No argument there, but I don’t see how that makes it too buggy to add content
This is really sad. The majority of both the devs and the players consider AOE1 as an “inferior version of AOE2” and simply shifted to AOE2. From the very beginning of DEs they treated it as a “precursor to AOE2 DE”. And the devs made no effort to make it a more competitive game on its own, which only makes matters worse.
The game has and should have its own characteristics. The antique setting is already by itself a major appeal. Right now Gauls and Britons are still represented as Assyrians, etc., and steppe people are almost neglected. There is a lot of room for addition and improvement, like new units, civs and architecture styles, not to mention campaigns.
20 Likes
Seeing the etruscans and gauls being represented as romans in the first rise of rome scenario made me die inside a little bit xD the game really needs new civilizations…
10 Likes
Hahahahaha … WHY??? 
Season Pass for Age of Empires: Definitive Edition:
- The Birth of Civilization - Israelites, Arabs, Indians, Celts
- The Hadrian’s Wall - Britons, Germanians, Armenians, Dacians
- The Fall of Rome - Slavs, Scythians, Huns, Goths
- The Conquest of Italy - Etruscans, Iberians, Illyrians (Byzantines also?)
Yamato is the end of the 8th century, so AoE 1 can easily represent the civilizations and campaigns of the early Dark Ages. Timeframe allows it.
Anyway, AoE 2 and AoE 3 use together about 200 years.
- AoE I: 10,000 B.C. - 700 A.D.
- AoE II: 450/550 A.D. - 1600 A.D.
- AoE III: 1450/1400 A.D. - 1850/1880 A.D.
This game should be given a few new ages as this game covers the widest timeframe. I propose:
- Prehistoric Age / or Tools Age
- Stone age
- Bronze Age
- Iron Age
- Marble Age
- Republic Age
The Age of Tools sounds like the time of the invention of the first primitive tools - therefore it should be the name of the first Age.
Age of Empires should get Age 5 and Age 6 - Marble Age and Republic Age - to show advanced antiquity.
Architecture should correspond to each era and should be radically different from the previous one - it should be more interesting and richer - the age of marble and the republic could look similar, or be slightly richer.
11 Likes
I think this was cut from Age 1. I remember the words “Republic” or “Republican” next to “Age” somewhere in the strings.txt file.
4 Likes
I can’t agree more with you. I believe the game was somewhat condemned since before the release for three main reasons:
-
It wasn’t ready to be launched when it was. The game release was delayed by 6 months at the time, if I remember correctly, and even so, its state was deplorable at release. Many of the bugs since that time are yet to be corrected.
-
They decided to release it as a Microsoft Store exclusive. For God’s sake, the one who had this idea was expecting the game to flop, it cannot exist a different explanation.
-
The new features they added (like villagers starting to collect resources automatically after finishing construct a resource drop building) weren’t, by far, enough to consider the gameplay improved for nowadays RTS games standards. Gates are a MUST in this game since the original. Unit stances also, as catapults killing the player’s own units was always a pain in the back.
On the other hand, the devs have done an incredible job with the new graphics and the reworked soundtrack. Unfortunately, beautiful graphics and music alone do not make a game good alone.
I continue to love this game despite Age II, III and Age of Mythology existing exactly because of its Antiquity historical setting! The game doesn’t need to play exactly like Age II to be good enough for more people to become attracted by it, but for sure some characteristics from that game should have been Incorporated into this one.
10 Likes
It is, but at least for the technical part it’s the developers’ fault for sticking with AoE 1 engine, they could have used the one from AoE 2.
2 Likes
The excuse from the devs was: “We wanted to stay true to the original”.
3 Likes
But genie engine 2 does everything genie engine 1 does and much, much more. Moreover, working on the same engine would have benefitted both AoE 1 DE and AoE 2 DE, less time spent developing and less bugs. I still do not understand that choice.
7 Likes
Arabs and Celts were not part of the “Birt of Civilization” and Arabs in general were not relevant for the AoE1 timeframe, at all.
They literally did nothing noteworthy.
2 Likes
I don’t understand i too. They used AoE 1 DE only to find out if people would buy remasters. Once they knew it would sell well, they basically abandoned AoE 1 and focused only on AoE 2 DE. It’s not too late though, they could still use AoE 2 DE’s engine to overhaul the game completely.
14 Likes
I think a lot of the damage to AoE 1 DE was done by the very poor quality of the released version (it really felt like they released an alpha version back than) and the microsoft store initial exclusive. Things had improved later on, but the damage is done.
This game desperately needs some new content so to attract back a player base. Even a small update with a few new units would do wonders in revitalizing the community.
11 Likes
I know who either of them are.
Celts were important in the AoE1 timeframe, Arabs were not.
Nubians, Lybians, Mauryans, Numidians… all were major peoples in the timeframe, while Arabs were not.
Arabs also “birthed” no civilization. In this timeframe, they were Jews, ruled by Jews, with Hebrew culture.
Arabs only became relevant on the world stage, with the rise of Islam, which is in the Middle Ages.
4 Likes
Berbers civ instead of Arabs civ?
Neither of them were Arabs, and Berbers did not exist at the time.
Numidians and Lybians did.
The Numidians were the best Cavalry in the Ancient World, and the Lybians Meshwesh invaded, conquered and ruled Egypt for a long time.
The Berbers are descendants from these peoples, not from the Arabs. The arabization of Berber culture came only in the Middle Ages.
The Berbers themselves are also mostly Medieval.
2 Likes
How come all these threads for new AoE 1 content turn into a discussion about Arabs?
1 Like
Nubians ruled Egypt not Numidians. Later they were called Kingdom of Kush. 
The Lybians invaded and ruled Egypt, not the Numidians.
I just pointed the Numidians because they were actually important to the time period, in comparison to the Arabs, which were a background people at AoE1’s timeframe.
The Meshwesh (Lybians) invaded and conquered Egypt.
2 Likes