As i said before there shouldnt be so much unique units in game.In this viking dlc they gave those civs too much unique unit most of them was unnecessary.
But most impotant thing is game lost its strategic depth.For example if a unit has a shield it should have a good defence against archers.If unit has a mace it should deal bonus damage against armored units.These rules have totally gone with the last 2 dlc.Now any unit can do anything and it will make the game hard to learn.Its so sad.
Second scots have aoe 3 units.I mean they have units of later ages its just feels weird.Maybe they are doing a test for aoe 5?
Devs are killing the soul of this game i hope they return from their mistakes.
Edit:Dlc graphics and sounds are very nice devs did good job there but everthing isnt looks.
i do agree that many unique units is not a good thing, as aoe4 usually only had 5 unique units per civ. I honestly think worlds edge or relic have lost the plot, they kinda ruined aoe4 for me when they added the fantasy biomes back in singleplayer, ruins the serious experience.
That said, i believe the DLC is really cool, like im really hyped for the new civilizations, we finally have something new! , i am afraid however of the lack of future direction. And the lack of transparency too, we used to have roadmaps that told us what was coming in the future seasons, now we dont…
i think the saddest thing of the last patchnotes was the removal of dark green and magenta.
Like bruh… they add stuff noone asks for (recycled seasonal content and fantasy biomes that belong more to age of myth than aoe4) and they remove stuff everyone liked! They said these new colours caused readibility issues, but i havent heard a single complaint from the community about these two colours tbh.
lol… are you seriously bashing the fact that the game is getting more unique units ? your critique seriously doesnt make sense. The game just got a new DLC with 2 unique civs with loads of work into it, bro…
Does this make it more difficult to balance? Sure. Is that our problem? No, it’s for the developers to address.
Hard and soft counters are not the same thing as symmetry in faction design. You can have assymetrical factions and hard counters. But a hard counter-only system is limiting by itself. Your preference limits both tactical and strategic depth more than what the devs are doing.
The game is based in history—even more so than its predecessors. As long as things remain balanced and the civilization adheres to the rules of counter-units, there shouldn’t be any major issues.
In fact, it’s a positive thing to have more unique units, provided they possess distinct abilities or stats that differ significantly from their standard counterparts, and as long as they better reflect historical accuracy.
That said, it seems the only additional unique units for the Vikings are the Berserker (Raider Infantry) and the Shieldmaiden (anti-range javelin Thrower); the rest simply fulfill their standard roles:
The Viking unique crossbowmen are essentially “crossbowmen,” meaning they share the same counter-units as any other crossbowman—no problem there.
The Bodi is an improved spearman: weak against archers, but effective against cavalry. No problem.
The Hirdman functions as a man-at-arms; useful for sieges during the Feudal Age, or for countering armies of spearmen, camels, and the like—following the same counter logic.
The Jutman Cavalry—their version of knights—share the same counter-units.
Too much difference is bad very very bad some difference is ok but if you make everything different it goes out of control.
By the way no one understands what im trying to say.When you look at the unit you need to tell what is it good against.If a unit holding a shield for example we can assume its good against ranged attacks.With new dlc they are adding a spearman with shield which is weak to archers.If devs keep going with that mind set every unit can do everything.Depth of the game is gone like that easly.
Some of the unique units are so unnecessary they forced themselves to give it a uniqe unit there is no need for that.
This one for example soo unnecassary putting too much thing is sometimes bad.
How do you make “really different” factions “consistent”? Like, genuinely, that seems like two goals that conflict with each other.
I think a game can have an overarching consistent design pattern. But I think factions within that game should subvert it in different ways. And this results in consistency, but individual differences.
We’re nowhere near “too much difference”.
Why would you assume that? That’s your assumption that you’re making. The game can and should have other ways to differentiate counters.
Like, if you’re relying on history, longbows used to punch clean through armour. They were incredible. A game has to gamify things by creating rules, I agree. But “counters” only have to be internally-consistent. They should not rely solely on art as an indicator.
Ask 100 people, get 100 things that don’t need to be changed. Result: game never changes.
How do you propose the devs know which things actually don’t need to be changed? Assuming that there are things that are actually supposed to be immune to change?
You can check aoe2 if you wonder how its possible.
Im not talking about realism if we are going to talk about it Turkish archers by far the best archers of that era and they can shoot like atleast twice more distance than the longbow.But you didnt understand what im trying to say there.
This game made this perfect when it released i will give example.Hre man at arms when it gets the bonus vs armored units his weapon changes to mace.Whats hard to understand there i dont get it.I dont like earls guard for example they carry a warhammer but have no bonus against armour.
I don’t want to play AoE II, and I’m familiar with the design of civilisations there. I’m happy that people still enjoy the game, but I wouldn’t want AoE IV to become it
Not everything can be conveyed by a visual upgrade, though it would be nice if it could be. But you were complaining about something with a shield being weak to archers. That’s a very specific complaint that suggests there are rules to visual upgrades, and in my opinion that rule is going to be very hard to enforce.
I do agree with you and these quests and stuff when you age up is too much cognitive load for a guy like me who is 40 years old lol.. but thing is its the people who complained in first place for not giving them unique units for each civ in Age of empires 4 DLCs and now we have it but yes learning is hard and tough to follow up.. but if you look at Age of Empires IV Civilization Stats.. top civs are DLC civs so people love new Units and stuff
Logicly shielded units should have higher range defence.This make game easier to read.Like the HRE man at arm example their weapon change according to the bonus they get.
Malian javelin thrower for example has no shield but its a anti range.If i were the dev i would take shield from donso and give it to javelin thrower.
Vikings has shielded spearman for example.
Also KT polish knight has a hammer but deals bonus to light units?
Since the last DLC of the Jin Dynasty, something has been wrong. Many Chinese players came for the IP of Yue Fei, but they can only play Jin Dynasty and cannot play Yue Fei in multiplayer mode. In fact, Yue Fei can be regarded as a heroic civilization similar to Joan of Arc. In addition, the Jin Dynasty has been strengthened in the upcoming version, which is not a problem, but it should be considered that the Jin Dynasty is already very powerful in 1v1 due to its strong economic and landmark effects. If we want to enhance its units, we should weaken its fast attack ability. Civilization like Zhu Zi’s Last Instructions has been chopped down too many times in a row, and it will be weakened again next season. I don’t know why???
I’m waiting for black…