Imagine if AoE3 allowed 500 pop like AoE2.
Some civs would just be broken, and Mercenaries would completely dominate.
1 Like
I agree, as the civs are intended to balance at 200 pop. But I was just saying is that AOE got me hooked through those fun campaigns with big battles. Then when I started playing online, I tended to play treaty a lot more to keep playing with massive armies, coupled with team play. It’s no brainer that a lot of players in AOE3 are 1v1ers and that a lot of AOE3 YouTube content is 1v1-specific. But I can’t seem to agree on some comments that say that AOE was made only for 1v1.
There’s always treaty games being hosted when you go into the custom lobbies
1 Like
To be honest, I would like the ability to go to 500 pop, if not 1000 pop.
200 pop + multi-pop units, makes armies really small.
Then again, the game really does not support it, as you even have House build limits.
2 Likes
If i remember right when the game was released treaty was not included
2 Likes
I started playing AOE3 vanilla really late, in 2012 (even after TAD had been out for 5 years). Yeah there wasn’t a option to play “treaty”, but people still played “treaty” games by hosting a lot of NR60 HM lobbies. Good times. And the game was still pretty stable, just laggy when everyone maxed out pops
nr60 hm nb on great plains has been a thing since 2006. treaty mode has been a thing since atleast asian dynasties meaning 2009. not sure if warchiefs already had it.
this is still not a discussion if treaty is fun or not, its part of the game, i cant use that part of the game because the spaghetti code is ■■■■ and thats all there is to this thread.
1 Like
Yeah I get ya. I was just putting in my 2 cents to say that treaty is an important part of the game and should get some love with stability improvements (in reaction to the posts talking down about treaty lol).
I do feel like some issues that bother me is when I multi-task my explorer to build TPs when 40 starts, he doesn’t end up walking to any TPs to start building anything. Always just standing there where I last saw him, still having those task flags on the TPs. Same thing with villagers when I want to build a lot of FB buildings, but they just stand there idle when there’s obviously buildings to build
3 Likes
that wasnt towards you, i replied to sonofodin…
There are a surprising amount of treaty players in the game. Yes we are a small part of the community but there are hundreds of people on the Discord talking about strategies, tier lists and other things. While the main game mode is very clearly supremacy, the devs have also been balancing for treaty as well. I personally prefer treaty to supremacy as it is a different beast altogether. You can experience the entirety of a civ in treaty as you actually can get to industrial and imperial every time (unlike supremacy).
3 Likes
I read the title I liked the post ! Hands down ! as simple as that !
All mentioned points in OP are right on spot!
This one is super irritating for me ! WHY THE F₹₹₹ this gate building system is changed!? I have the wood ! I need gate ! give me 10000 gates !!!
yea ! even army dont follow the All military gather point button
MY FRIENDS DONT PLAY THE GAME, DUE TO THIS 
SO TRUE!
I would like to add some more issues that are more “SUBJECTIVE”, but ive seen n heard these reasons:
- Takes too much brain n effort, to start enjoying the game !
- Gloomy UI for a new player
- People having bad perception of game due to wrong or un-favourable representation of civs/their civ/related civs
- Dev facus and support more focused on aoe2
- "Oh so less players online on steam "
- Everything is focused and ruled as per TOP players ONLY, the balance/civ/UI changes to create joy among an average player is missing
I really want to understand why there is so much hate on treaty. If you dont like It, dont play it, and it’s ok! For real! Respect those people who enjoy it. At the end, They bought the game to play like they want.
Dont turn a post about problems in the game, about a hate on a mode you dont play, dont like or dont even know how it work properly.
We need all community together, that’s the only way we can have attention from the devs.
I totally agree with the original post about problems.
7 Likes
Too slow to be played as a rush game… so you slow the game down even more by playing treaty and only focus on booming???
Whatever you like is fine but I just dont get that logic. There is a lot to do in a normal non-treaty game and things ramp up pretty dang fast if you know what you are doing. By 6 minutes you could be completely rushed and wiped.
2 Likes
I think everyone would agree that if you have a mode in the game, even an underplayed mode like treaty (meaning fewer players play treaty), it should work and not crash. If you cannot make it work for large numbers of people, then don’t allow large numbers of people to play it. Its worse to play and it crashes frequently than to not have that available at all, and more likely to drive people away from the game entirely. Ideally they would fix it so it doesn’t crash in any mode.
1 Like
100% agree, they don’t have to make it perfect, but at least fix up major bugs and improve game performance
You are absolutly right and i don’t get why people go out of topic and start to talk about “why you play treaty” “the game is made for standard” and other ■■■■■■■■. If there is a game mode it should work like everything else and we paid for it like everyone else, besides treaty is “just” a 40+ minute long game so the problem is about the game not about the gamemode. This game is honeslty a huge mess since the dayone and is ■■■■■■■ patetic. What people seems to not get is that we are not talking about lesser bug or bug with you can still play we are talking about crashes. Crashes that happens so often that makes treaty like Russian roulette. With tha last patch they happened less but with USA patch it is like day one again. Me and my team mates are so tired of this that we are thinking about uninstalling the game, because as you, we mainly bought the game for treaty and we are disgusted by this situation.
3 Likes
I gave up this trash game because of new content.
They were not fixing the existing problems (those have many posts were talking the same issues) but keep adding new stuffs, are just making the game more and more trash.
3 Likes
well if im playing a rush game i want action from the beginning and not after 6 mins or whatever the timings are these days.
since the game is that slow i’d rather slow it down further and concentrate on macro and microing 10 artillery pieces. everybody got different preferences
Sounds like you would prefer a deathmatch with high resources. Although there isnt a ladder for that. There is a ranked ladder as pointed out below. My bad.
1 Like
no, sounds like i’d prefer games like sc2 IF we are talking about a rush game. also there is a DM game mode and ladder.
Saying it gets worse every single patch is a big exaggeration. It just feels bad right now since the latest hotfix brought a big resurgence in units getting stuck.
1 Like