Hey, man. Keep the flow straight. Read the things first before trying to rebut someone. I mentioned Goths as an example. It’s not a “Whataboutism” because I literally gave it as a first example. I question your reading comprehension at this point since you clearly are not reading what I write.
2 DE’s Extreme AI does. Any civ that’s strong on cavalry for example will try to use cav and I’ve also seen Lithuanian AI trying to get the Relics asap to buff their cavalry. The AI recently also got the ability to mass their units (especially archers) instead of sending them individually.
Depending on the map, you also see usual strats such as Fast Imp for Turks on Arena.
Since the campaigns in AoE 2 use the same balance as in MP (except for pop limit and age restriction, depending on the scenario) you actually get familiar with a civ. In Alaric, you make use of Goths infantry spam to bring previous Huskarl example back.
2 Likes
Because you said Goths has a unit that looks like one unit but functions differently.
I give you another unit that looks like one unit but functions differently.
You should have the same judgement for both. That’s basic logic.
1 Like
No, I mentioned an example of unit that DOES NOT GET COUNTERED by what the counter is supposed to be. Jannisaries still get countered by horses. They help in combined arms situations, but the counter system is intact. As of this moment, AoE4 has none.
Please learn to split rationale before mentioning “logic.”
################## post:320, topic:228942"]
Jannisaries still get countered by horses. They help in combined arms situations, but the counter system is intact.
[/quote]
Now I wonder why they choose to describe the unit as “effective against cavalry” though. Isn’t that even more misleading?
Oh I know. Because in your world casual players never read unit descriptions. So they won’t be misled by the wrong unit description. Wisdom.
1 Like
What? Again, you are going off topic and making rationale up whwn it wasn’t even a topic of contention.
You can still play against an Ottoman and counter jannisaries with cav maneuver? You act as if slight damage buff breaks open the counter system The tooltip is also not misleading. They are effecrive because they help out. It’s not logically contrary statement lmao.
Dude, I think you’re at a point just grasping for points.
I’m going off topic lmaooooooooooooooo.
I wrote a whole reply on “why I don’t think AOE4 is easier to learn by your own argument”. Because what you describe as unintuitive——timing, build order, how to counter them, are all as non-trivial in AOE4 as any other RTS.
But you picked the mention of janissary and spend this may replies proving it’s not what it is described lmaooooooooo.
1 Like
What I describe as unintuitive is the game design. You willfully misinterpret as you are running out of things to say. The original argument, if you care to read and retain the conversation, mentions how the visual que of militia line unit, Huskarl, has no intuitive or obvious counter. By your own standards of “caring to read” there is nothing in the game that tells you how to counter Huskarl, so you already have argued against your own point. Multiple times have I mentioned Cataphracts as another example in this game. The same problem occurs: the visual cue is that the unit is cavalry yet there is no obvious counter to it.
You are trivializing visual ques, the aspect of game design I am focusing on, just because you got nothing to say. In fact, you deviate your argument away from it, mentioning extraneous factors and not tackle my argument directly. Hence the “whataboutism” that I criticize you on. Again, you bringing up extraneous factors hurt your own arguments regarding “reading.”
I have never trivialized other things (the fact of which will become apparent if you, as I have said, care to read).
################## post:82, topic:228942"]
Archer line beats militia line. But not unique unique militia like Huskarl.
[/quote]
What you describe is magnitudes different from what I have been saying. What you’re doing is trying to drift the conversation away from my original point as you realize that there’s nothing solid to rebut my position. This is MY post, so it would be appreciated if you stick with the discussion.
Another example of turning away from the argument. I have literally pointed out how the game description does not contradict the unit’s function. A unit can still be countered by horses even if it does extra damage to it. If you do not understand that logical distinction, then I don’t think you understand the nature of RTS game design enough to talk as you do.
The unit is effective against =/= the unit hard counters. Simple linguistic distinction. Reading comprehension 101. I mean, at this point I’m just talking to a wall since you just demonstrated that you don’t know English well enough to know distinctions between words. Puedes hablar Espanol? Si se puede hablar espanol si mas comfortable para ti.
The Huskarl example simply doesn’t work when the game tells you that it’s strong vs Archers and weak vs Cavalry plus has high pierce armor = low damage output for archers. You just have to open the tech tree and go to the Goths.
Unique units are supposed to be special. It’s be the same with the Genoese Crossbow from the Italians who’s an anti cav xbow.
the whole conversation is about “how hard new players to learn aoe cause it’s too complex”.
other and me claiming: any game as complex as aoe.
your “intuitions” need ingame tools.
Sorry, but in aoe series you need just one tools: Art of War, if you will launch the game and Art Of War and finish it. you wont cry about “complexity”.
Or finish one compaign.
I think you went to wrong forum.
It’s aoe4 forum, it’s expected that players would knew at least basic features of the game.
compared to sc2, where you need to learn almost every conter by reading descriptions. (cause unit UNIQUE)
in aoe you have base classes which works the same. pike > any knight. onager > any range. etc.
same is Dota or LOL: learn type of armor, learn type of dmg. READ all spells & buffs.
This is what you said yourself:
################## post:302, topic:228942"]
You need a requisite skill level (good enough micro skills and ability to multitask while microing) to actually counter it, because it can’t be countered just by pumping out a counter unit. The kinds of skillset a casual player would lack (just look at Goth winrates in low ELO).
[/quote]
If the incompetent AOE2 devs finally learned from the new holy bible of RTS (AOE4), and reskinned the huskarl to a cavalry.
Does that affect anything about the requirement for “good enough micro skills and ability to multitask while microing”?
If you talk about unit visuals, your reasoning has nothing to do with unit visuals. If they change it to a more “intuitive” visual, it still does not affect the skillset required.
And how on earth does a casual player constantly match up with opponents with “good enough micro skills and ability to multitask while microing”?
Or do you think AOE4 is a game that does not require good micro or multitasking? Or you can just pump one unit and win? And the players easily master all these by looking at unit visuals? Heck Relic will be proud.
################## post:325, topic:228942"]
Reading comprehension 101.
[/quote]
Advanced reading comprehension: see a unit “effective against cavalry”, do not use it against cavalry because you’ll be wrecked.
It’s a pretty common mindset in many discussions on this entire forum though:
Speaking “on behalf of the new/casual players”, by describing them as elementary school students who do not want to learn anything.
4 Likes
Anyway, no one says that you do it, you can alternate between all of them…
Yes, it’s weird, since in AoE 3 the Janissaries counter the cavalry, but because they are heavy infantry…
i think one big downside of aoe4 is that there is very little single player content. there are only a few campaigns and they feel very bland compared to aoe2. i know many players who got into aoe2 via the campaigns, they won’t switch to aoe4 because there simply isn’t anything drawing them to it
3 Likes
Yep, SP content in shape of campaigns definitely is important. I hope one of the next major updates brings 1-2 new campaigns
4 Likes
I mean, I agree with FloosWorld - we need more campaigns.
But how are they boring for you? Honest question. How would you spice them up?
Not Twer, but I’m also not that much of a fan of AoE 4’s campaigns. They feel like a modern reimagination of the style from AoE 1 to me with the narrator telling what’s exactly happening. In my opinion, the campaigns of AoE 2 that have a narrower focus with heroes who actually talk or AoE 3 that tells a story spanning several acts feels a bit more engaging even tho the latter is pure historic fiction.
2 Likes
i only played them in the beta, so maybe this has changed by now. So I only got a few hours before many of the other issues (hotkeys, bad performance, etc) stopped me from playing it further and made me decided that i wouldnt buy the game.
basically in all the scenarios i played in there was only one opponent, iirc there was no voice acting except for voice-over lady, they seemed very simplistic with each scenario only having a single way to win.
compare this to aoe2, where you are usually faced with several other factions. depending on the scenario you can usually ally some of them, and victory conditions are varied. many scenarios have even several different ways of completion (eg defeat all opponent or build a wonder). loads of complex triggers, like bringing a hero unit to a certain spot to gain trust, delivering a relic etc
and usually the main characters are fully voiced, it feels way more like an RPG than a documentary.
so basically in aoe2: you are usually playing the story of one person/family there is a narrative going through it and usually the scenarios reflect your current position quite well (eg you can only advance to the castle age while you are playing as a rebel faction, but in the next mission where you are king you can also go to imp)
in aoe3: you are playing the story of the black family. it’s a very personal story
in aoe4: you are some ####### who gets to watch a history documentary
I think this was the intention of those campaigns, and there are probably people who this really appeals to. But i prefer being able to make my own choices in a game
I think ornlu did a great video on the aoe4 campaigns. He brings up some really interesting points as well.
To make the aoe4 campaigns better for me: get rid of the ‘history channel’ voice over and modern videos inbetween, as pretty and high-production value as they might be, they totally break immersion for me. I want to think I am leading an army, not be constantly reminded that I am playing a video game.
Similarly most of the missions are too simplistic, it’s just build a base then wipe the enemy off the map. So anything to break this monotony would be appreciated.
3 Likes
It has been a problem since AOM. Campaigns feel more like extended tutorials than an important part of the game.
In short:
- Smaller map and fewer factions to interact with.
- Maps are pretty restricted. In some scenarios the majority of the map is inaccessible. Exploring the map is not very rewarding.
- The missions are linear. It’s like someone is “guiding” you through a pre-determined path. Most of the time it’s defend this or attack this. Biggest flexibilities are limited to allying/attacking one of three villages by your choice.
But AOM and AOE3 at least have a clear fictional storyline that stands out. With the documentary style of AOE4 it becomes less impressive. There is little I remember after finishing it.
Narrative is not the main problem imo. Each AOE gane has a different scope and a storytelling style. It’s more on scenario designs. For example AOE1 is closer to AOE4 (no main character or story, jumping from one event to another). But there are scenarios like Rise of Rome 1 where it depicts the entire 500BC central Italy with 5 or 6 different factions. You can find many ways to win. There was no good trigger or objective design in AOE1 due to technical limitations, but the scope itself grants great flexibility already. If it is done in AOE4’s way you’ll have maybe 4 smaller battles facing one enemy (with one base) in each one.
Or a more direct comparison: AOE2 Genghis Khan campaign has unification of the tribes and invading China as two huge scenarios. You can have many ways to win. Your opponents all have different objectives. In AOE4 these are again broken down to a series of smaller scenarios.
I was thinking AOE4 could actually utilize its documentary narratives to make even grander scenarios. But they end up being more linear than AOE3 and AOM.
2 Likes
I don’t really care for talking heroes, it’s all a variation on a talking head for me (invisible narrator vs. hero talking in modern English, it’s the same level of abstraction for me personally). But the idea of a fictional approach is something I’d definitely be interested in too.
Fair enough. I personally love the voice over and video inserts (I’m a Brit, and there’s something fun in them seeing cut to York when describing William’s early campaign, but likewise, there’s an opportunity to learn from the other campaigns a bit. At a very casual level though, it’s not like I’m saying “woah these campaigns are teaching history” - it’s just a nice bit of pop culture).
I can definitely agree with ways to break the monotony (even though my preferred style is “deathball and sweep the map”, after a certain point. I’m fine with dealing with engagements tactically, thinking about resource gathering, etc, but after a certain point I just want to crush them, and not throw my units at a meatgrinder for extended lengths of time).
I find the maps vary enough in size personally, and historically I’ve never liked (too) many AI factions outside of scripted encounters, because it ramps the difficulty in unpredictable ways (imo).
That said, I’m a fan of both exploring the map and non-linear missions. I think exploring different mission layouts is an easy win, but in terms of exploring the map - how would you design it?
It’s tricky, because like I said I love exploring the map. But it’s hard to make this worthwhile without making the rest of the mission trivial (if the rewards are resources or units, it ends the same way). I like games that have attempted a “meta” game to the campaign, where you can get benefits that persist between missions. This gives a point to exploring the map that doesn’t make the actual mission itself a cakewalk. But I’d be interested to hear your (and any other) thoughts on this.
I did the Battle of Hastings like four times at school, hah. So it’s easy enough for me to remember. The thing I like about the campaigns (which I don’t expect people to agree with) is it really brings the UI design forwards with the gold and the outlines and stuff. I know this is something that is often talked about (not always positively!) but for me, it’s a plus. It gives a consistent feel to my single player experience that aesthetically echoes throughout me playing the game generally (normally in AI skirmishes, or when I’m testing something for a mod).
But also I appreciate the history lesson. I’m not a history expert or anything like that, I’m just interested in it. I spent a few hours yesterday going through the specifics of Alexander the Great’s actual historical campaign (online) and into related things like Hellenistic Greece into the Roman annexation, and even the Ptolemaic dynasty in Ancient Egypt. The other month I was reading about gemstones and their impact / relevance on the history of India over the past few centuries (or more). It’s pretty casual. And that’s the approach in Age IV, which works for me.
It’s also (evidently) a lot of effort. The production quality is pretty high. Makes me wonder if they do more campaigns, if they’re going to stick to this style, or branch out with some other kind of narrative approach entirely.
Would you like a fictional storyline in Age IV? Something ahistorical like (just for a simple example) getting Harold to win at Hastings, and a “what if” kind of following scenario?