Tbh, I feel worried about the future of the game

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

It’s not my favourite game since Three Kingdoms.

1.The core issue is not “more content”, but the erosion of a clear historical framework

1-a. What originally made Age of Empires II meaningful to me was its clear focus on the medieval period (roughly 500–1500 AD), with civilizations and conflicts that could reasonably coexist within the same historical context. Since Three Kingdoms, DLCs have repeatedly broken this time frame without clearly redefining what the game is meant to represent.

1-b. Return of Rome was understandable, but already a stretch. Late Western Rome does not belong to the medieval era, but it still has historical continuity with the Huns and the late classical world.Given its commercial purpose (integrating Age of Empires I: Definitive Edition), I could reluctantly accept this expansion, even though it already stretched the original premise.

1-c. Three Kingdoms marked a clear turning point. The Three Kingdoms period (3rd century AD) is historically and culturally disconnected from medieval Europe.When Wei, Shu, and Wu can appear in random matchmaking against Spain or Portugal, the game no longer feels like a serious historical RTS, but rather a cross-era sandbox without internal coherence. This definately belongs to anachronistic, not the base game.

2.Ongoing technical and design issues

In addition to thematic concerns, there are long-standing practical problems:

  • More and more bugs remain unfixed even after updates;
  • Unit statistics and civilization balance problematic;
  • New content appears to be prioritized over stability, consistency, and competitive integrity

3.Final position

I am not opposed to new content, and I understand commercial realities.However, I believe the development team should clearly answer one fundamental question:

  • Is Age of Empires II still intended to be a medieval history- and story-focused RTS?

If the answer is yes, then future updates should respect historical coherence and restore balance and stability.If the answer is no, then this shift should be communicated transparently to the player base.

8 Likes
2

And just like that, we’re up to three new civilizations stepping into the 16th century—Age of Empires III music plays softly in the distance.

7 Likes
3

I mean, thats been a thing since The Conquerors

And you know what happened to AoE3 despite its banger theme

5 Likes
4

We already did since the Age of Kings with Japanese tbh (From TC’s scenario and V&Vs two scenarios)

5

Concepts like the Middle Ages are regional. Its boundaries are very flexible. The time frame you gave (500-1500) applies to Europe and the world in contact with Europe. I think a civilization existing in South America in 1500 is similar to a civilization existing in Europe or China in 1000. Do you think the primitive tribes living in Papua New Guinea in 2026 are from the modern era?

6

The core issue is that the devs treat this game as a live service game, while AoE2 is probably the worst game to ever be turned into that.

Going by latest release times and DLC breaks, they will have to make up fictional civs in a few years.

Personally I think they should do Operation Health, fix all bugs, make the lobby browser good, finalize civ/unit balance, make the game extremely moddable and then just…

Stop, 53 civs is enough, more than enough even. Talk with the community what they need and want, provide that and eventually, stop development because the game is just done, finished.

It survived 13 years without a dev team, looking at the state of HD on release and beyond, probably more like 19 - and it will continue to survive. The 3 Kingdom DLC just showed they are out of ideas and getting desperate. Civ bonuses start overlapping (Jurchen and Mongol CA, Viking bonus and Armenian Imp Tech, Incas Civ Bonus and Gurjaras Castle Tech).

And each UU needs to have a gimmick now.

But thats just my opinion

10 Likes
8

That will be more Rise of Nations, than Age of Empires concept then :wink: .

1 Like
9

Seconded. Thank you for expressing exactly what I was thinking, right down to the wording.

I also wrote in my Steam review that they should simply let the game “die,” rather than continuing to split civs and fragment them into separate items.

I have no complaints to differentiating civs and introducing additional playstyles, however improvements should have be made as first to the core game itself.

2 Likes
11

I have no complaints about the Japanese, or Chinese, or Malays, or Mongols, or Persians, or Ethiopians, or Maya, or Aztecs, or Koreans of the 1600s, or the Huns of the 300s.

What I meant by “Medieval” in this context was simply a shorthand for the general historical timeframe of approx. 500-1500, doesn’t mean the “European Medieval”.

My concerns begin with the Three Kingdoms content. While I genuinely appreciate the inclusion of the Jurchens and Khitans, I believe that Wei, Shu, and Wu should instead be categorized as anachronistic civs.

In my view, this would be the first step toward a more refined design direction for the game.

2 Likes
12

You mean anachronistic?

13

Right, thanks.

English is not my first language lol

14

You’re welcome, it’s not mine either lmao

15

I agree its really hard to keep track now,but there are still missing areas like north america and south africa.

1 Like
16

the constant additions to the game is making it harder and harder to keep up for regular players. And since there are so many civs by now, I wonder how they are going to balance them all and it really shows because older civs are just powercrept by newer civs. Even Frank and Briton, which were top tier civs back then, got powercrept so hard that they are kinda irrelevant these days. Anyone remember teuton?

3 Likes
17

When I was a kid, I thought AoE3 was going to be graphically the same as AoE2 and was disappointed because I enjoyed AoE2 visually. With AoE3 dead, this will remedy that feeling of disappointment if they continue to add a piece of AoE3 with Aoe2 graphics.

18

I would also add to this that aoe2 is losing its identity on a mechanical level. This is most visible in the combat mechanics:

it used to be that units deal melee/pierce damage, units had armor classes, and there was bonus damage. Additionally there might be some cliff/hill bonus.

This is a simple and elegant system.

Now there is also stat changing auras, temporary stat buffs, status conditions (temporary debuffs, damage over time), charge attacks, armor ignoring units, protoss shields. (there’s a good chance I’m forgetting at least 2 or 3 other new mechanics)

But none of these actually contributed to the game. All they do is clutter a previously elegant system. (i might make a slight exception for charge attacks, as these actually change how some of these units play eg coustilliers. (no not you Romans, go away!))

2 Likes
19

We should conduct a poll on which mechanics are considered AoE-ish or not. Of course, assuming the devs read this forum.

20

I like the idea, i think you meant aoe2-ish though, right? eg activated abilities (sniper shot, broadsides firing) are common in aoe3, but I think most people hate them in aoe2.

yeah, that’s the biggest issue with this forum. the only response we’ve seen from devs in recent months is some dumb comment about “wait and see”, instead of a meaningful contribution

21

Yeah I meant aoe2. I don’t see a problem with some mechanics, as long as they’re restricted to one unit, preferably a UU. So, for example, I wouldn’t see a problem with the charge attack itself if it were limited to the Coustillier.

1 Like
22

I think a new mechanic needs to pass two tests:

  • is it useful? ie does it change how the unit plays (something similar to ludonarrative). eg Hussite wagon’s projectile blocking just doesn’t matter at all. the bleed damage could easily be replaced by bonus damage, etc.
    in contrast coustillier’s charge attack means people will use this unit very differently. The Shwarma rider is somewhere in between, a fast cav unit with very high pierce damage could probably fulfill a similar role (not exactly the same)
  • does it fit aoe2? as much as the Shwarma rider’s mechanic is useful, it’s just so against the core design of aoe2.

of course the same mechanic can be good/decent on one unit (coustillier) but pointless on others (roman charge attacks)

2 Likes