Yes, that is a very serious issue. Not being able to recognize what kind of unit it is, really hurts gameplay.
Then we have a problem, because Hero Units with abilities are already confirmed. The Mongol Unit is a Khan which sends a falcon to spy. However, I disagree with abilities being against the point of historical battles. If military history and strategy depended on something, was on people who carried out different tasks.
It’s not just financial prosperity. The lastest posts here revolved around sales, but my point is always about the quality of the game. But hey, if you like assymetrical balance, we could play Age of Mythology. I do like that kind of RTS.
You have to remember the time it was released as well. Those cards weren’t fully unlocked for everyone when they first released the game. You had to grind to get them. I think the fact it was so different from the AOE2 hurt it as well, but not nearly as much as Card system. By putting new players at a disadvantage from the start in an already intimidating genre was a bad idea.
AoE2 has simply more depth and variety by landscape and tactics than AoE3.
-you have more unit roles
lets simply count, in Aoe3 that’s just 7 types, by AoE2 that are14 types
Sure they did intend more faction variety, but it does have an impact on unit variety, as it gets reduced.
Unit variety and roles is more important, as they do definite gameplay depth and variety.
Let’s simply pick up the eagle Warrior, in AoE3 he is just a light cavalry unit that is countered by Anti light cavalry. In AoE2 he is some kind of own unit type, that requires own counter measurements.
just count AoE2 Roles
1 Anti Heavy Cavalry
2 Anti Light Cavalry
3 Anti Camel
4 Anti fortification
5 Anti Archer
6 Anti Elephant
7 Anti Siege
8 Anti Skirmisher
9 Anti Spear
10 Anti Cav-Archers
11 Anti Swordsman
12 Anti-Eagle
13 Anti monk
14 Anti Gunpowder
-base build does have much larger role in the gameplay
-map design has much more impact on the gameplay
AoE2 design for base build and maps, does make quite a deep, complex and organic combination.
The shape and locations of resources and obstacles changes each time the game does start and you have to uncover the map first to know where they are located. With base build you do shape the battlefield and have variety to win passive by world wonder.
In direct comparison any other modern RTS is just a simple football fields, where you spam same stuff to same location. That’s why I think they should first get the basics right. Simply export badly balanced Knights and Swordsman to Starcraft 2/DOTA maps, will be seen as just another lacklustre and out of touché project.
A lot of people here are too afraid of asymmetric balance.
AoE4 is a historic game. They already announced that the Mongols will be the most unique (least AoE2 like) faction. What it seems right now is that the Mongols maybe only have 3 ages (they said that not all factions will have 4 ages) and might be able to move their buildings.
You could already see in some of the official material that workers drop of resources at a building that looks like a Yurt so it’s likely that the house also functions as drop of building. They will likely have a simple base building.
While the British have a lot of different buildings (some might be campaign only) for each purpose. Like more than one Curch style building and towers that are build on top of a wall and towers that aren’t.
Looking at the unit types the most crazy thing that we’ll get is an Elephant.
One of the problems I have with AoE3 is that sword and spear (pike) infantry is basically the same in all cases. They are both good against cavalry. But seeing that the English have crossbows and longbows and also pikes and axeman hints that they won’t fulfil the same roles.
For example crossbows have low rate of fire but are better against armoured target or better when shooting from walls/cover or are good against cavalry like the Genoese Crossbowman in AoE2. While longbows have a high rate of fire that melts lightly armoured infantry.
Same for pikes and axeman. Pikes counter cavalry and axeman counter infantry like in AoM (Egyptians)
No pikes on the Mongols side either means that another unit takes the same role like cavalry archers countering melee calvary like in AoE3 or AoM (with the Chinese) or they just didn’t have the model done in time.
The made it sound like the British are the most “boring” faction while the Mongols are the most “interesting”.
Kinda like the Greeks in AoM that seem to be the template with their 3 main units and 3 counter unit variants, while the other nations have their unique differences.
I assume the British will have most if not all of the basic unit types while the Mongols have slightly different units that might fulfil different roles. The same with buildings.
Some of the AoE3 units don’t follow the rules and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Rifle Riders (Lakota) have an attack bonus against heavy infantry as addition to heavy cavalry but they both count as heavy and light cavalry making them weak to other light as well as light infantry. Abus Guns are a mix of light infantry and artillery dealing Siege damage instead of ranged damage. Making them good against light infantry with high range resistance. Lancer have a high bonus against infantry making them actually usable against ranged heavy infantry equalling out their bonus against cavalry while being worse against artillery. Eagle Knight is an infantry unit and weak against anti infantry units like artillery unlike light cavalry that is good against artillery.
As a “Shock Infantry” they are countered by units that counter heavy cavalry too like light cavalry. They share the traits of 3 different units. Jaguar Knight isn’t only strong against cavalry but is even better against other heavy infantry. Samurai have a bonus against light infantry. Especially with their AoE damage and their hight speed they can easily kill light infantry when they reach it.
I agree for the most part that AoE3 could need a bit more variety but the variety in AoE2 is kinda fake because some unit types are technically available for some civs but so weak that they are completely useless like who trains none elite skirmishers, pikeman, long swordsman or simple bowman in Imperial age?
While some units are only available for some civs anyway like camels or Eagle Warrior.
Plus a lot of the unit types you listed are the same unit:
Pikes are anti heavy cavalry, anti light cavalry, anti camel, anti elephant, anti cavalry archers and they can also do anti siege.
Practically also anti monk because they are cheap and monks are expensive.
Both systems have their weaknesses and AoE4 will not be perfect but I think they can make it better and I’m optimistic they will.
Guys, what are we talking here? AoE4 won’t be fully asymmetrical like Starcraft because it is a historic game based on reality, it is not a sci-fi game where you can go wild with different made up races. AoE4 is only going to have 1 race: humans. Everybody will need food, wood, everybody will have units like spearmen, eveybody will walk on the terrain and submit to the laws of physics etc. It won’t be fully asymmetrical, it’s just not possible.
We’ve already been told that each civilization will be unique and use resources in different ways. I imagine for example that Mongol buildings don’t cost Stone, since they’re only built with wood and animal hide. Their buildings are also designed to be easily moved and reassembled elsewhere, so that could also be a gameplay mechanic.
If you want examples of assymetry look no further than the last two games in the series. In Age of Mythology every civilization handled resource drop off in different ways, Norse used military units to build buildings, the Egyptians lacked archers and stables, the Norse lacked archers and spearmen, and the Atlanteans used macemen as counter-cavalry and javelin-cavalary as counter-archers. The Atlanteans also used a ballista as their basic anti-infantry instead of archers.
Even in Age of Empires 3 you had various differences, the Dutch villager cost coin, the Indian villager cost wood, Indians couldn’t kill livestock, the Japanese could only forage and fish, not hunt or use livestock, Native Americans got farms that doubled as livestock pens, the Asian civs got Consulates, the Chinese got Banner Armies instead of normal unit training. Asian civs got Castles instead of Outposts, and Natives had Warhuts mixing Barracks with Outposts, etc.
