Of all the cons that the game has, which one bothers you the most?

Bad waals, like, you have 30m thick wall but Canon can destroy them with two shot, so why bother building walls and put archer on them?

1 Like

The main thing that bothers me is the small scale and horrible camera with tiny and claustrophobic maps. There is nothing EPIC or GRAND about it. They misled us by showing videos that looked epic and grand but I saw nothing close to those marketing videos in terms of scale, graphics or the camera. Just watch any of those footages and notice the camera height and number of units, size of walls and buildings, size of map, are all a fake. Everyone saw the Beta and Stress test and those videos are misleading and false advertisement.


Definitely the hud. any icons that are not buildings are ridiculously hard to dintinguish, and then no global queue is a pretty huge mistake if you ask me as well. How are you doing such downgrades from 2 DE.

Also the camera feels a bit too zoomed in even at minimum zoom.


In no particular order:

  • UI icons are hard to read, boring and lazy.
  • Unmanned siege.
  • Half-baked civ asymmetry (all blacksmith upgrades, all barracks, stables, archery ranges produce almost the same units and upgrades with reskin jobs). Chinese Imperial Guards (man-at-arms reskin) carry pike-like weapons. Why are they not great against cavalry?
  • Siege and cavalry clip the ground or float when going up and down hills (they always lie horizontal no matter the terrain).
  • Cavalry still stops to attack (AoE II style) and your target runs away.
  • Unit vs building proportions (minor annoyance).
  • Zoom level.
  • No reflection maps on metallic surfaces cause metal to look plastic/toy-like.
  • Lifeless maps. Little to no “gaia” variety going on.
  • Several techs are lazily named. E.g. The Rus have a tech called “blessing duration”. Guess what it does?

EDIT: Almost forgot:

  • Water effects that do not even belong in a Nintendo Switch game. I swear if the river maps have water that doesn’t flow, I’m gonna go nuts. RTS games in the mid 2000’s had it.
  • Building destruction animations are laughably bad. How come AoE II DE is better?

Hotkeys and the proportions of some buildings to units.


If you want a game that flopped over its predecessor, play AoE3.

AoE4 will continue to look more like 2 because that is what can make you more successful in sales and competitive.

1 Like
  • No Unit Stance. Defensive/Stand Ground/No attack, am I the only one who used it?
  • No Patrol/Follow/Guard

I have the feeling those will be implemented, though.

  • Unit models lack detail
  • Can’t distinguish units when selecting them as a group (I can’t pick apart the ones who are low on health, for instance)
  • Hotkeys for cycling through buildings, where are they?

My complaints list is limited, so I’m hopeful they’ll be fixed in the future.

P.S. Oh, and no scenario editor on launch is terribly disappointing.


Me too. Unit stance and the actions would be good additions for sure, both have use on the current competitive scene too and i don’t think it’s hard to implement . Probably as you said eventually it will be on the game.


1 - Lack of at least one american and one african civ
2 - Price in some countries (yes, it’s an AAA game, but why overpireced that in 82% compared to what steam says would be fair in my country, more than 100% in four countries? Why here it costs almost 20% of the minimum wage?)
3 - Lack of asymmetry in overall techs and units; civs have different mechanics only
4 - Lack of hotkeys customization
5 - Units readability during gameplay
6 - Minimap readability
7 - Lack of indication about who are my opponents (name/civ/age), I need to click in the top right corner of the screen to find that out everytime I want to check it
8 - The name of each Age. There is no Dark Age in history, take any book about the medieval age to read at random and you’ll see the author saying that. I think “Rural Age, Urban Age, Kingdom Age and Imperial Age” would be so much better and historical accurate
9 - Grouping in a single icon all of the same unit together when selecting them
10 - It’s too hard to click in that specific unit you want to attack or select
11 - Poor zoom out mechanic


Another thing I dislike a lot is the lack of military units in dark age, this doesn’t make any sense in history…


it is really weird, like we have this super exiting game so it will be better in 2 years… happens the opposite, they ruined all the good things it had?


Things I just dont understand… but the hud is really annoying too, visually speaking

Very good ones, in my opinion the toy metallic effect is unnaceptable, come on it is 2021…


Biggest con for me, so far, is the naval combat which is so mechanically outdated it’s laughable. Other than that I’m okay with most aspects of the game except for homing projectiles. The graphics are dissapointing for sure, but I can live with that. It’s not something that will prevent me from playing a game.


this, been saying it basically since day 1 of the closed beta… people just dont get it, and i think its because they were scammed well with the skins

they see a chinese lancer, and think “hey this is a different unit to the english knight because it looks different” asymmetry

there is assymetry but certainly not to the extent people keep preaching… they need holes in their tech trees, they need overly strong versions of units (example teuton paladin vs berber cavalier vs malian cavalier vs brit cavalier, they are all great, but clearly very different, even though they are all knight line)

i really dont get devs on this one… we have so many other readability issues… giving crew to siege would hardly tip it over the edge, ESPECIALLY for cannons, that look incredibly bland and stupid without crew (culverins lifting themselves off the ground)


So true. If everyone has everything giving someone more isn’t that exciting.


Biggest drawback is no kind of homecity support cards like in aoe3. They added a world of extra theorycrafting and possible differences to strategy

1 Like

I totally agree with this.
The civs differ quite significantly in economy and unique techs.
However they all share a baseline that makes things stale.
I expect Mongol infantry to be pretty bad compared to their cavalry but currently it feels like any other civ can achieve the same cavalry presence.

So how exactly are the Mongols meant to be known for their horsemen?

Why are English MAA as viable as Abbasid MAA?
Certain units should either be capped earlier or not exists at all for some civs.


Or even, and I know this sounds crazy, but maybe the Abbassids should not even have a Man-at-Arms because that unit was from England and France and instead they get a different infantry unit or two that are based on their history and fit in differently into their tech tree but that’s ok because the rest of their tech tree is complementary to this design as well.


This exactly. Give them eastern swordsmen or something.
With weaker base stats but perhaps faster movement speed.
Just anything different besides only a reskin.

Instead of unique Mamlukes we have “Knights” that are a complete mirror to their european counterpart.

Whats kinda funny/sad is they bothered to draw a distinction between “lancers” and “knights” but the difference seems to be just name. They have the exact same stats.