Honestly for me it’s not even a question. I love AoE I, played it since the release and keep coming back from time to time, but it was already very dated mechanically by the time Age of Kings came out.
Mechanics and feel are very important, but it’s impossible to ignore progress, and there’s nothing in AoE I worth keeping instead of using new ideas from II, III, IV or Online.
OFC there’s a lot of design that can/should be adjusted, like the source of unique units, but overall it’s so archaic that using AoE I ruleset will be shot in the foot.
These things should’ve been kept intact in DE of AoE I, but that’s it
@ShodGoose259257 is an alt account of a banned user, originally called @Vinifrss, who pollutes the forums with a ton of super pro-Turkish/Persian spam. They have about 100 banned accounts so far, there’s a thread in the off-topic forum about it by one of the mods. You’ll also notice the spam if you watch the AoE4 forums for a few days. It’s important to try and contain the rot, before it spreads to other parts of the forums, hence that post needs to be deleted.
I don’t think there should be “castles” with the name being used. They will likely be forts or military strongholds.
Another thing: I would really like unique skins for each civilization. Because AeE2 unfortunately uses a default skins for all civilizations, and I don’t want to see that in AoE1 (example a Greek soldier in Babylon, or a Roman knight in Egypt and etc…hope in AoE1 they make regional skins or unique).
The stone age and tool age could even have less diversity of unique skins… but in the bronze age and iron age, it would be good for them to work better on the skins.
I think there should be more neutral options than just yes and no. I would not be against team bonus in the game for instance, but at the same time I wouldn’t be as annoyed if it wasn’t added as if we were not given gates.
Regarding scouts, I think the one at the start should be a foot unit (maybe one that you can’t have replacement for if it’s killed) to represent the fact that we start before the domestication of the horse.
My biggest NO are Castles. They are the core of what makes AoE2 AoE2.
The Castle is a massive defensive building that doesn’t have a counter until one Age later. Therefor Trebuchet should also never be added.
The only thing I could see would be a combined tower and military production building like the Blockhouse or Warhut in AoE3.
Not stronger then a tower and doesn’t have a machine gun of arrows the Castle has.
I didn’t want to bloat the survey with more options.
I could see that.
But scouring being harder is a core element of AoE1. The world is more mysterious and it is more work to explore and conquer it.
It IS an interesting gameplay, but one that shouldn’t be mandatory. It works for AoE2 because it fits in thematically and the game is balanced around it, but I don’t think it should be forced into AoE1.
I feel quite undecided about garrisoning for some reason. I think if you have garrisoning, then it has to include the Town Centre, which has to have an attack – otherwise you end up stalling your economy with no way to damage your opponent, and they win anyway. In turn, that means TCs have to cost stone, which means Slingers probably shouldn’t cost stone, and at that point you’re potentially going to get a domino effect of rebalancing resource costs.
On the other hand, the Stone Age and Tool Age Town Centres don’t look like something you could actually garrison in. I guess they could have new graphics, and they might get those anyway, because herdables really benefit from space under the TC.
I agree with this. My understanding is that it’s already pretty anachronistic how early you get cavalry in AoE1.
Without a starting scout, there’s too much risk of one player being luckier with their scouting than the other (particularly with AoE1 resource distribution).
I’m not sure what this means. If it means meat returned to the Granary, then I don’t really mind. But if it means 2×2 drop off buildings, then no thank you! At least not for Granaries. Likewise, I’d like to keep 3×3 Town Centres.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Triggers can – and in the case of the official AoE2 campaigns, sometimes do – have a detrimental effect on scenario design. They allow for opponents with infinite resources, leading to very grindy gameplay, and also for very gimmicky scenarios – Dos Pilas and Bohemond And The Emperor probably being the worst offenders. The result is that the worst AoE2 scenarios are much worse than the worst AoE1 scenarios. (But also, the best AoE2 scenarios are better than the best AoE1 scenarios – mostly because of triggers – so I do want them really.)
Well you can rename it how fortressess as happens in AoM and AoEO…and about the trebuchet you can rename it how palintonon as happens in AoEO…then you could have 3 siege weapons:balists for short range,catapults for middle range and palintonons (aka renamed trebuchets) for large range…
Well…that’s true…the triggers can change a lot the gameplay of one scenario…to best if works good to worst if works bad…
One more:market resources interchange (and caravans too)…