The Imperial age needs a rework? (Poll and some ideas)

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
1

The Imperial Age needs a Rework?

Currently the imperial age can be defined as a military and economic increase of 50%, my question is shouldn’t the imperial age represent a more important change for civilizations? for example, adding unique units or important effects for Imperial politicians?

First Idea.

Currently there are civilizations that have a more interesting age advance and represent an important change, such as the USA and Mexico, this is thanks to the system of federal states.

image

Obviously I don’t think that European civilizations need the same system, but I think we can take ideas to improve the versatility of the imperial age a bit, for example, what if the politician The President gave us an effect similar to the New Jersey Seaports card

image
Current Effect: Ships 2,000 coin.
New Effect: Crate shipments are delivered directly to the stockpile and deliver 1200 additional resources.

Second Idea.

Obviously does not have to be the change, it is also acceptable that the imperial age gives us access to units that are representative within this empire, for example.

image image The Spanish Soldado.

image image The English Ranger.

These units could be enabled automatically once in imperial and could receive, for example, some charged ability.

Third Idea.

Let’s assume you don’t like any of the above options, which is perfectly reasonable, perhaps a more appropriate change would be that the imperial age could have its own customizable deck, this way you could exploit cards that wouldn’t normally be useful, for example.
image image image image image image image image image image

You may not like any of my proposals, that’s fine, but the question continues in the air, would you like the developers to rework the imperial age?

  • I liked the first idea.
  • I liked the second idea.
  • I liked the third idea.
  • I didn’t like any idea, but I want a rework for the imperial age.
  • I didn’t like any idea and I think the imperial age is fine.
  • I think that the three ideas should be applied at the same time.

0 voters

Well as always this is just my opinion, if you would like the developers to do a rework to the imperial age, but you don’t like any of my ideas, please comment what changes you would like to see for the imperial age. With that being said, thanks for reading. :smile:

6 Likes
2

I think imperial age is working as intended right now. It mostly just serves as a separate set of upgrades for treaty or as a tie breaker in extremely long games. Making the jump from 4 to 5 as significant in terms of new mechanics as the other age ups wouldn’t be a good change imo because supremacy players would hardly ever get to see these new changes and treaty players would have to deal with the balance problems that would come with adding even more features to the already precarious balance of treaty mode.

4 Likes
3

I just want a rework with European Imperial ages.

Currently that upstart country, USA get automatic weaponary, ironclads and more factories than anyone, then across the pond, we have the British, who was known as the ‘factory of the world’ within AoE3’s timeframe with nothing to show from it. French and British led the way with huge seagoing Ironclad ships, like armoured frigates (not like your little coastal ironclad ships). There was unification of German and Italian states respectively. Lots of modern things happening in Europe in the 19th century though not really reflected that well in AoE3.

I’d love for Imperial Age to mean final aesthetic changes to European units (mid 19th century uniforms) including naval plus being able a couple of Imperial-only units to represent the pinnacle of tech in the 19th century.

Maxim Guns - early machine guns
Floating Battery - ironclad vessels used purely for short artillery. Very slow and essentially a floating fortress
Ironclad Steam Frigates - armoured frigates
Paixhans gun - tech to enable explosive shells
Modernisation - tech to remove all archaic units and improve Imperial infantry.

3 Likes
4

Add two or three unique techs in the capitol maybe. Right now only post-TAD civs have a means of gaining additional unique bonus in the Imperial Age.

5 Likes
6

Interesting. (70% - 30%)

It is interesting that 70% of people agree that the imperial age needs a Rework, I hope that soon the developers end up making some adjustment or change to improve what in my opinion is the most boring age in the game.

31/8/22

image

PS: This question is for the 30% people who like the imperial age as it currently is, why do you like the imperial age?

1 Like
7

The kind of rework being proposed would be grossly overpowered. Age 5 already comes with access to +50% economy techs, +50% attack/hp techs, refreshed access to all unit cards in your deck, as well as a large age-up bonus up front. Adding new bonuses like free resources with every shipment or access to new units would greatly disrupt the balance that’s already there. I understand the idea is to make civs feel more unique, but they already have that with a dozen different things that make them unique. Age 5 is the culmination of these features at maximum strength. I don’t think adding a new layer of uniqueness to each civ at this point is needed.

As for the idea of new decks, we actually have that. We call them revolutions, and I think revolutions need a significant rework. I would like to see more of them be end-game viable as alternatives to Age 5 imperial. Right now, the revolutions are a gamble that often fails, especially if you are behind, and then gimps you the rest of the game. I think they need to give viable alternative strategies to play the game. For example, a Spanish player could be very comfortable with the standard Spanish style and go Imperial OR choose a Mexican style and revolt. Those unique decks should feel like unique and interesting choices that you might prefer on a map-by-map or opponent-by-opponent basis. Mexico showed it could be done. Now, they just need to expand the concept, IMO of course.

1 Like
8

I honestly don’t think the imperial age is balanced, there are civilizations that clearly have a huge advantage if they make it to imperial, for example, it is no secret that civilizations like France and Germany benefit more from the economic advantages of the imperial thanks to settlers.

I believe that the imperial age needs a rework to improve the representation and power of an empire as well as improve the balance of some civilizations, obviously this is just my opinion. :slightly_smiling_face:

I agree that revolutions need to be updated, in fact I proposed some ideas for new cards in another topic, I recommend you to take a look. :slightly_smiling_face:

Although I do not share your point of view on the imperial age, I appreciate that you encouraged to comment on your opinion. :+1:

9

I didn’t say it’s perfectly balanced. =D Balancing RTS games is hard. Really hard. It takes many repetitions to get it right. Games often make balance changes many years after their original release in an effort to get closer to that goal. And there are plenty of balance points to think about too. You might get better villagers but you get fewer of them and they cost more so your start is slower until you get your economy set up. You might get better villagers, but the other civ gets other unique units that give them some particular advantage. Some civs have a really good water boom for water maps. Others don’t. Some civs have great cavalry, others don’t. There are a lot of different ways to approach balance. This isn’t a game like chess where both sides get exactly the same units in the exactly the same configuration every single time. That makes the civs feel unique and interesting to play, and it’s a good thing. I don’t expect every civ to have exactly equal power in Imperial if they get stronger rushes in Act 2 or a great Age 3 FF timing window, etc. Russians and Aztecs get a lot of tools for aggressive Age 2 and 3 play. I’m ok if they have weaker Age 5s. Having those asymmetries doesn’t mean the game is unbalanced or broken.

And some of this depends on card choices as well. I have a rush deck for most of my civs that plays more aggressively in Age 2 and 3. I give up cards that might give me bonuses to my late game economy or unit strength bonuses in order to get resource crates and early unit shipments. I also have decks designed for longer games (like Treaty mode) where you give up those early resource cards in order to have an incredibly strong economy and army in Age 4/5. Age 3 does a good job of giving you options, and recent reworks have filled in some of the gaps to help with balance issues, such as shifting Spain’s power away from dependence on Unction a bit and giving Iroquois/Haud more wood for longer games.

What should be balanced is the choice between the revolution and the Age 5 upgrade. The revolutions cost less, but destroy your economy for a long-time. They give you a big upfront burst of power, but then you have to rebuild your economy. Those are good balance points. The catch is that for most civs you don’t get something to help you 5+ shipments into a revolution. The Imperial player holds off the all-in gamble, but then gets 50% more resources and all his units are 50% stronger and live longer. Spamming forts and cheap, but weak musketeers and comanchero uniques just doesn’t cut it. They need a little more power, some revolutions more than others. If we balance that choice, we might see people use the revolutions more.

Absolutely! That’s what a game forum is for, right? I’m enjoying the discussion

1 Like
10

Europeans are enough powerfull at lategame

11

The revolution destroys your economy in the short and long term, it blocks any imperial improvement, it kills any chance of victory in games that extend too long, I would not say that the revolutions are balanced, I would say that they are precisely to break the balance during a short period of time.

This conversation is for a separate topic.

My proposal is not only for the Europeans, the native civilizations could also have some more interesting imperial upgrades, plus I would like to ask, are the Europeans powerful enough compared to what? What are you comparing them to?

Regardless of the answer, thanks for commenting :slightly_smiling_face:

12

Let us rebuild lost important buildings like wonders and factories (though not that easily, of course).

Let us build gates on the trade route.

Capitol hero buffs should be more significant. (For example the explorer could acquire the ability to receive shipments). I think right now they are very unimpressive.

Buildings and many units may change in appearance from previous ages. For example ships could change appearance with imperial upgrades.

1 Like
13

I think we could have 5 additional cards available. I would personally like imperial cards, but since this will most likely never happen, let us have 5 more cards of any age.

2 Likes
14

Often if playing vs the AI with friends we play with Imperial age turned off.

The downside of this, is if you’re playing a civ like Portugal with a cool revolution or the US with meaningful Imperial differences you lose that. Also Japan can buy Imperial at the consulate even with Imperial disabled (unless they patched it recently).

I like the idea but I’m uncomfortable with changing something which isn’t broken, which effects everybody.

I’d like “Ending Age: Industrial (Revolutions Enabled)” and “Ending Age: Industrial (Revolutions Disabled)” settings though. Some civs have revolution cards anyway in Industrial + Mexico is Mexico. Don’t see why this’d be a big deal.

15

A few civs have imperial cards now, which usually gets “balanced” by bad eco (French revolution) or smaller base deck (US and Mexico). It may be difficult to balance for the “normal” civs if they all get some.

I always think it would be better to make the capitol more interesting. Maybe move some unique techs from the “University” of the NE mod to it.

16

I support the idea of ​​the units but for Spain a rework of the “tercio” would be better than the “Soldados” because the “tercios” have been more representative and had a very imposing appearance unlike other European lancers similar to what ordinary hussars did compared to winged hussars those of poland
and the “Soldados” are from the Mexicans

1 Like
17

Ye, there’s almost no imp strats for a reason. Age 5 does need some more polish to make it appealing but I don’t really feel any of the presented options. I think it might just feel bigger if there were a more thematic sort of change. Consider;

Advancing to the Imperial lets you become the home city.

So you know how the basic idea is that your base that you develop is a colony sort of thing and you get shipments from your heartlands of your empire to succeed? Yea what if age 5 inverted that - the colony is now the centre of the whole empire, we go all in for the new lands. Thats sorta the basic idea for going age 5, if I’m not wrong, and I wanna amplify that theme.

In terms of mechanics the change should be that home city shipments get boosted alot - after all they’re not coming from a different continent, you ARE the capital of the empire now. So that means entering age 5 makes shipments faster to send and more available - Cut down the base time from 1 min to, say, 40 sec and boost the passive exp such that you get a shipment every 3 min (like in age 1). The bonuses could be automatic upon hitting age 5, gated behind new admin related buildings/techs (ie. capitol-esque type of buildings), or whatever makes the most sense from a balance POV.

Overall this change is pretty situational outside of treaty, but its intended to be a thing that lets a player just snowball alot harder for the investment of age 5. The idea’s inspired by how the empires that thrived longest had less to do with big dramatic changes, but more like all the institutions getting their collective sht together and just running like an effecient machine. Thats the feel in theme and play I’d like to capture.

18

I’d also like to see some aesthetic changes in Imperial

  • Steam engines on imperial frigates, monitors and battleships
  • Mid-late 19th unit uniforms
  • Advanced weaponry like breech loading animations (not sure how possible it is) and more modern-looking artillery

I believe carbine cavalry and neftenya have breech loading animations. Not sure if it is possible to make other gunpowder units get this animation after the imperial upgrade.

4 Likes
19

It’s possible. I saw a vanilla mod where someone was showing off breech loading cannons and its not bad at all.

20

As for me it would be possible to add Imperial Age Home City cards. There could be fewer of them, but they could make the final phase of the game more attractive. Imperial Age is more or less the 19th century (post-Napoleonic times) so it could offer a lot of new content. I think you could expand the Deck of Cards to 30 possible Home City cards (for all civs except postcolonial civs like USA and Mexicans). Of course, there would be an option to adjust the limit number of Home City cards in a Deck of Cards in matchmaking (for example: 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35).

2 Likes
21

I definitely agree with you!

  1. I think European civs should at least be able to shipment Ironclad from their Home Cities in Imperial Age. Alternatively, they could have unlocked the ability to train them in the Dock - the same would be true of the Steamer, which was also used by Europeans. The Steamer for post-colonial civs is trainable in Age 3, and the Ironclad is trainable in Age 4 for them - so gaining access to these ships in Age 5 for Europeans wouldn’t be too bad.
  2. 19th century uniforms should apply to at least the Royal Guards for each civ. Units such as Crossbowman and Pikeman should be replaced with more modern units. For example, civs without Musketeer would gain it instead of Pikeman, civs without Skirmisher would gain it instead of Crossbowman, etc.
  3. You could add 1-2 brand new 19th century artillery units to replace the more archaic ones.

I also think Europeans should get their own unique 4th resource - as they are the only ones with only 3. It could be crucial in Imperial Age and would be spent in buildings.

Also, Capitol should get more cool tech and features to make it more useful - because it’s basically boring. It is this building that should contain the most content for which we could spend our fourth resource.

2 Likes