But you don’t have to use them. There’s literally no good reason not to include them. Especially as the grindy infinite res maps tend to be from earlier campaigns, the devs have really mastered the art of campaign making pretty much, by the time the DLCs started rolling around for AoE2.
Age of Empires Online is basically a revamped version of the classic game, and added many Age II mechanics to the Ancient setting. Virtually all of the itens mentioned on the poll, like gates, herdable animals and even fortresses were present.
I think this could be used as a parameter, but not so radically to the point that the port to the Age II engine de-characterize the game, as I’ve mentioned on another thread. Gates, formations and unit stances are great because it corrects some flaws the original game has since its release, but something like fortresses never belonged in the game.
If we are gonna add most Age II mechanics to it, I believe it should be made in a unique, more classic way.
For example, if herdable animals are to be present, the player should be able to capture them only after researching “Domestication”, as people in the past haven’t started to herd animals until the neolithic, if I remember correctly.
If there are to be formations, they should be researched only on the Bronze Age in the Government Center, as was in this period of history that war became more complex, and things like army divisions began to be implemented.
As you see, historical context was always taken in consideration by the devs to choose which techs and when they should become researchable, as this is a fundamental part of the immersion into the game’s period.
Besides the existing context, I don’t think garrison should work for everybody but only to protect villagers in the Town Center, and without the capability to attack enemies nearby, as mechanics like this would make necessary to re balancing everything related to units stats. And Age I Town Centers looks more like central plazas than administrative buildings like in Age II. In another words - it might look visually strange!
I’m not certain about unique units, though. I confess they would be a really awesome addition, but may take the game even further away from it’s roots. Perhaps adding improvements to the Axeman, Slingerman and other units until the Iron Ages, then choosing whose civs would have them wouldn’t be better?
Anyway, I’m really excited with so many possibilities!
1 Like
What does that even mean? If I’m playing an official campaign scenario, I don’t have an option to disable the triggers in it, and if I did, clearly it would just break it.
Yes, mostly The African Kingdoms, I think.
I don’t know, The Hautevilles is pretty recent and the most gimmicky campaign there is. The more recent ones are generally better, but there are still gimmicky scenarios like The Siege of Vilnius, and grindy ones like most of the Rajendra campaign (although that’s as much a problem with the design of Dravidians as anything).
But also, I don’t really think they shouldn’t add triggers!
When designing campaigns, if the triggers won’t improve it, they don’t have to be used.
Yeah, it’s very annoying.
If by gimmicky you mean all the side quests and hero power ups, that’s really enjoyable, it makes the campaign more interesting to play.
I know, I just wanted to counter point your counter point.
1 Like
Better trash units for civs that have no chariots
3 Likes
Oh, I see. I was talking about the design of the official campaigns, though, which obviously are not designed by me.
Here are some examples of what I mean by gimmicky design:
- A battle you have to lose to progress the scenario (Dos Pilas).
- An enemy that could easily defeat you, but attacks and retreats at fixed times and locations. (Bohemond in the East). Particularly bad when combined with arbitrary tech tree restrictions to stop you attacking them (The Siege of Vilnius).
- An enemy army that is effectively invincible, but behaves in a predictable and exploitable way (Bohemond and the Emperor).
- Your main enemy is completely passive, but you must defeat them before an arbitrary timer runs out (Sultan of Hindustan).
- You periodically receive reinforcements from the edge of the map that clog up population space that you want for something else (many examples, e.g. in Jadwiga).
I’m fine with hero experience, although it would be better if the system was properly built into the game like in WarCraft III. I like side quests providing there are not too many and their rewards are actually beneficial (the obvious counterexample being the monk quest in The Dai Viet Uprising).
1 Like
Yeah and of course mechanics of AoE 3 how are the treasures and homecities (named capitals in AoEO)…
Yeah,that’s because they are influenced too much with the campaigns of the newer entries of the saga…
Yeah it feels more modern or at least post-WC3 era RTS…
Don’t rembember that…the last tuesday i played The Siege of Vilnus and oh boy…how i suffer the continuous attacks of the Teutonic Knights and i lost two castles…Luckily the next day I put it back and win the scenario…
Yes, although the hero experience fits better with aoe 3 and aoeo (because of the theme of the level ups of the homecities and capitals and the RPG touches)…
1 Like
That’s fair enough. It still helps tell the story, and it can make for some very enjoyable gameplay in my opinion. Things like the Siege of Vilnius can be very hard, but it makes it feel extremely cool when you do it right.
2 Likes
It a reference to The Rise of Rome,the expansion of AoE 1…the Return in the name it for that…return to AoE 1…
3 Likes
how about the original cd music for age of empires and the midi music?
Persia is already in AOE2, (West) Rome is not, that’s why it couldnt be Return of Persia. And Rome is very famous in pop culture, which helps in marketing the game
They could have chosen a better name for marketing effect.
Something that could impress more than just ROME, even all we know how many romeboos are everywhere. but… I know the devs and World’s Edge can be more creative and appealing
Vinifrss, you seriously under estimate the appeal they have to the world, compared to Rome, which is a fan favorite, and for most people, far more interesting.
Vin, you’re a tiny fraction of a much larger populace. Most others aren’t ban evaders. Your opinion counts for nothing, because people don’t care, and because you’re a ban evader, you forfeit your right to expressing an opinion on the forum.
It’s very common for replies to not link to the original comment. Most of the time I quote the original to circumvent that.
AoE1 did it first. Most units are super Greek-y in both appearance and name.
2 Likes
Yep, they needed to be more unique for some regions. Even if we don’t get a unique unit on the dlc, maybe a regionalization would help
Yeah at least regional villagers and monks…more fauna and flora would be fine too…
1 Like
You mean priests? … … …
I miss female villagers in the first game! It lacks European and East Asian fauna and a more diverse set of Middle Eastern and African fauna, too - bears, boars, deers, wolfs and Eurasian lions for Europe, Tigers and Pandas for Asia, and Giraffes, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamuses, Zebras, Leopards, Camels and others for Middle East and Africa.
Fortunately, most of them already are on Age II!
3 Likes
Yeah,but how this is a dlc of AoE 2 they maybe could be monks…
Yeah,female villagers and of course more unique architecture sets and animals in the maps…
2 Likes