Hello Age of Empires fans 
In AOE3 we had treasures which mostly were guarded by animals or humans. Treasures are great for the atmosphere and are interesting to collect. This would also be a good option to make dark age more entertaining.
For those not knowing the treasures from AOE3. Here is an image from a treasure, which in this case is a villager, surrounded by bears.
I hope the developers will add treasures to AOE4.
What do you think about treasures for AOE4?
Kind regards
Please no no no no no no no. AoE 3 already exists for those who like this stuff. It already has a decent game engine and graphics engine, thereâs no need for AoE 4 to be anything like 3. 2 is the game that was crying out for a more modern implementation, so I think itâs right that 4 is closer to 2.
I disagree. AoE3 was its own game. This is a different game.
You have treasures in the campaign buddy 
Also, NO THANKS. AoE IV already has a lot of points of interest (Sacred sites, deer, boar, relics). Maybe a Custom Game Mod like Royal Rumble which is a total separate thing.
Please donât, I like AOE3, but AOE3 has a treasure system because itâs based on the background of exploring colonies, and AOE4 doesnât.
In addition, using scouts to scout enemies and explore the map is already busy enough, even in AOE3, I donât like hero explorer and treasure system, I think it will destroy the playerâs sense of immersion in the game, especially AOE4 is to reproduce the real history designed.
Add AOE3âs multiple animals and plants to AOE4, but leave the hero explorer and treasure system in AOE3.
I always found the treasures funny because there was more to scout and explore. The treasures were also good for atmosphere.
Every game is different. What argument is that?
Only one title in the industry should have/is allowed to have for example season pass mechanics?
So every game has to have the same features? We canât switch things up? Thereâs no explorers in this game and there are different features that werent in other games. Yes, the games are different. Why do they have to be the same?
Who said that?
Again, whoâs suggesting that? Even more- how does that relate to what you said initially âThis is a different game.â
You donât have to like or want it. Hell you donât even have to say why, but if you do then it would be nice to hear why not and how.
So:
How is that related? Treasures can be picked just by a villager.
You donât have âfloatingâ explorers too. Water treasures are picked by ships by right-clicking on them, which transform attack order into interaction.
How does having this make these two games the same?
Does having crossbowmen makes these games the same?
Does having gold mines?
Itâs just mechanics. Would you argue for not including relics, because they were in the Age of Kings?
You donât have to like it and personally itâs not on top of things Iâm missing in IV, but I donât see any obvious reason why it doesnât fit or whatâs more important- how does it make anything worse.
It objectively makes world(maps) more lively, complex, slightly more random, and enhances exploration. They reward good decision-making and cunning with small goodies - sometimes a handful of wood, sometimes two herdables, sometimes with some passive bonuses.
Itâs a very small thing that adds an equally small layer of depth to the whole experience. Most of them are âlvl.0â treasures- unguarded small stockpiles of things. Sometimes with just a wolf or badger guarding them. Itâs just a minor source of (usually) resource income. Unlike sheep they provide instant gratification.
Youâre talking about Age of Empires IV as if itâs some alien concept in a different genre. Itâs not. Itâs another mainline AoE that largely is based on what AoE II has achieved and follows a very similar design philosophy in many aspects.
It is a numbered sequel, and I see no reason why they shouldnât carry things from III, as they do with things from II.
And itâs hard to find new mechanics in III that canât be universally applied to a game set in any period.
For me the biggest loss are civ decks, a way to customize civ tech tree to player liking.
Pretty much every feature could be translated to a high medieval setting- trade routes, local settlements, mercenaries, dedicated explorer unit,
Things like native settlements are much-defined elements and thus more arguable. But adding variety and depth to the exploration period? How does that make anything worse?
Iâve been hunting sheep in that period since 1999 and I donât think itâs unreasonable to want more. These sheep now running after the scout that captured them just doesnât cut it. Not in the long run, not for someone that isnât paid to play this game, but treats it as a pastime hobby.
And I have to admit its shocking how safely did Relic play with IV, creating as noncontroversial and widely appealing eggshell version of that Age of Kings experience as possible.
Not âbadâ. IV wasnât and isnât bad, just plain in the atmosphere, mechanics, and impact on the general situation of this genre.
Even that would be ok, in like 2002 when RTS were riding high.
But not now where they donât, and we had to wait 16 years for another big AoE.
If it doesnât make anything worse, why do you think 3 is so unpopular, despite being technologically fine? I absolutely hate the treasures and cards, theyâre the very reason I donât play 3. I canât see any reason to add them into 4 when people who want them can just play 3. Why would anyone be playing 4 rather than 3 to start with if they want those things in their game?
So you think it objectively makes game worse. Please tell me how.
How it is unpopular, what does it mean?
Almost every RTS game is unpopular compared to arguably the best, genre-defining RTS of all time.
Iâve been following various AoE forums and people like it.
AoE III is 17yo.
What do you mean by popularity? It didnât overtake Age of Kings that had huge cult following. You are implying that treasures out of all things made it âunpopularâ and thus they are bad?
Sorry but itâs ridiculous.
AoE III Complete sits on 90% positives on Steam.
AoE III DE on 78%, it was hurt by insufficient polish for âdefinitiveâ edition and controversies around censorship (things like erasing concept of colonialism etc). 78% is still very good.
Why III didnât overtake II? II was already established. III had much higher system reqs. It offered a lot less campaign content and had less approachable scenario editor. These are the most important things.
Youâre using these things as justification in a discussion about âadding treasures is bad/makes game badâ? Really? 
You can hate them if thatâs what you want to do. That still is not an argument, and certainly not a counterargument to everything I wrote and youâve chosen to not address - Iâve listed reasons, if you choose to ânot seeâ anything. Well.
Following this logic- so you would support me in attempts to remove relics from AoE IV?
âI personally hate them. If people want to run around picking some stupid relics, they can stay and play Age of Kings.â
Iâll leave aside the notion that such a minor element is a game-breaker and makes one person choose one game over the other. In longer games, especially with more players, treasures are almost completely irrelevant and inconsequential. Only in very competitive, short 1v1 game they can tip a balance in any real way.
Iâm not sure who hurt you and made âhateâ these things, but I canât help you with that.
why not?
dark age is boring. Add smth to make dark age more intereesting is great idea.
We have relics and sheeps.
letâs say we will have camps (same as w3), where player can get tech/unit/food/wood.
Iâve played today in TGs. Shift clicked scout, choose landmark⊠and went to make tea⊠i mean⊠while aging nothing happens. Zeeero.
Biggest hurdle to aoe4âs success is all the nostalgic whiney aoe2 players that never moved on and want to play the same thing forever. No new players even know about this forum so no surprise the vocal majority is out of touch.
@JjForcebreaker great posts totally agree. Treasures would make exploring much more fun and the atmosphere much better.
@Heftydogg No that is definitely not a problem. It would be a problem if everyone would say everything is fine. People who play old AOE games now what good AOE games should have.
Those are the figures from the peak time in the last 24 hours.
The reason I hate treasures and cards is they are fantasy elements. IV tries to be more realistic, aiming to fix some of the unrealistic elements of II such as infinitely burning buildings. And I just donât understand why anyone who likes those things isnât playing 3 rather than 4 anyway.
I know what popularity means, that was more of a rhetorical question. I explained the reasons why III didnât overtake II.
Youâre still not answering any of my questions or responding to any of the points.
And plain player numbers are not a universal synonym for success, and especially- quality. There are great games that perform badly because of terrible or lacking marketing, because of heavy competition, too high price, oversaturation in the market or just bad luck.
What do these numbers have to do with the topic of this mechanics? You donât like AoE3 and just looking for opportunities to express that?
Iâve written not only an explanation for its performance but also logic and reasons behind said mechanics.
Iâm not going to waste too much time going further, so to make this quick.
Do not use words you donât know the meaning of.
How picking up deadwood from the ground, killing a bear that is guarding a pile of apples he found on a cart, or rescuing captured person kidnapped by bandits is fantasy?!
All tiny elements on the map that can be skipped and ignored. Just like you can ignore deers, sheep or relics.
Sending shipments to the newly founded colony and supporting it with units or resources for expansion⊠in a game about colonialism⊠how is that a fantasy?!
Your argumentation here is beyond ridiculous.
Realistic? Do you know what it does mean? Lol, Iâll let it slide.
And aesthetic tuning of the burning effect had nothing to do with that btw.
So you DO support me in removal relics from Age of Empires IV, good.
Iâve already written about it, but you donât give a damn about reading anything and even more important- thinking about what youâre saying, so I wonât repeat myself.
Itâs not a game-changer or element convincing to pick one title over another, just an added value and improvement to a few aspects of the game. Youâren to able to show how it does make anything worse or doesnât add variety to exploration, so I guess all that is left is bashing AoE III.
AoE IV is not a 17yo game, itâs a brand new one and itâs tanking, hard. And it wouldnât be so hard to point to groups that were wrongly picked by Relic for testing and feedback gathering. Mainly veterans of an ancient title (thatâs still alive and well so replacing it/'competing with might not be the best idea to begin with, at least it is terms of risk) that reigned supremacy in a worldw that doesnât exists anymore.
If you have examples of how treasures are making anything worse then please write, Iâll be happy to read about it. Otherwise, it might be best to save our time and not reply to what I wrote here.
If you donât, then try to think for a second. You donât like treasures and think they should stay in III, I may not like relics and wish they stayed in II. You canât connect the dots, even to what you are saying yourself?
deficient implementation
what?!! No it doesnât and what does that have to do with anything in this context?
You have numerous points about a subject in a couple of lengthy posts, but youâre choosing to reply to the least important tiny things cut from it.
Sorry but thatâs just a waste of my time, and certainly not a good opportunity for a real discussion.
I donât see how that follows. II has a technologically deficient implementation, III doesnât.
please no. this feature should stay in aoe 3, also the card system.
Treasures would make exploring more exciting as well as the dark age. I think this wad very good in AOE3.
It is because of this type of orthodox thinking that there is almost nothing really new in the game.
Different, but very little innovative.
AOE-3 in addition to the treasures also has key points to control, such as the trading posts of the natives and the trade route. In case there are treasures in AOE-4 I donât think itâs too overwhelming.
Also, treasures are a very early game mechanic and itâs very similar to killing boars for AOE-2 food. In fact I think it is a âreplacementâ of that mechanic.
In fact I think it widens the immersion. In addition, the treasures are a reference to piracy and outlaws, and that has existed, I think, forever and not only in the colonial era.
The idea of a sequel is to harvest the best of its predecessors and learn from the mistakes, but of course, most say that âAOE-3 has nothing good to offerâ.
@JjForcebreaker Many people assume that AOE is just AOE-2, so any new mechanics donât belong in the AOE world.
AOE-4 could include mechanics that are not even in AOE-3:
Construction of bridges.
Livestock (AOE-3 only touches this aspect a little).
Mills that work with water and are built on the banks of a river.
etc.
âŠAnd everything that AOE-3 added to the franchise, but unfortunately was discarded:
Local populations with whom you can ally.
Treasures (already mentioned).
Mercenaries and outlaws.
Buildings with configurable abilities or bonuses.
Alliances with foreign powers as the consulate of Asian civilizations.
Manned fishing boats and operated artillery.
A long etcâŠ
Without mentioning the mechanics of the metropolis that many interpret as âfree unitsâ. In fact this seems to me to be an extension of the AOE-2 âsuppliesâ upgrade that makes troops cheaper. This mechanic is more complex than meets the eye, and beyond granting âfree unitsâ, it often unlocks abilities, mechanics, and units that you otherwise wouldnât be able to.
These kinds of things are what I expected, but I donât know why many donât allow the saga to dare to innovate much further.