So like in aoe3, you rush to hit the second age as fast as possible, and in aoe2 it’s a bit more of a semi longer dark age where your goal isn’t to be in the second age ASAP, your goal is to hit the second age with enough villagers to afford everything you’ll need
So aoe3 your dark age is super short compared to aoe2, and in aoe3 it’s worth it to idle your town center to age a faster age up, in aoe2 it’s not worth it
Yeah what I mean for example, it depends on what you want to do, for example if you want to fast castle that requires you have enough villagers to support affording to hit castle age, whereas if you go scout rush you want to age as soon as you afford it, and for an archer rush you want to get a few more villagers than with a scout rush because you need to gather gold, and that means another 100 wood you must spend on a mining camp
In aoe3 however, it’s almost unthinkable to age with more than 16 villagers even for a fast age 4
Why do you add then Austrians and Bohemians when you have the Holy Roman Empire, ot Slavs when there is already Rus.
‘Sarracens’ is a generic way in medieval times to say ‘Arabs’ or ‘Muslims’, so it’s also duplicated in the poll.
Also, you dindn’t add any East Asia factions.
I would add to the poll incas, spanish, italians, norse, japanese, maybe coreans (if it helps to sell the game in that country), an hindu indian faction (Delhi Sultanate are muslims).
I don’t care if you are refering to the time for completing games.
But if would like a less boring and more dynamic Dark Ages (it seems that is what we will have).
Yes, a button to remove the formation. It would be useful when I want to flee, and my troops start making formations and going back and forth, and putting themselves at the enemy range. Just go as fast as you can, stop making formations!
More assymetric than aoe3 europeans, but not as assymetric than aoe3 asians and american natives. It seems that the factions that have been confirmed are as assymetric as aoe3 europeans, but at least we have different skins for units and buildings.
No, if we can’t allow troops to advance withouth formation.
Because I wanted to give people the choice, for example people might want hre to be represented by Austria, while some just want the HRE, baisically I let people pick what name they want for the civ same with bohemians, also I did add Ethiopians for east Africa
Guy…where are Spain? U put Aztecs and Incas but not spanish? Italians, portuguese, “celts” irish/scottish, indians not muslims and…of course…koreans for make money
The general opinion is that Spain and Portugal would make more sense as an expansion because until the latest parts of the aoe4 timeframe, they were minor powers, the first expansion I would add from a dev point of view would be Spain, Portugal, Aztec, Inca, call it the new world dlc
I put 4 as the limit of votes to imply for the final 4 civs as there are supposed to be 8 civs and 4 are already confirmed, I also personally think Aztec and Inca don’t belong but lots of people on Reddit disagree so I decided to put them as an option just in case
I think marketing wise, the civs the game wants to include are, byzantine, HRE, French, Japanese, and Vikings, mongols of course but mongols are confirmed already, I think any of these civs would work as the best last 4 civs to add marketing wise
Interesting line of thinking @Abrahamburger2 . I’ve heard the reason the Koreans were included in Age 2 was for marketing. I wonder how much that is factoring into the developer’s decisions. Delhi seems like a weird inclusion from a marketing perspective since relatively few people have heard of them. From a marketing perspecitve it seems like they would have been called “India” instead