I dunno. If the best defense of the present civ design is that everything is fine because the devs will fix it later after release, then it looks like we all agree the civ design needs lots of fixing.
6 Likes
Neither AoE 3 nor much less AoEO were competitive games (AoE3 was “competitive” until 2007-2008 and with many imbalances) and they are games that have been tried to improve over the years without success, with very few players. .
Any comparison with the AoEII in terms of competitiveness is obnoxious.
The SC2 took years to balance 3 very asymmetrical breeds well.
1 Like
Aoe3 added the revolution system and saloon to the European civs for the Warchiefs expansion, as well as some new cards.
2 Likes
Sorry, but I don’t follow how the number of players of each game has any affect on the quality of asymmetric civ design.
8 Likes
Thanks! I need to look back. I assume those came with unique units?
1 Like
Sort of. They didn’t add a new standard unit to the roster, but added an alternative to the imperial age and a building that allows you to train random mercenary and outlaw units. The new native civs had 100% unique rosters so maybe they felt the need to spice the old ones up a little bit?
1 Like
I would say that the 8 starting civs really weren’t asymmetric. Maybe the Dutch and Turkey a little.
Due to how their economy works. But they essentially all play the same, they have the same gameplan. Now of course one is better for rushing, one is better for booming etc. But that is true for the AoE IV civs too.
Additionaly, the Deck system that oughts to bring uniqueness to civs, is providing bonus to unique units mostly. They might also alter the stats of military units slightly. But the same is being done with unique upgrades in Landmarks for example. Then there might be buffs that will be achieved through units or buildings.
Instead, AoE III did seperate all those features and put them in a deck system. I like that I could specialize in a certain units type, for example Doppelsoldners. But I have to acknowledke, that AoE IV also lets you do this.
Now when it comes down to actually unique units, most of them had 2.
The Dutch for example, I think they only had 1? The pistol rider and I think the “unique” unit upgrade to halberdiers.
2 Likes
I would even be satisfied if they just made some of the standard units more unique between each civ, outside of aesthetic.
edit: like the Chinese variant MAA, for example.
1 Like
AoE 3 civs are more asymmetric then AoE 4 civs
2 Likes
they do! A lot of it seems to be based on weapon techs civs will have. I am unsure if other stats like attack speed, armor, or damage will differ. But that would require playing the full game and looking at each stat.
All I can say is that it seems civs will have techs that differentiate common units like the man-at-arms.
2 Likes
The dutch have the bank, villagers that cost gold, envoys, ruyters (the pistol cav) and the fluyt, a unique ship.
I’m sure we can go back and forth like this and to a certain extent no, the civs are not completely asymmetric like some other games.
Elaborate how the 8 starting civs are more asymmetric than the AoE 4 civs, please.
1 Like
The current roster of Civilizations fs is. But I’m not sure that the same could be said for the aoe3 initial launch civs.
When you play aoe 3 the civs even the original ones feel more different from each other then aoe 4. AoE 4 you just do the same thing basically as each civ
1 Like
Agreed, I am just a little lost with the statement that AoE III is vastly more asymmetric, when in reality, it had to be added. Imho, AoE III launch civs were painfully similar, but I loved the game anyway.
Of course, the addition really exploded on uniqueness, but it wasn’t like that before this addition came to be.
1 Like
But can you actually tell me how they were so much more different? Because when I wanted to answer the same question, I came to the realization that actually, they didn’t feel very different.
1 Like
Tell me 1 successful competitive game that has a good asymmetry in civilizations and has enough variety.
You can have assymetric play without more than 2 unique units. AoE2 was a good example, e.g. the Persian douche. Or the old Inca rush before it got unfortunately removed.
I mean, Ruyter was just the Dutch Dragoon.
Not really any more unique than the Mongol Magudai/Rus Horse Archer. 
Well the Dutch get banks, and their worker cost coin, and they have a unique unit. The ports get town centers every age, spyglass and Cassador The Ottomans get free workers, great bombards and janissaries etc.
1 Like