Playing with computers, multiplayer or friends is always a reason to try it again.
4 Likes
To my, Age of Empires 1 is one of the best in the series.
-
From Stone Age to Iron Age (WOW).
-
Civilizations are great! (Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc), OMG.
-
The music (from the original). A master piece.
-
The unit soldiers are way much interesting than from AOE2, I must say.
There are so many things one can improve from AOE1. The guys from Microsoft have a mine gold here which are ignoring xD.
10 Likes
It is true. I have also always preferred age 1 to age 2 or 3, because of the music, all units, wololo etc.
I hope that the devs will some day listen to our calls of despair.
4 Likes
If the devs ever give us a new game covering this time period, I think it should actually be split in two games. One would go from stone age to Classical Greece and the death of Alexander, the second one would cover the diadochi wars and Rome’s rise to prominence up to the crisis of the 3rd century.
4 Likes
If they are going to develop expansion i would like to see Gauls Celts Etruscans and Elam
3 Likes
I think a bit further than the 3rd century would be cooler, to include the times of Constantine and his descendents. Maybe till like 500 AD, a bit overlapping with AoE2 but all games in the franchise overlap a bit so I guess it would be fine. But overall your idea is a very good one, there is a lot of difference between civilizations from 3000 BC and 300 AD xD
1 Like
I think if you split the ancient races into two different games, the selection in each game would be very small. Which doesn’t have to be bad, we saw that in Age4. But with some civs, the term “empire” is chosen rather benignly. Like Sumerians or Phoenicians, for example. These civs were important, yes - especially in terms of cultural influence. But militarily there was not so much. Also the stock, in relation to others also not so long.
Correct me if I’m totally wrong.
In this aspect, the games would be vll. a little thin.
Many greetings.
1 Like
Yeah, maybe the split between Eastern an Western Roman Empires is a better milestone. However, I think the last few centuries and the barbarian invasions should be covered in yet another game about the Early Middle Ages. After all, having axe throwing Franks and French knights fighting against both Goths and Turkish janissaires feels just as odd as having Bronze Age Egyptians on war charriot coexist with the Roman legions.
2 Likes
I don’t think so, some civs would be covered in both games while being sometimes quite different, and the devs left out many civs from either time period that could have been interesting. Many of which would have made far more sense than the Palmyrenians…
1 Like
Well, the core idea, the original idea was the “what if” principle. So what if these empires had met? Who would win. So I think it’s okay if the unit duels are a bit bizarre.
1 Like
You’re missing the point. The Romans and Egyptians did meet, at a time when the Egyptian armies had nothing to do with what AoE represents them as. Just like the Franks fought against the Goths and far later the Kingdom of France met the Ottoman Empire, but at no point their armies were a mix of Carolingian osts and knights in plate armor.
1 Like
Yes, of course. It doesn’t work that accurately either. A game has to remain fair despite everything.
1 Like
The AoE 1 timeline could be split into three different eras.
First period
Going from Stone Age (c. 20,000 BC ) to the end of Bronze Age (c. 1100 BC ).
Most of the AoE 1 civilizations existed during this period.
-
Old Assyrian period (c. 2025 BC – c. 1364 BC)
-
Babylonia (1895 BC–539 BC)
-
Gojoseon (Choson, 2333 BC ? – 108 BC)
-
Egypt
(1). Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2686 BC–c. 2181 BC, Ruled both Nubia and Egypt.)
(2). New Kingdom of Egypt (c. 1550 BC–c. 1077 BC, Ruled only Egypt.) -
Nubia
(1). Kingdom of Kerma (3000 BC - 2400 BC)
(2). Kerma; Egyptian Empire (1550 BC – 750 BC) -
Greek (Helladic period)
(1.) Minoan (c. 3500 BC – c. 1100 BC)
(2.) Mycenaean Greece (c. 1750 – c. 1050 BC) -
Hittite Empire (c. 1650 BC–c. 1178 BC)
-
Phoenicia ( 2500 BC–64 BC)
(1.) Byblos, dominant city (2500 BC – 1000 BC) -
Shang dynasty (c. 1600 BC – c. 1046 BC)
-
Sumer (c. 4500 BC – 1900 BC)
Second period
Would begin after the fall of Bronze age (1200 BC/900 BC) and end at Alexander the Great Death (323 BC).
This one would not include Rome as it was only starting to get control over Italy, Rome was a small(ish) kingdom before the Latin war (340 BC –338 BC). Rome gained the control of southern Italy only after the Samnite wars, which ended at 290 BC.
Greeks
During this period Greek was divided between city states and alliances. There is no good way to pick what would and would not be good choices for civilizations, but i’ll try my best.
-
Macedonia ( All; The kingdom which was in alliance with other Greek city states, the kingdom which was a vassal state of Persia and The Alexanders empire which conquered the Persia.)
-
Peloponnesian League (Led by Sparta)
-
Delian League (Led by Athens)
-
Boeotian League (Led by Thebes)
North Africa
Egypt
Early on was split into multiple city states. Shortly after that was conquered by Nubia, then by neo Assyrian Empire. Once Neo Assyrian empire collapsed the Egypt was self governed for a while before the Persian conquered them. Then the Alexanders army conquered them.
Nubia
Was split for a while after the Bronze age collapse. Was in control of their own area, and the Egypt for a while (~200 years) before Neo Assyrian empire conquered the Egypt. After that The Nubia retreated to their own territory. The Nubians were never conquered but they didn’t expand either.
Libya/Numidians/Berbers
Area west of Egypt. Was partially conquered by Carthaginians.
Carthage
A city founded in 800 BC by the Phoenicians. Slowly gained control over the Northern Africa, Southern Iberia (Spain) and Sicily. Had big wars against Greeks at Sicily. Was eventually destroyed by the Romans.
Mesopotamia
I will only cover few of the most important empires. There were many more kingdoms in the area, and then there is also rest of the Asia.
-
Neo Assyrian Empire (911 BC – 609 BC)
-
Median Dynasty (c. 678 BC – c. 549 BC)
-
Neo-Babylonian Empire (626 BC– 539 BC)
-
Achaemenid Empire (Persia, 550 BC–330 BC)
-
Kingdom of Lydia (1200 BC – 546 BC)
-
Phoenicia ( 2500 BC – 64 BC)
(1) Dominant City Tyre (900 BC – 550 BC)
Third period
This one would start after the Alexanders Empire was split (328 BC), and would end either after the Roman Empire split into two (395 AD), or after the demise of Western Roman Empire (480 AD).
Romans could just be one empire “The Roman Empire” or it could be split into parts. I.E. Roman Republic, Palmyra’s, Wester Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire.
The Alexanders Empire was split into 5:
Lysimachian Empire
Seleucid Empire
Ptolemaic Kingdom
Kingdom of Pergamon
Macedonia province
In norther Africa in top of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt there was: Carthaginian Empire, Nubians and Numidians.
As this post is already so long I won’t be listing rest of the Asian and European civilizations.
4 Likes
Its indeed really sad to see the game that started everything being abandoned like that. So many people love this game.
I have logged in to play this week as some times i do, as i still enjoy this game and still play it out of nostalgia. What hurts is that there were actually so much potential to this game. The game would be so much better by changing and adding simple things such as formations, being able to make gates on walls or at least being able to shift click our villagers. I get that identity of the game must remain, but nobody plays it nowdays so why not?
2 Likes
AoE 1 isn’t abandoned. It always was a fan service project. Do you honestly think they should be investing in this game? The current peak is 824 players, an all-time 2,708 2 years ago.
It’s hard to imagine how that would be financially viable, or smart strategically speaking, to try to keep a scene for the 3rd AoE game at the same time (2DE, 3DE, IV). Fourth if you’re counting Cleste.
People love AoE1, and they released a DE for that. It’s a super archaic, old-school game that only people with nostalgia are interested in. I love it but it doesn’t justify anything over normal, postlaunch support for the product. That was given.
It’s the best setting for me, but playing it is a big pain in the ■■■ even compared to 1999 cd version of Age of Empires 2 and no amount of extra maps or campaigns will change it. They would have to make a remake on the engine used in 3DE/IV.
2 Likes
Its only in this state too because of that Microsoft Store release that was bugged and messy as hell
If the game get any new content, it would rise the playerbase. We need more respect for the grandfather of the this. If Microsoft see that is enough, they allow FE to do something about… unfortunately they (superiors) don’t see the potential for this game that is cheap and quick to create something special and unique.
Patience… If we make enough buzz, maybe all is not lost
10 Likes
Fan projects tend to be made with love lol.
The team constantly broke the game and left it unattended.
4 Likes
I have to tell you that your figures are Steam only. We all know that AoE1:DE was launched on Steam many months later, than the game’s launch date, in MS store, driving many to purchase the game in MS store.
As far as I know, the actual size of the daily player base in MS store is not known. My arbitrary estimation is that, currently, it can be as large as Steam’s, effectively doubling the “24-hour peak” Steam figure. The “all-time peak” (2,708) figure on Steam is insignificant, the way things turned out to be.
2 Likes
The unfortunate fact is that this game seems dead. There isn’t going to be any new patches. This game was a sacrifice to test the waters for AoE2:DE, and they are content to leave it at that. This game died, and Microsoft no longer cares about it.
1 Like
1 Like