I believe Aoe4 does that. TBH, I personally not prefer this. It will just make game file size bigger. Instead the UI of unit info box can be expanded further. The box is pretty big and still more than 50% empty.
Not sure I should reply to this as weâre now going off-topic, but here goesâŠ
Maybe not joking, but I think youâre at least being either deliberately contrarian or even disingenuous here. You clearly donât dislike these things to any significant degree, or you wouldnât play AoE2.
Thatâs not ironic. I was talking about AoE2 specifically. Also some of them are: every AoE game has aging up (although the exact mechanics differ) and has civilisations with different tech trees.
There is no AoE game in which every civ has identical tech trees. Now youâre definitely being disingenuous â youâre misinterpretting what I said to try to justify your claim that âthose are all things I dislikeâ.
Yes, this would be a bad thing. Firstly because thereâs value in different games in the series being different, and secondly because thereâs no way to decide which of those traits are the âbestâ.
As in, you think every civ below the âunique enoughâ tier should have more unique stuff added?
Iâm not sure how serious youâre being, but I think this is a good description of what the tierlist is measuring. It doesnât really measure uniqueness, because uniqueness of a civ is about how it compares to other civs.
As an example to explain what I mean, I think Portuguese and Italians are not very unique, because theyâre very similar to each other â whereas I think Goths are very unique, because thereâs no other civ like them. But if you just count up unique units and buildings, then Portuguese and Italians both look âmore uniqueâ than Goths.
1 Like
I strongly disagree at the idea that stuff like eco bonuses are something âonly pros realize how it makes the civ diferentâ. Im quite bad at the game and I try to use every bonus to the max because thats what the game is about
I really really like the landmark age up of AoE4, and the base units being variable in AoE3 I think its quite interesting and flavourful. I dont think it means that AoE2 should change to be more like them tho. If you think those games are just better, why arent you happy playing in AoE4 who has the same time period and all the things you like?
1 Like
Second UUs are kinda of a conversation about how generic AoE2 civs have to be and how unique they should be.
I was obviously going a bit beyond just âhave a tech tree at allâ. Because unless literally everything is instantly available there is a techtree.
I canât think of any RTS that doesnât have some kind of techtree.
And when you are more generous with âage upâ then most other RTS also have that. There is often some bigger technology or building upgrade that unlock some new technologies. Tier 1/2/3 units are pretty common in many RTS.
I just thought it was funny that you picked 3 things that I think arenât that good in AoE3.
AoE4 kinda feels like they took all the âbestâ things about AoE/AoM and put it in one game but somehow missed something less obvious.
More or less, yes.
Depends on the bonus. I think 50+% of players will notice any difference between playing with the Roman +5% on everything bonus compared to playing without.
As long as you are not trying to learn build orders you will likely not notice many of the smaller civ bonuses.
The majority of players does not play ranked. They play campaign, skirmish and coop vs AI.
Especially in campaigns where you start in later ages with a bunch of buildings and units itâs even less noticeable.
I agree with that.
Landmars are a nice addition but I can easily live without them.
Because AoE2 also has things I like that the other games donât.
A lot of things are also not easily be summed down to certain features. Often itâs more of an abstract game feel kinda thing.
I donât enjoy playing AoE4 much but I canât really tell you why. It just feels kinda wrong. There are a few smaller things that I could point out like the Editor being bad, but Iâm really not sure.
You didnât say you dislike there being a tech tree at all, you said that you dislike different civs having different tech trees. Hereâs where you said it:
You then directly contradicted yourself by saying
You also falsely claimed that some AoE games donât have aging up, and that some donât have different tech trees for different civs:
Can you see why it would feel like youâre just disagreeing with everything for the sake of it? It makes it difficult to take anything that you say seriously.
I think it depends on the eco bonus and the player. When I was a teenager, the way I played the game (usually multiplayer against my brother), it was only really late game stuff that was relevant, so a lot of eco bonuses made no difference.
Based on the Low Elo Legends videos Iâve watched, though, I think even a lot of âcasualâ players (or whatever you want to call them) play in a way that makes most eco bonuses relevant.
By the tier list most bland are still britons slavs and japanese so to spice them up.
Britons second upgrade to ca line
Japanese hc upgrade
Slavs second scorpion line upgrade?
About the tech tree, I understood that @Skadidesu was talking about âholes in the tech treeâ.
For example, in AoE4, every civ has the spear-line, or a unit line that replaces it.
What distinguishes the civilizations is the unique technologies for that unit line, or the absence of them, and they are always upgradable to the last age.
In contrast, in AoE2 the Turks have the spear line, but cannot upgrade it to pikeman or something that could replace it.
Itâs not really a serious discussion for me. I just think itâs interesting to talk about how different people see the games in the series.
Really depends on the bonus.
If you donât plan to attack before the Imperial Age (which is a very common thing people do in PvE) then you will likely not really notice a bonus on faster berries, sheep or hunting.
Iâd rather give Japanese a unique cavalry archer.
Maybe one that works like Ratha that can switch into melee.
I think Slavs will eventually get split. They already got partially split by adding the Poles and Bohemians.
They talked about that later, but in the part I quoted, they claimed that they dislike that different civs have different tech trees.
Theyâve just taken to disagreeing with everything I say. Theyâve done it in another thread now as well.
So you admit youâre basically trolling me. Good. Iâll know not to engage with you in future.
Iâm not trolling.
Itâs just that minor flaws about AoE2 are not a serious thing for me.
Itâs not game braking or anything like that.
Iâm perfectly serious with that statement. But I understood uniqueness indeed as how far a civ deviates from a âdefaultâ civ, similar to skadidesu. The only difference is that I view this âuniquenessâ (beyond a certain base level) as something highly undesirable.
Reasoning: I always understood AoE2 as an abstract strategy game like chess; even the original intro video to the game heavily alludes to that. Rules are fairly simple, yet the resulting gameplay is very complex. Easy to learn, hard to master. Thatâs beautiful. I think original AoK did a very good tradeoff by differentiating civs by a few boni, tech tree holes, and one unique unit.
Regrettably the game has (already starting with Conquerors expansion, but especially in the time since DE release), lost this simplicity.
eco bonuses are primarily time bonuses
If they are used properly you are able to do certain things earlier or more. and most cacuel players are not able to take advantage of this time benefit.
So for me, most eco bonuses are not something that makes a civ unique. The only exceptions are bonuses like Khmer Fields, Pole Mills, Tatar extra Shepps or Bengal extra Villiger. those are the ones that really feel unique and are visible represented.
Most of the other bonuses that are just stat boosters are not what make civ unique, unless they allow combinations of unit or strategies, which are otherwise not possible under normal circumstances
For me, most bonuses or techs are only unique if they also have such effects as new game mechanics, buildings, unitsmechanics (areas of operation). that are also visuall visible.
I usually like the newer Civs much better than the old ones.
And for me personally, I believe that pure skins without added value (gameplay / stats) do not contribute to uniqueness.
1 Like
Wont that make that unit line op?I dont think we will get another switch cavalry unit as its basically a ratha in AR.
You have a point. It would not be as cool if the units with the unique graphics was not truly unique.
Still, we could have units differing only graphically, by architecture set, if it is following gaudioâs style of small but meaningful differences.