Stop trying to make it AoE2!

I don’t understand why so many people have obsession with aoe4 being what aoe2 is. And they are constantly pushing changes to make is aoe2 remake. This is totally different game and trying to force aoe2 into it will just make it worse.

First of all, WHY DID YOU REMOVE TORCH DAMAGE AGAINST SIEGE??? This makes zero sense in balancing siege. It makes it far worse. A knight charging on wooden ram? wtf? Or swinging sword at wood. Why not make this same for buildings. Knights charging buildings and using sword to cause fie and destroy it. This was the most visually frustrating part of aoe2 that your sword swing works on wood and stone and burn it down. Its a step backward in making game visually pleasing. Also you destroyed the entire siege trying to achieve this stupid change. Siege is pretty much balanced in this patch except for chinese bombard and nested bees. Instead of making minor tweaks you just throw everything out of the window. Making such drastic change means this is now another game not aoe4. You keep releasing new game in name of aoe4. And trying to drag fanbase to new game.

Again changing stone costing to repair keep is another change trying to make aoe4 aoe2. How are you going to make it consistent? BBQ? Red Palace? Stone Wall Gate? Stone walls??? Bigger issue is instant keep drops not what it costs to repair it. Repairing was just buying time ans wasting 12+ villager time just to keep it alive and it still cant stand 3 trebs.


well the torch has a range of one square, to melee 0.3 , so between the attacker and your siege, a radius of one square gives a much larger perimeter than to melee. On the other hand, if I would like the battering ram to have less cost since it is the soul of the ruhs in feudal

I agree they try so hard to please the aoe2 players which most of them already went back to play aoe2 so all of these changes just make the identity of aoe4 less and less visible… this has to stop! Its not the same game and nor should it work the same way!

1 Like


  • Aoe 2 is still suported so why not push for changes there if they like it so much.

  • This game should be different so people can decide between Aoe2 and Aoe4 not Aoe2 and Aoe2 remake.

I agree on this from bottom of my heart. If I wanted to play AOE2, I would play it, but I dont.

What I have heard AOE2 is nothing but boring concept. Every civ is essentially same with minor differences and all the AOE2 whiners who have come over to AOE4 been crying how AOE2 is better has made me dislike AOE2 more than I should.

AOE2 pros came to AOE4 hoping to make big bucks from tournaments and got stomped away back to AOE2 and remaining AOE2 players just been bombarding changes and things that make no sense.

Then I hear how great the balance in AOE4 is and how every civ is balanced and when I check winrates and pickrates its not even hardly balanced at all. If AOE2 is great game then go play it and leave AOE4 to its fans

Same applies to AOE3 players.


I would also prefer to keeping the civs more unique and not trying to move them closer together… even though this might make balancing easier…

why do russia now gets stone walls? why completly bust chinas siege identity with pyrotehcnics rework? please find ways to balance without taking away their uniqueness!!!

1 Like

I agree on the initial thought of keeping AoE2 and AoE4 seperate individual games.

As a person who actually plays both games activly, They have been different enough that I can actually enjoy both games without being burnt out from the other.

There is however a couple of things.
And something I see reflected quite a lot from people echo-chambering from the top gamers, streamers, etc.

While BeastyQQ and Drongo certainly makes a very solid point about IDENTITY OF A CIV.

This does should not shun us away that we also have the IDENTITY OF THE GAME.

This is still AGE of EMPIRES. not Age of Mythology, or Age of Civilization.

Age of Empires still has to live up to its predecessors.

This is both a good and a bad thing.

The good is that it creates a certain expectation a player, such as myself who comes from the AoE2 scene, can expect from a future game.

But it is also a bad thing, as it puts certain limitations on the game for developters.

While certainly there is no written rule that they have follow the limitations given. It does however create a risk.
A risk of breaking expectations that is set by choosing to continue a Franchise.
Which creates a rather big gamble on putting in “new ideas” to the franchise.

One has to also remember that Age of Empires III was Originally not ment to be a Age of Empire game even. and was suppose to be its own franchised title. But Microsoft decided otherwise and forced the Age of Empire title upon it.
Which did cause tons of backlash from the Age of Empires community at the time, because it was nothing like the former AoE series.

So what I mean by this, is that we can not simply ignore the games inheritance.

I agree, this game is different. and should stay different.
But there is no harm in looking back to previous titles to keep certain elements and to retain the elements that makes this a Age of Empires title.

One has to remember that one of the initiall success of this game and why it had such massive sales was simply becouse it kept a lot of elements and at first glance looked very much like AoE2.

We can not ignore, nor should underestimate that fact.

But here is the thing.

It is all a delicate balance. I think people are crying to pre-emptevily about the upcoming changes without even having tried them!

I actually have been looking at their numbers and stats, and in reality, it is as you say. They are Changing the siege into more AOE2 style.

Is this good or bad? We will have to wait and see.

I can tell you from experience from playing a lot of AOE2, that it turns the effectiveness of the siege on its head.

And that is not ment as a negative.

I personally think it is for the better.

It makes siege less effective in low unit-number fights.
But makes them far more effective in High unit-number fights.

By that I mean, There is a limit how many melee units can reach and destroy siege in mass numbers. which you will find more common in late game, Making the siege actually more difficult to kill and bigger number of siege harder to kill when stacked ontop of each other, and ontop of other units.

However in the early games, it makes siege much more vournarable and easier to counter.

So they become stronger against bigger masses in the late game, but weaker against smaller masses in early game.

I think this is where their idea of the changes stem from, and it is a proven concept in AoE2.


AOE2 and AOE4 should stay as different games.
We should not ignore what makes the identity of a CIV.
We should also not forget what makes the identity of a Age of Empires game.
Don’t cry for the changes you haven’t even tried out yet.
Looking back at earlier franchise titles is not all BAD.
Key is that this game has to find the right Balance between Innovasion and Tradition.

1 Like

Problem is that AOE4 lacks options and lot of civ fake identity are main source of balance issues. Developers choose to 3 different victory conditions and their preferred 1v1, but community choose also 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 2v2v2v2 and FFA as option to play the game + playing vs AI in coop, solo or campaign. Most of the changes they did were always only about 1v1 and extremely tight timing gameplay that only players at the top 10% can follow.

Civs needs to be able to achieve all 3 victory conditions equally, able to fight each other equally in all 3 ages and ideally all should be able to execute all strategies equally well, with few strategies being more appropriate due to their unique bonuses. Otherwise there will be always major balance issues.

AOE4 some civs were never really unique or had clear identity, at best you could said they had preferred way to play due to their bonuses and bonus/early units.

If you really look at HRE, French, English they are almost same with each of them just favoring different unit composition, supported by different perk.

Civs that have bonuses and uniqueness that creates their identity and players still respect it:

  • China with Dynasty system, multiple unique units and bonus to all gunpowder units.
  • Abbasid being single civ with non landmark age up (HOW), having option to get all age up options. Camel units with anticavalry focus supporting infantry.
  • Delhi Sultanate with free research and elephant & monk armies could be considered at least somewhat an identity, even if its very weak and fragile, but at least its really trying to be unique with infantry walling etc.

Mongols civ identity was completely destroyed by players. Civ was turned to Tower Rushing aberration that rushes castle to spam armored units against feudal opponent. Effectively ignoring whole “Nomad” design they are supposed to have.

Rus whole identity is I am not same as my West European siblings, so I can be unique. Improved Wooden Walls and Wooden Fortress, so it can’t have superior version Stone Wall and Stone Towers. Bounty system that makes them unable to play on map where getting full hunt bounty locks them from being able to get bonus that other civs can get whole game… Not to mention that they are only civ that is extremely weak on water in later stages of the game due to lack of AGE 3 & AGE 4 ships, because again their unique bonus is be different and worse in long run… And their unique unit other than Warrior Monk are not really worth mentioning as Streltsy unique strength by being strong in melee is irrelevant due to ranged to melee switch was removed from ranged units…

BeastyQT specifically complained about Rus access to Stone Walls, that is not something new. That was part of their original design. They were stripped of it so they could be thrown at players as asymmetric civ…

I want civs to truly have unique identity, but it can’t make civ worse at something just for sake of being different. For game to be healthy & fun it needs to be diverse and hard to predict what is civ going to do. Stripping civs from being able to do something, making it very weak or making somethin extremely powerful is not good solution.

And if we are talking about AOE4 becoming AOE2 then it’s because super vocal minority from the start wants this to be 3D version of AOE2 that is actually 2D… But this doesn’t mean that certain balance changes that look like it’s moving closer to AOE2 are bad…

Everyone crying for French feudal nerf does not realize how French is one of few civs that can play in all ages equally and gets stronger with faster age ups. (one could say they are most balanced civ in that aspect) HRE is slowly becoming overpowered civ that will be banned in tournaments after Delhi gets nerfed to ground as their ECO and castle age timing is slowly becoming shorter and close to impossible to contest…

Ultimately PUP once again proves that game can’t be balanced for eternity by changing numbers. Stone repair cost is healthy for the game as well as weaker siege to armies. It might partially resolve keep on choke stalemates. But it also points out issue with Landmark age up costing only food & gold, even through you are constructing just improved or budget version of normal buildings with Keep landmarks being biggest offenders… But seriously devs need to start making changes and improving design instead of smashing few numbers and calling it a balance patch…

I agree with this. I main mongol myself, and I rarely resort to tower rush, exactly for the reason you said. I think Mongols play so much better in other ways, but at a cost of a more difficult early game.

People either under/overappreciate mangudai’s. Kurultai is immensly strong when used correctly especially in team games. (But you never see this used in ranked games)

Going for Trade is rarely appreciated. People rather go ultra greedy on vills. not realising you can actually achieve more stability from trade-econ if played right. (Dont have 1 trade route, have at least 2).

People cry about wanting more assymetry, yet whenever i go Tradewing for Abbasid in Feudal, my teammates GG and quits. (I’ve made my own abbasid build that allows me to hit Imperial in 11 minutes on some maps by going for feudal trade, alternativly drop imperial and go for a absolute crazy castle death push)

People are so focused at META, they are blind to see other ways.
And then they get outraged when seeing things getting changes as it might break their meta.
or at some cases, without realizing, Forcing symmetry into the game that wasn’t really intended.

Balancing through the change of numbers is a NEVERENDING story.
Infact it is nothing but a form of Maintance if anything. You will always have something that needs rebalancing. Always.
So it is as you say, balancing through the magic of numbers isn’t going to work. More fundemental changes are needed, but this comes at the cost of breaking people’s META and otherwise cookie-cutter builds.

I mean, for me as a strategy game enthusiast. 90% of my enjoyment comes from not Out-skilling the opponent. but Out-witting them by creating strategies of my own.

People meme and rage at me going Feudal Tradewing 1TC for abbasid.
But they quickly shut up once they get donated 5k gold in 14 min mark to have them catch up economy wise.

They think Mangudai is the weakest unit, because on paper, it is so.
But forget it’s one hell of a good Knight-killer with the Shia-bow upgrades.
Not to mention wrecks absolute havoc on ones econ.

Majority of HRE players never use Landknecht, because they dont have chonky armor and HP.
and solely rely on spamming MaA. Not realising the immense deadly effect mixing in Landsknecht among their MaA, and how they wreck havoc against the enemie MaA hard counter units, the crossbows.

Abbasid Imams are heavily underused. It is a singular unit that can turn the tide of battle against Dheli with their Conversion ability.

People so obsessed spamming french knights, they forget French Crossbowmen are far superior. and actually hardcounters ranged units!

People laugh at my friend who always plays Rus favoring a foreward Kreml.
What they dont realise is that this foreward Kreml is part of a strategy.
When the enemie is busy distracted “harassing” the kreml, they forget their other flanks.
Yes Golden Gate is GOD tier Landmark.

But when it comes to Warfare, you can have all the Wünderwaffe of the world, but it wont secure you victory.
If something “Trash” tier has succeeded in doing what it was suppose to do, then it is God Tier for the overall strategy and timing.

I could go on forever.
But as I mentioned in my post. People tend to Echo the “top” players because they are on the top.
They see the game from a limited set of eyes and perspective.
Rather than the full perspective. And more importantly, the perspective of the developters.

On that thought, on paper, Shouldn’t the Developters be the “Top” players of the game? Afterall, they are the ones who made the game! So they should have the most knowledge about the game and its mechanics.

yet rarely do you see a Developter also being a top competative player.

but that kinda compares it towards the same thing as why isnt the Car Mechanic the Race Driver.

I think in the end, what is important is that especially for the Developters.
They need to see it from all these perspectives.

The perspective of themselves, as the developters and their initial ideas and concepts of the game.
The perspective of competative players, pushing the limits of their game design and what is possible to do in the games that is being made.
The perspective of casual players, who wants to enjoy the game and be able to have a good experience.

One has to thread a delicate balance between these points. And a lot of people fail to see this sadly.

1 Like

BS. So much BS.

Developers have time after time and time and time shown they mainly listen low elo players especially players that are playing TG’s and this is the problem. Game will NEVER be balanced around 4 different modes or more. They need to make clear choice between modes and put their main focus on balancing around it while on side figure out if they can change something to make other mods better.

Firelancers were nerffed to ground becaus of TG’s and low elo players.
Scout rush was nerffed because no fun to get rushed by 50 from each player
Majority of siege complaints come from TG players because they end up seeing this situation 1 player from team goes full siege and rest fill the roles which is how TG should work, but they want that each player makes their individual comp and team comp is irrelevant but its vice versa and that way it should be.

  • This is not necesarily a bad thing but… People complain about lack of diversity all the time in this forum.

  • So even if you play a different civ it will feel the same.

  • And instead of trying to stop a civ from ariving to its strong points the race will be who arives to age 3 or 4 faster.

I played Chess when i was young and now i play Go. Games that have 4000+ years of practicaly no change in gameplay.

  • In those tipes of games in the begining they feel the same and only as you rank up you realise how complex they are.

So i’m not necesarily against this tipe of direction. As you said easier to ballance.

  • But being a History game civs need to be different to have diverse identities and win condition.

  • Harder to ballance but… more diverse.

I think its a good thing they listen to lower ELOs, because for lower ELO players, the point of playing is fun. And they are the majority who will play and bring their friends over to play. If it’s not fun for them, the game suffers.

A small percentage play competitive. For them fun is different.

You keep complaining that they listen to lower ELO, but it is what it is.


I fervently disagree that everyone should do everything.

There a plenty of examples of competitive games, including RTS, that offer asymmetry and have good balancing as well.


None of these have “everyone does everything” mentalities and are played by a TON of people and have good competitive scenes.

Some issues with asymmetry do arise because of the shared
Common units native to AoE as a whole, but this is 100% workable with enough effort, thoughtful input, and data.

There is difference between asking rework because unit is not fun to play with or fun to play against and asking balance changes.

Balance is something that low elo players do not have to concern themselves with.

If ppl were asking “hey could we rework FL because its not fun to play against because they just snipe landmarks” Then relic might have made decision to change victory conditions for TG’s before nerffing FL.

But because ppl are complaining constantly how something is OP it gets nerffed and this is completely wrong way to handle things.

I do agree that ppl should have fun when playing no matter what elo they’re at but lower elo players need to understand that the balance is not something that affects out come of game for them its something that starts mattering only at higher levels when even minimal things can turn the tied of game.

I even personally was rising my voices over about FL long before they got nerffed to ground that they should do rework instead of looking to nerf it. Was I heard? No I wasn’t, because I was basically very alone trying to make point and devs only heard “OP OP OP OP OP OP”

There’s players that have very valid points when making suggestions for changes. However often enough people just moan about everything that makes them lose the game, and thats just wrong. We have had plenty of threads about x or y being OP while the stats clearly have shown otherwise. Lots of people do not bother looking at the stats first and even when told they refuse to accept it as an argument. So there’s just a troublesome amount of people that want to complain. They will always complain like spoiled kids until they get what they want. And after they have got what they wanted they will complain about something else. At some point people just need to get over certain things.

1 Like

I have to agree on this. I had a game against 700 elo players and im rn 1700 elo. Fun eh? Anyhow mongol was doing horsemen push to my barbican trying to burn it down while I went to castle and lancers when I killed all his horsemen he started screaming how broken OP china is with lancers 230hp and glad china gets nerffed.

When I told him I was castle age and he had access to same units in castle age I was met with more screams how china is broken

1 Like

poor guy forgot he had spearmen eh?

And this is why a multyplayer game is hard to ballance.

And because they represent the bulk of the players it’s hard or unwise to ignore them.

  • Low level players complain all the time about units or strategies that are not fun to play against.
    But when you nerf something something else becomes op or not fun to play against .

  • And the circle goes o an on while at the same time reducing the complexity of the game.

This happens because of the Rock Paper Scissors mechanic.

  • Where A counters B, B counters C , and C counters A.

  • If you nerf for example the op or not fun to play against (B). (A) becomes obsolete and (C) becomes op.

  • And if you try to ballance all 3 nothing changes and (B) remains not fun to play against.

Problem is that you can’t compare apples to peas.

  • SC has only 3 civs and one win condition kill the other guy
  • DOTA/LOL utilizes ban system to prevent most overpowered heroes to dominate all the time and enable less powerful heroes to shine with forced diversification. Otherwise certain heroes would never be picked as they are hardly viable. Dota is most balanced from all MOBA and still has heroes on top tournaments with barely any pick or not even picked. LOL from what I heard has this problem much bigger… In the end again they have single win condition kill the throne…
  • TFT/Autochess or any CCG always have almost always extremely dominant meta composition or deck…

In this case we talk about RTS that is trying to have multiple win conditions and asymmetric/unique civs. Problem is that if one civ can do for example Wonder Victory and other can’t, then long stalemate automatically tips the favor to one that can. Which leads to more problems and doesn’t solve anything.

If we want many different civs, then all of them just have to get normalized in way that all of them can do non-super-specific strategies on at least average level. In this case it means ability to achieve all Victory Conditions and all common playstyles be it aggressive, defensive, economic etc… focus on certain age or prolonging certain age etc…

This doesn’t mean that civs can’t have unique bonuses or be unique, there is always a way how to make them unique without sacrificing viability and making one thing overpowered… Civs can have strong strategies and average strategies. They should just never have weak to impossible strategies. They can still keep strategies that are below average at start, but then they should have an option to choose between making that strategy above average (choosing one landmark instead of other)

Asymmetric civs are great, but their design & balance needs to respect game design and game balance. Whenever civ disrespects game design it creates problem:

  • early sacred sites, rus bounty, unstoppable chinese gunpowder deathball, rus streltzy siege deathball, early armored units (mainly knights), unstoppable tower rushes due to various reasons, absurd zone control of keeps without any weakness…

Yes some of them are number issues resolvable by data, but some of these are not number issues. They are design issues, where civs try to be asymmetric so much that they disrespect game design (Early Sacred Sites with insane gold bonus) or straight up force all future game design to respect them (Rus Bounty scaling based on hunt available on map in both positive and negative way). Or most recently HRE that slowly creeps into a category castle immediately once it finishes feudal landmark…

Try to play Mountain pass 4x4 you WOULD KNOW.

and finally.
is not it more frustrating for you to destroy mangonels with torches? NOT REALISTIC
buildings - OK
trebuchets or STEEL BOMBARD? No way you can burn it.

For all beastyQT fans
cause it dumb, to repair stone building with wood.
about landmarks: Landmark is cost nothing, food and wood - you spend on advancing into the next age. Building - just a bonus.
Or we should listen to him, cause he clicking faster, than others?

Nice to have auditory to translate his oppinion and to comments, why it should be stone he argues:
bbq has stone model, so we should repair it with stone.
you spend resource → you repair it with the same resource.
castles + upgraded towers should be repaired with stone.

1 Like