The problem is AoE 2 is too good a masterpiece.
1 Like
having resources is core gameplay, having stone yes or no isnt. Same as having infantry being a core mechanic but a pikeman line isnt as AoE I didnt have them.
Yes, it did.
The Phalanx weapon was a Sarissa, exactly the FIRST PIKE.
" The phalanx was a Greek heavy infantry formation used from about 800 BC to the conquest of Greece by the Romans in the Second Century BC. The Greek infantry, called hoplites, formed a square that could quickly face in any of four directions. Each man carried a pike or spear up to 12 feet in length. As the formation advanced, it presented an imposing wall of spear points to its front."
1 Like
When both age games prior to it had it, then yes, it is a core part of the gameplay
And before you say anything, AoM is not technically part of the main series, so I do not really care if it deviates from the core gameplay a little
1 Like
Phalanx isnt a pikeman. A knight has a sword, yet we often dont refer to them as swordsman.
The phalanx in AoE I was hugely different from the pikeman line of AoE II. In I you needed a whole seperate building for just one unit. While the pikeman line is in the barracks in AoE II.
And otherwise there are countless other comparissons, a skirmisher line in AoE II, when I only had a slinger in a barracks, not entirely sure but I dont think the slinger actually countered archers, but infantry.
In AoE I there were 2 seperate short melee infantry lines the axeman and swordsmen while in AoE II this became 1 the militia line. AoE I had a seperate bowman and another bow type line, which again got combined into one in AoE II. Which is actually compairble with AoE III combining stone into coin and wood basically.
3 Likes
No. Your typical Medieval Knight would have a Lance and an Mace or Axe, the Sword was mostly ceremonial.
And yes, Mounted Knights were known as Lancers, because of the Lance.
Also yes, the Macedonian Sarissa was the first Pike weapon, as recognized by historians. Pike Warfare in the 15th century was a revival of Phalanx tactics from Antiquity.
The Phalangite was a Pikeman.
1 Like
No answers on the other stuff? Just an unimportant name argument? Also I didnt say he didnt have more weapons? Even if its ceremonial he still has a sword. Also no, a sword was also used in combat, maybe when they were mounted they used their lances, but if they get in close quaters they would very well also fight with swords, not just maces or axes. Come on, a sword has a big advantage over a mace, a mace is mostly useful when fighting other knights or highly armored people.
Sarissa was a polearm style weapon indeed like a pike and basically a form of pike. Yet a lance is aswell. You see we have different words for different things to differntiate. The term of pikeman isnt used, thats why they are called phalanx in AoE I otherwise they would have been called pikeman.
Also you make a mistake of thought here. A pike is typically definded as a weapon you have to carry with 2 hands because if its length. A sarissa can be both a pike or a spear: āThe sarisa or sarissa (Greek: ĻĪ¬ĻĪ¹ĻĪ±) was a long spear or pike about 4ā6 metresā The phalanx in game wields the weapon with 1 hand meaning its a spear, not a pike. Thus not a pikeman. Regardless again if it was a pike, their function is different from the pikeman. Both in reality as in game.
1 Like
Phalanx was not the name of a weapon but the very tight formation used
The weapons they used were spears.
Most used round shields that were tied at the shoulder and forearm grips to use the spears 2 handed.
no one is going to wield a 12- 18ft spear one handed. Part of the reason for Greeks shields being concave was that the formations were so tight soldiers would press up on each other in like a giant āpush of warā and the cavity allowed them to still breathe.
For the time not much was a counter to it other than flanking tactics and limited missilesā¦ It was anti infantry, cavalry, it pretty much ran over what ever was in its way, and was like hammer and anvil style tactics where cav forces then were the hammer to position to maneuver the enemy in front of the anvil.
Also maceās are fantastic weapons because of how much damage they can do to armored or not. were pretty cheap to make, and very durable. Also armored battles could get very close knit and push on each other to force once side to fail and mace would be good way to get lots of power in close quarters. The flail was useful because if even a knight could get his arm up in these push of war type battles could swing and get in hits rather than being all tied up. And it was less strenuous to use. Battles were not really like we see in movies.
phalanx
[ĖfÄlaNGks, ĖfalaNGks]
NOUN
a body of troops or police officers standing or moving in close formation.
"six hundred marchers set off, led by a phalanx of police"
a group of people or things of a similar type forming a compact body.
"he headed past the phalanx of waiting reporters to the line of limos"
(in ancient Greece) a body of Macedonian infantry with long spears, drawn up in close order with shields overlapping.
1 Like
I didnt say Phalanx was the name of the weapon. The references I made were about the AoE I unit called the Phalanx, he holds the polearm with one hand and a shield in the other, so it wasnt a pike but a spear. Which a sasarri can be.
To the mace thing, a mace which I also said is good against armor, but in the medieval age most of the soldiers didnt wear heavy armor, so swords wouls be more usefull in general.
Most sodiers in the Middle Ages actually wore a chainmail short coat, so Swords would do almost nothing to them, since chainmail was invented precisely to make long slashing weapons, like the sword, obsolete.
1 Like
Back to the sword debate 
3 Likes
This wasnāt clear to me, by equating that a unit be named by what its weapon was, made me think you thought the phlanx was also a weapon.
The unit in the game is kinda oddly designed. Its really more of a hoplite but with a giant square shieldā¦
As said by another, most had chainmail, which stopped slashing sword moves very well. Even heavy padded textile armor can be tricky to cut through in a dynamic situation. A mace though crushes whats under neath. vs lightly armored though, swords were effective, the Roman army won the world with them (and shield and siege tactics)
but even more popular than those, was the spear/ polearm.
1 Like
After playing AOE2 some more over the past week, I think I figured out why it is more popular and therefore ābetterā to those who prefer it. It seems like the games last longer in 1v1s to me. In AOE3 it seems like I just get constantly musket rushed. I either defeat it or get crushed, either way there doesnāt seem to be a whole lot of back and forth, regrouping, etc. In AOE2 the games seem to go on longer. It could be because castles are so friggn strong you are almost forced to go to age 4 to get a treb to deal with them. And instead of getting musket rushed constantly, you get archer/xbow rushed a lot. But there still seems to be more āback and forthā and shifting to different unit combinations. The games just seem to last longer and have more strategic depth to them. (And every aspect of game play is enhanced by being able to zoom WAY out if desired, to the point where the units are quite small). Even in a game where the opponent just spams xbows, there is still greater strategy involved regarding building positioning, walling or not walling, defensive buildings, etc. And there are NO trickle buildings so no civ can get cheap unfair trickle resources, unless you count relics, but every civ has the same ability to get the relics.
1 Like
I donāt think I will ever like a game, where I am forced to age up because of a building. Thatās lame imo. I donāt want to play tower defense or plants vs zombies. I want my army composition, unit positioning, unit micro and scouting to matter far more than castles and towers.
2 Likes
I donāt think AOE2 games last longer because they have more strategic depth. I think they lost longer because the game is generally much slower. Castles take forever to go down, as you said, walls are tougher, armies take longer to spawn etc.
7 Likes
I donāt play Age3, I am AOE2 player, but what you said here was totally correct and I totally agree with you. Why making AOE4 another version of AOE2 when you can add many ideas or expand the ages to WW1 time (for example) or at least making it in AOE3 time with better mechanics or even AOE1?! This was totally a big mistake to bring it back to medieval ages especially when you already have a successful version of medieval ages (AOE2)?!
Every game have the mechanics/game-play thay make it special and unique, I never played AOE3 so I canāt judge but I follow some AOE3 streamers (Aussie Drongo) and found that AOE3 have really interesting stuff and more way mechanics and strats than AOE2. In our community in AOE2 actually there are many people recently start even to complain about how AOE2 meta became boring lately with only 2 or 3 main strats for a 37 civs all the same, I think if anyone if you played aoe2 then you will know what meta I am talking about. The devs even started to remove some unique strats from some civs to make all the civs going with the same meta.
6 Likes
i would suggest that you give AOE3 a chance, would guess you might like it based on what you are saying.
3 Likes
Hmmā¦ conversely I played some AOE2 HD and could never recover from an early raid. Iām pretty noob at that game though, but his advantages just kept stacking. In AOE 3 though, there are certain cards that can be sent to help boost in various ways, so there are more options to get out of a hole or react to what is happening. Delaying techs for immediate crates or units to supplement a wearer start to some defenses.
I do think games can be kind of short and many games donāt get out of age 3 or even age 2. Which should be looked at, and is better in DE. Decks do make that type of balance a little tougher since people can choose the most aggressive cards, but then again if people hold that off with some unit shipments, TC fire and minute menā¦ it puts the other in a bad spot.
I wished every Euro civ could build at least 1 fort.
AOE 3 is lots of fun and very dynamicā¦ Its just in a least popular time period. If they were switched everyone would love AOE 3 style play.
Iāve never played AOE3 and I can tell AOE2 is better. This is how clear cut it is.