (for natives a “captured” version and for Asians and Africans a “consular” version. No, artillery does not improve with Age UPs)
- Reduce the number of cards in the deck to a maximum of 20 normal and 4 passive.
Note: I want to believe that we all know that none of what I just proposed is going to happen and they will not take it seriously. 
But unify the Unit Skins like AOE 2 does is only a way
There are another ways for innovation and improvement that would help the players even better the newcommers!
Well, I listen to you, what do you think would be the way to act? How would you make the game more readable?
Edit: I’m asking this in all honesty, I don’t see a way you can make readability easier without sacrificing something.
Wait, what? They are too speedy for a shock infantry /s
It was a dmb change that shouldnt had happen.
If devs want AKs to be like european culverins/mortars then treat them like actual ones: no bonus from canons (only other culvs) and 50% range resist as default plus more bonus vs artillery to equal culvs or similars damage vs canons and AoE
It annoys me that they want them like euros but only for bad purpouses.
Same for ERKs, they want them to be like goons but without their speed or artillery bonus
1 Like
User Interface/ User experience improvements
Scale, Color/Contrast, Lightning and Shadows fixes
There you have more than a way for better readability!
1 Like