Please add treasures

Hello Age of Empires fans :slight_smile:

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, there’s 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 it’s 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 :wink:

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.

1 Like

Please don’t, I like AOE3, but AOE3 has a treasure system because it’s based on the background of exploring colonies, and AOE4 doesn’t.

In addition, using scouts to scout enemies and explore the map is already busy enough, even in AOE3, I don’t like hero explorer and treasure system, I think it will destroy the player’s sense of immersion in the game, especially AOE4 is to reproduce the real history designed.

Add AOE3’s 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.

1 Like

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 can’t switch things up? There’s 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, who’s suggesting that? Even more- how does that relate to what you said initially ‘This is a different game.’
You don’t have to like or want it. Hell you don’t even have to say why, but if you do then it would be nice to hear why not and how.


How is that related? Treasures can be picked just by a villager.
You don’t have ‘floating’ 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?
It’s just mechanics. Would you argue for not including relics, because they were in the Age of Kings?

You don’t have to like it and personally it’s not on top of things I’m missing in IV, but I don’t see any obvious reason why it doesn’t fit or what’s 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.

It’s a very small thing that adds an equally small layer of depth to the whole experience. Most of them are ‘lvl.0’ treasures- unguarded small stockpiles of things. Sometimes with just a wolf or badger guarding them. It’s just a minor source of (usually) resource income. Unlike sheep they provide instant gratification.

You’re talking about Age of Empires IV as if it’s some alien concept in a different genre. It’s not. It’s 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 shouldn’t carry things from III, as they do with things from II.

And it’s hard to find new mechanics in III that can’t 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?

I’ve been hunting sheep in that period since 1999 and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want more. These sheep now running after the scout that captured them just doesn’t cut it. Not in the long run, not for someone that isn’t 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 ‘bad’. IV wasn’t and isn’t 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 don’t, and we had to wait 16 years for another big AoE.


If it doesn’t make anything worse, why do you think 3 is so unpopular, despite being technologically fine? I absolutely hate the treasures and cards, they’re the very reason I don’t play 3. I can’t 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.
I’ve been following various AoE forums and people like it.
AoE III is 17yo.
What do you mean by popularity? It didn’t overtake Age of Kings that had huge cult following. You are implying that treasures out of all things made it ‘unpopular’ and thus they are bad?

Sorry but it’s ridiculous.
AoE III Complete sits on 90% positives on Steam.
AoE III DE on 78%, it was hurt by insufficient polish for ‘definitive’ edition and controversies around censorship (things like erasing concept of colonialism etc). 78% is still very good.

Why III didn’t 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.

You’re using these things as justification in a discussion about ‘adding treasures is bad/makes game bad’? Really? :thinking:

You can hate them if that’s what you want to do. That still is not an argument, and certainly not a counterargument to everything I wrote and you’ve chosen to not address - I’ve listed reasons, if you choose to ‘not see’ anything. Well.

Following this logic- so you would support me in attempts to remove relics from AoE IV?
‘I personally hate them. If people want to run around picking some stupid relics, they can stay and play Age of Kings.’

I’ll 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.
I’m not sure who hurt you and made ‘hate’ these things, but I can’t 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.

let’s say we will have camps (same as w3), where player can get tech/unit/food/wood.

I’ve played today in TGs. Shift clicked scout, choose landmark… and went to make tea… i mean… while aging nothing happens. Zeeero.


Biggest hurdle to aoe4’s 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 don’t understand why anyone who likes those things isn’t playing 3 rather than 4 anyway.

I know what popularity means, that was more of a rhetorical question. I explained the reasons why III didn’t overtake II.
You’re 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 don’t like AoE3 and just looking for opportunities to express that?
I’ve written not only an explanation for its performance but also logic and reasons behind said mechanics.
I’m not going to waste too much time going further, so to make this quick.

Do not use words you don’t 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, I’ll 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.

I’ve already written about it, but you don’t give a damn about reading anything and even more important- thinking about what you’re saying, so I won’t repeat myself.
It’s 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. You’ren to able to show how it does make anything worse or doesn’t add variety to exploration, so I guess all that is left is bashing AoE III.

AoE IV is not a 17yo game, it’s a brand new one and it’s tanking, hard. And it wouldn’t be so hard to point to groups that were wrongly picked by Relic for testing and feedback gathering. Mainly veterans of an ancient title (that’s 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 doesn’t exists anymore.

If you have examples of how treasures are making anything worse then please write, I’ll 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 don’t, then try to think for a second. You don’t like treasures and think they should stay in III, I may not like relics and wish they stayed in II. You can’t connect the dots, even to what you are saying yourself?
deficient implementation
what?!! No it doesn’t 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 you’re choosing to reply to the least important tiny things cut from it.
Sorry but that’s just a waste of my time, and certainly not a good opportunity for a real discussion.


I don’t see how that follows. II has a technologically deficient implementation, III doesn’t.

please no. this feature should stay in aoe 3, also the card system.

1 Like

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 don’t think it’s too overwhelming.

Also, treasures are a very early game mechanic and it’s very similar to killing boars for AOE-2 food. In fact I think it is a “replacement” 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 “AOE-3 has nothing good to offer”.

@JjForcebreaker Many people assume that AOE is just AOE-2, so any new mechanics don’t 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.

…And 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 etc…

Without mentioning the mechanics of the metropolis that many interpret as “free units”. In fact this seems to me to be an extension of the AOE-2 ‘supplies’ upgrade that makes troops cheaper. This mechanic is more complex than meets the eye, and beyond granting “free units”, it often unlocks abilities, mechanics, and units that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to.

These kinds of things are what I expected, but I don’t know why many don’t allow the saga to dare to innovate much further.

1 Like