I’d like to suggest a small feature for ranged units.
What if ranged units had a simple target priority option, for example:
In many situations (for example Janissaries vs Archers), even when archers are supposed to be the counter, they almost always shoot the frontline first. Hitting the backline usually requires heavy manual micro.
I fully support it.
However, I think professional players must hate it. Hahaha.
Since they train their micromanagement so much.
Now,
For casual players, this is a real relief.
Having an “icon” to change the tactical behavior of archers and crossbowmen to make our lives easier in specific moments, I would definitely like that!
100% agree 
we need more comfort features for casual players (especially for controller players)
At first glance, it seems interesting:
today we have the moving attack with the shortcut key “A”. If we add a new function, such as a concentrated attack with a hotkey like “S”, for example…
Concentrated attack means that, within the range of your military unit, the attack will be concentrated on the type of enemy military unit you command to attack…
Example: Using the archer, pressing the hotkey “S” for concentrated attack on the type of military unit you want to focus the attack on, this archer will maintain the attack on that type of military unit until there are no more military units of that type within the range of your archer that you commanded to attack with the hotkey “S”, for example…
This can be used on any type of military unit, the lancer as an example against enemy cavalry…
And this would alternate between the hotkey “A” for moving attack and the hotkey “S” for concentrated attack, for example…
This would not eliminate microattacks, since when you are playing and moving the archer’s military unit, as happens very frequently, because movement is necessary against fast enemy cavalry or enemy men-at-arms, this It would certainly require the kind of micromanagement we use today…
But perhaps for competitive play, this isn’t good for the game, I don’t know what to think…
It’s an interesting concept…
Only the community could evaluate it…
you see this here would make sense even from a marketing stand point. one of the biggest issues rts genre faces is getting new players to play, because of huge time investment into gaining the skills to be able to even compete on the level of above average players can take months if not years and a lot of people dont want to invest that time and given how much room game engines have to play with in terms of mechanics, making such a target priority would make sense, they have space on the UI for it. it would bring below average players to a reasonable level. a lot of players may say something like this is not good for the game, but it really is good for the game. in the medieval age you could easily tell your archers, crossbows, and gunners to only target certain units, so why cant you do that on a game. it would help new players get to grips with the game much easier, make it easier for console players to play and would just generally take away the feeling of playing the game feel like a chore. overall the player base would grow, people would have more fun and the advancement and reveiw would generally improve, not to mention adding to the quality of life features for the game, mechanics like this are a no brainer and i still dont understand why devs have not yet thought of adding this into the game yet.
As far as I know, in AOE2 there is an algorithm where units will automatically attack the closest enemy where they can do the most damage. (for example, spearmen will prioritize cavalry) I’d love to see this implemented in AOE4.
Good suggestion! Units like Genitour might literally be saaaaaved! But I feel it can be better if let them target a specified area? Like when microing, your can left click your mouse to target a single target like people normally do, and like ctrl+left click, or shift+left click (maybe some other more reasonable settings) that you let the ranged units to prioritize target units in an area (the ui can work like Lancaster Yeoman synchronized shot to the player, just that it is not aoe damage it only prioritize enemy units in this area for ranged units to attack
They “should”.
The spearmen I sometimes leave at my base don’t attack the Knights who approach my villagers unless I put them on patrol, and then only within a certain range of the patrol. Ideally, they would attack anyone who approaches them… by default, that’s what the soldiers are paid for.
This is also interesting…
Let’s think about this a little more:
Normally, when attacking the opponent’s archers in this example, using archers while the knights and men-at-arms fight each other among the archers, you select all your archers and order them to attack one archer at a time, one by one, and that doesn’t change. But there are times when you don’t care if the archers simply attack the opponent’s archers without worrying about attacking them one by one. Today, if you simply order the archers to attack, they will switch to the nearest military unit. If there were a button like the one in the example above, pressing “S” for Concentrated Attack would cause archers to concentrate on the opponent’s archers according to their range or area of effect…
This example could be followed by any military unit, from mangonels attacking enemy archers, lancers chasing enemy cavalry, and even knights charging against enemy archers…
Perhaps this is just to improve the gameplay experience…
In practice, this wouldn’t prevent someone from using micromanagement to attack military units one by one; it’s just another game feature to avoid unnecessary stress, but only the community can evaluate it and give their opinion…
It’s necessary to assess whether this would be well received by the community and whether it could harm the competitive aspect…
I don’t mean to be a difficult gatekeeper, but the pruning of mechanics needs to be heavily considered and not so easily accepted for the means of convenience. A game is fundamentally a puzzle, a struggle that you ought in some shape or form overcome. In removing obstacles, you are removing the game.
I would much rather be forced to manually target units than have an easier option to selectively target them. Not only does it make gameplay messier, and therefore, opens up space for a higher skill ceiling (those who can perform well despite chaos will stand out), it is less of an artificial interaction and more intuitive. To right click the enemy, and to scale up your attack by selecting multiple units and giving individual commands is entirely and perfectly adequate. To prune this and in effect–making people’s mechanical output more similar in performance–is to deny players the agency and capacity to outplay each other.
To automate said process, is to kill what makes an Age of Empires game an Age of Empires game. Perhaps somewhat dramatic, but you ought to remember that AoE differs than say, Total War, in its demonstrable controls of individual units that has a significant role in determining outcome of combat, rather than relying on abstraction of combat in the form of cutting your input in exchange for more straight forward experience.
But the real issue is this: ranged units aren’t efficient when we’re fighting and micro-sweeping. For example, we move with archers and stop to hit with the A key, while the other group of units (knights or infantry) forms the wall. That’s where the problem arises; archers are discarded at that moment because they will simply attack the nearest units.
This isn’t the problem at all. Did you read my post? I noted that convenience, ergo, the lack of efficiency is the point. Why would it be efficient? You’re there to make it efficient. That is the space that allows for expression of individual plays, enabling one player to win over another if they are capable.
The slippery slope of the idea of efficiency is that of Total War. You don’t control units, you just send a random bundle of them and they figure it out for you. The beauty of Age of Empires has always been a mix of micro and macro both having a significant influence on the outcome of battles. Whether you focus too hard on economy, on macro decisions, or just on microing individual units. To make any of these more automated is to deny you, as a player, agency and ability to express your skill in overcoming your opponent in an otherwise mathematically equal footing.
There are also already tools in-game that helps players better utilize their units in such engagements as well. You can split your units, command them into line formations, have them run in opposite directions, there is so much you can do in this game in regards to controlling your units and I entirely reject the notion that we need an automatic targeting button to make it even easier for what is already the strongest type of unit (ranged) in this game.
micro, just control the units. That’s what the game is about, develop the economy for your army and USE the army.
i completely understand your point of view, but if we are going to regard this game in terms of balance, then picture this. you have a combination of units that comprises of knights and archers, your enemy has spears and men at arms, you go into combat you want your archers to target the spearmen so your knights can deal with the man at arms easier, but of course in low numbers this is easy but when you get to higher numbers it becomes messy and a struggle, but of course you want the most out of your archers and knights, but if you only get between 25-50% of their efficiency, then in essence you are wasting a good value from such units and you are also wasting valuable effort trying to micro manage them, but if you were able to priority target you get at least 75% efficiency and you have the free micro space to make use of else where, the main goal of such mechanics is to not upset certain individuals that want to keep the skill gap and maintain their ability to beat individuals who have less time to dedicate to the game but to level out the skill gap and give people equal chance to win and enjoy the game, there is many other ways to win that does not require huge micro ability and also ways to win that do require huge micro ability.
You say you understand my view, yet present the exact reason this shouldn’t happen. This doesn’t need to be balanced out, it removes player agency. Why is efficiency assumed to be good? Why is it that you dislike inefficiency?
A painting is beautiful because of the exact strokes that defined it. You rub a piece of cloth on it until it all levels out and it becomes a meaningless blurry mess.
The mechanics work in a very specific and intuitive way and allows you to express your form in a simple non gimmicky way. Ever used a computer? Right click.
To remove this for… what, exactly? So you can spend more time on your farms?
Newsflash. You already can. I noted in my comment above that AoE has always been a beautiful mix of both macro and micro. You can focus super hard on micro and let your macro suffer, you can do the opposite, or you can be a super powered player that does both really well.
Even professional players have preferences. Plenty will send their armies to die without checking on them because they prefer playing focusing on macro.
If they can do that, what reason do you want to remove micro agency? It doesn’t add up and instead tells me clearly that it is the AoE format itself you want to change.
And to that, I have to protest. I DON’T want AoE to be like Company of Heroes where the units you send out are perfectly efficient and you micro based on environments. Or like Total War where all that matters is position and counters. I want an Age of Empire game, like all its predecessors, to have fully fledged accessible unit control that allows players to overcome eachother in expressing their micro control.
Your suggestion of evening it out would kill this gameplay and favour those who primarily give a shit about macro. Reconsider your opinion and think of the balance of this game and who it appeals to, rather than asking for it to evolve for your purpose only.
well surprising to see how you made that message feel like a personal vendetta. as i stated in my first message, this would not benefit me personally given i get around 4 hours per week to play, if that. but it would benefit those of less skill and new players to the game to grow in number, for me your statements are that of personal preference and not in the better knowledge of the game, again it would be a mechanic that everyone would have access to and as pros do, they know how to improve on mechanics that already exist and refine their ability to use them, so regardless the pros would still benefit from such a mechanic being added. im sorry if my comment hurt your feeling but my comment only sets in concrete the “rock, paper, scissors” balance of the game, with such a new mechanic those exact designs the game is based on would only be amplified, so i do apologise when i say your comment borders on personal opinion and not realistic results.
I understand your point, but I was too lazy to elaborate because I thought I would understand. Let’s simulate a combat where you have two groups of units and you are kiting the enemy. At this moment, what we do is delay units from group 1 and attack with units from group 2. However, we can improve this by adding microcontrollers to manually attack the rear units and adding shift to prioritize other targets. There are several problems here: to do this, you will stop kiting, you will stop managing the base, and most importantly, you will waste damage on units that would die with fewer hits.
Today in the game:
By micromanaging your military units that attack the opponent’s military units, i.e., sending your archers to attack enemy archers, you attack each archer unit individually; This doesn’t change, even if you had the option we’re discussing… In Age of Empires II, there is no “A” key attack… In Age of Empires IV, there is an “A” key attack, but that didn’t remove the option to attack each archer unit or any military unit individually… The “A” key attack makes micromanagement smarter, instead of wasting resources or causing unnecessary wear and tear…
I understand everything you said and, to be honest, I agree with practically everything, but I confess that maybe, just maybe, making micromanagement smarter in the game without making it smaller would be quite satisfying for any player…
In AoE 2 or Starcraft 2, micromanagement is satisfying when you really learn it, but it’s less satisfying at the beginning, when you’re learning… See for yourself, in AoE 4, the desire that you and anyone else has to improve in the game, the satisfaction of wanting to learn in AoE 4 is very great, unlike AoE 2 and Starcraft. 2. The beginning of your training in Age of Empires 4 is truly very rewarding…
I AM NOT AGAINST MICROMANAGEMENT, IN FACT, THERE SHOULD BE VARIOUS MICROMANAGEMENT TOOLS IN REAL-TIME STRATEGY GAMES, but using intelligent MICROMANAGEMENT, such as the “A” key attack in Age of Empires 4, or adding another tool like the one we are discussing here, without removing MICROMANAGEMENT for those who want to level up, is what makes the game rewarding at the beginning for anyone…
APM (Actions Per Minute) in RTS (Real-Time Strategy) measures the speed and efficiency of a player’s commands (clicks, shortcuts). Crucial in games like StarCraft and Age of Empires, a high APM (often >300-400 in professionals) reflects skill, allowing for intense micromanagement and efficient multitasking. Beginners generally have an APM below 50, focusing on basic commands.
Objective in RTS: Reflects the player’s ability to multitask simultaneously, such as managing the base (macro) and controlling units in battle (micro) at the same time.
Skill Indicator: While having a high APM doesn’t guarantee victory, it’s generally associated with a higher level of technical skill and reflexes.
Yes… APM should exist to test players and be a spectacle for us, who watch the professionals play, but making micromanagement smarter isn’t necessarily a bad thing…
Is this why so many players abandon RTS games??? Do we just need to make RTS games smarter? I don’t know what to say or think…
Sometimes we forget that games should also be fun…
Fun and complex is the RTS Paradox…
You needn’t apologize, I didn’t intend it to come across as personally targeting you. While I did say “you”, I was more speaking broadly in regards to this sort of mentality which is also seen in the rest of the thread. I hope you understand.
Games should be fun, however, one must ask the purpose of introducing game-changing mechanics to a game that was released in 2021. I have for these years very much enjoyed this dynamic that allows for intelligent, skillful gameplay and I find that introducing these sorts of additions will bring down the overall “fun” and experience for those that seek out AoE4 gameplay.