I hope concentrating more on many innovations and many more inventions of cultures and heritages gives hope for all.
Making all history only for campaigns is not enough. I hope the history must reflect in the maps we play in the ranked games too. More than always getting lead in economy is like gold digging.
1 Like
Okay⊠Iâll make the effort to try and understand: are you suggesting that some civs donât gather gold, and instead have some other ability that replaces that resource?
I think he has a problem with gold mining being the only source of income for money in the game (?) at least in single player.
1 Like
From what I could understand he wants historically accurate or historical maps for MP games too.
4 Likes
That came in the second post; I think his demands are twofold.
From my point of view every resource is a money I mean as no money exists except with a value of paper, the real money is gold. So we naturally use the real word money as gold.
And we usually use the word gold diggers for who focus not serving as philanthropist but just earn money. And this game is simply moving circles collecting resources then go to fighting, there is no real spirit of fighting. We are becoming the pig-rats to dominate the game eternally.
If we get the historical maps and the way we see the campaigns as legends, this circles of vexing gold digging stops and en-lights the game with more tactics and real learning of war and its purpose. Whoever are rich can easily focus on strategies of eco in this game easily, the poor fights so long to understand even the game that the game is more about fight and its techniques.
Because it is too late to bring the army forces until the economy is formed, game goes into the hands of economy. Empire is not at all all about wealth it is about serving men and tactics of war. I want to see at least the change of the mindset of mine before I die about the way people treats this game.
I conclude the game with objectives and more bases. I wonât say beginning with nothing is bad but as of nomad map says the wild is good, I want all the maps to be more wilder. Give different empire areas if historical map have good heritage. And if nomad map give it nomadic areas with less developed buildings like ways formed by nature and more wild outcomes. But make a way make maps with more tougher objectives , we can make palisade or stone walls depending on richer heritage maps. But starting with economy as focus is not interesting for serving men, this shows men are slaves.
I know youâre not a native English Speaker but⊠what do you mean everything is a money? Dont add needless complexity for complexity sake
1 Like
Money is gold, I hope it is simple enough. I hope you are not living in the historical age still. And it is complex for me to understand the point why are you asking the basic point âwhat is money?â.
I didnât have an issue with the extra preposition in âeverything is moneyâ. But I did have issues understanding everything else. You should really write the topic in your native language, then run it through Google Translate; it will yield a better translation that what youâre trying to do.
I converted the script from english to my language after I have written, it was the exact meaning. Sorry if I am not at all clear, but I am clear to myself
OP, go try deathmatch, I think its what youâre looking for. It starts you with a pile of resources so you donât have to harvest any and focuses mostly on combat.
OP is saying is that they donât like the game because its won and lost on economic power, which they view as immoral, rather than on strong tactics, which they view as good and righteous.
That is a common misnomer about Death Match play, typically you want to fire up an economy behind your start. It is true that the game can end before this becomes consequential, and that sometimes Death Match games end in brutal civilization wins. Military production has an obvious starting priority.
1 Like
If you give economy OP(Over Powered) the OP (Original Post) stands again right the player shows no interest in tactics or the power of civilizations and its history nor the real campaigning for serving their vills.
I am not asking to deceit players, but give them mercy please.
Are you trying to suggest that the game should focus less in battles and resource collection? Have you tried simcity? I mean it. I spent hundres of hours playing simcity in my youth
I think there are two sentences in your quoting, and I did not mean ever to avoid battles in an empire game, but yes this must not be a sim city game please reduce the focus on resource collection. Please check my quotes clearly once again.
Iâm having a laugh reading this. Every time anyone attempts to understand what OP means, he replies making things even more confusing.
OP, it seems like youâre trying to use a sophisticated language that makes it hard to understand. Try to write it with simple words in your native language and run it through Google Translate. Iâm sure your english is not that bad, itâs just that youâre using a very specific wording that makes some sentences lack any sense.
3 Likes
Okay, I meant for all basic readers only Original Poster. The rest of the players also use it for over powered and original post, so I ask an excuse for this.
Sorry, I will reply for all the upcoming replies for me after 5 days. I am taking a break.
I think from what I can understand, OP wants a completely different game really.
OP - the game has its own gameplay thatâs designed around collecting arbitrary resources that you spend on armies, that will fight for you. Game ends when you meet a victory condition, most often by conquest (where you destroy every enemy building and unit).
Some campaigns offer an alternate path to victory, but the game is still designed around those resources in mind, so while parts of it are historically inspired, the gameplay ends up being universal through Singleplayer and Multiplayer.
You wanting every map to be âwilderâ like a more extreme Nomad, with remains of buildings here and there sounds more like you want to play a game of Civilization of some sorts. Which could be a cool game idea: fusion of a 4x game like Civilization and Age of Empires. But the changes youâre looking for in AoE2 means a complete rework of the game thatâs simply not feasible. At best, you can have one-two maps (or community-made maps/scenarios) that emulate what youâre looking for, for example Aftermath (the map) has you fighting over the ruins of some past combat, but youâre still locked into the standard AoE2 gameplay where the goal is to build up your base, collect resources found on the map, and destroy the enemy.
You can also view AoE2âs resources as some form of abstraction of real-life resources, food is an aggregate of all food sources in real life, wood would be all forms of like, lumber I guess (or weaker construction materials) and stone would be all forms of stronger construction materials (so, not just stone), and gold is all forms of stuff youâd use in trading and purchasing/payments. Itâs not simply just âgold diggingâ, you can obtain gold from all sources and the primary way of obtaining more gold being through mining gold is just an abstraction of wealth accumulation.
Similarly the fights that took place historically werenât made between five archers that raid your woodline, or 20 crossbowmen from somewhere in Britain fighting 10 heavy cavalry from somewhere in France. The fights you take in game are an abstraction of a would-be real life battle between larger armies, and âraiding enemyâs economyâ in game can be seen as such an abstraction from real life strategies that took place to starve enemy from resources of some kind. Torching forests, fields, slaughtering cattle, etc.