This game needs to be streamlined

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
1

This is going to be a controversial topic and very rambly, but I felt I needed to discuss and vent this.

I have over 1600h on AoE3DE, I love this game, I have frequented this forum for years, wrote guides, pitched civs and ideas, argued over unit naming choices and balance issues… Like everyone else here, I want AoE3DE to be the best game it can possibly be.

A few months ago I finally decided to give it a break and began playing AoE2DE, I wanted to see why after all these years it’s still so beloved by the community. And I get it, it’s classic RTS gameplay at its finest; its simple to get into, but with plenty of depth without ever getting overwhelming. It has dozens of civs, which all follow the same structure, but each has enough unique characteristics to make them distinct without making them alien. All units and buildings have a clear role, mechanics work well with each other. It hits an elegant balance between not too simple and not too complex.

As I returned to AoE3, I hit me how overwhelming it can be sometimes. AoE3DE inherits mechanics from AoE1, AoE2 and AoM as well as its own unique ones. You have a far larger roster of unique and shared units to manage, more technologies, more unique bonuses, more economic buildings, the customizable deck, native allies, mercenaries, outlaws… And inevitably things start to clash with each other. Especially since the DE revival. Revolutions, for instance, went from being a late game power boost that sacrificed your economy to becoming entirely new civilizations with complex effects, unit rosters, shipments that interact in different ways with each different base civilization. Native allies went from granting one or two unique units and a couple of techs to having multiple units, techs, “god powers” and passive effects. We have now unique units which are just slightly different than their generic counterparts or unique units which are reskins of different civilization’s unique units but with a unique bonus on top. 28 Mercenaries, 39 Outlaws, 42 allies(not counting unique African civ allies like Morrocans or the Habesha). It just gets to a point where it is impossible to wrap your head around everything or to try to balance all possible combination of units, mechanics and bonuses available.

A large variety of units and mechanics is not necessarily a bad thing, but the way the devs have been addresing it is. Not only we are barely getting any sort of update in the last couple of years, but the few ones that we do get often dump dozens of new cards and techs or unit reskins to older civs or revolutions in ways that doesn’t seem to be very well thought out of. Throwing balance and coherency out of the window. I wish we could take a couple of steps backs and just smooth some things, take the option overload a few notches down and make every civ more consistent and easier to understand without having to sacrifice this game’s unique mechanics, but it’s probably too late for that now…

…

Rant over.

11 Likes
2

Hit the nail on the head mate. There have certainly been discussions around this and how DE is becoming overly complex. Unfortunately, as you stated, we’re past the point of no return. We’ve got so much overDEsigned stuff it’s just overwhelming.

11 Likes
3

Although they are abundant, they provide variety, but not complexity. I think they are fine.

Royal houses are the best type of minor faction we have right now along with African ones. They do increase the complexity of the game, but in a good way. There are reasons to want to control the map by making the native TP almost as relevant in the early game as a route TP.

We should be able to see the cards, units, buildings, and upgrades/techs of revolutions in the menu.

Revolutions should always be meant to be an all-in with little chance of recovery. For the sake of balance and healthy play they should stop being meta. Many civilizations simply dig in and then revolutionize, with almost no need for map control.

Personally I never minded the complexity of the game as such, but I do mind that many civilizations have almost unpredictable tools that negate the need for map control and prioritizing natural resources in the early/mid game.

11 Likes
4

Huh… I thought everyone here liked aoe3 specifically BECAUSE of it’s variety, it’s the most unique one in the saga. Not sure if everyone agrees, but this has been the basis for the games and their current development since forever:

  • Aoe1 - The most uniform civilizations, almost entirely playing by the same rules with a few perks.
  • Aoe2 - Increased variety from the last game, now everyone gets 1 or 2 unique units with a lot more unique bonuses.
  • AoM - Choosing a minor god and waiting for the perfect use of god powers brings more combinations to the game.
  • Aoe3 - Everyone can play any civilization in 100.000 possible combinations with the politician and card system.
  • Aoe4 - A combination between aoe2 and aoe3, between the eras, mechanics, and complexity with a focus on realism.

Unique play-styles are what I stick around for, I’d rather have a unique musketeer type unit for every single civilization rather than the same one for all, with no different skin, stat or whatever. Complexity is a ladder, yes, takes a bit to climb it, but same goes for any game.

imagen
imagen1448×775 262 KB

Immersion on the civ you are playing is aoe3s strong suit, on that note, does aoe2 still have knights in armor in their barracks? and onagers in their workshop?
:sweat_smile:

15 Likes
5

As much as I like the game, you are right. Unfortunately it was never an option to simplify the game due to the community’s refusal and unfortunately it is too late. :pensive:

6

Competitive play (leaving casual as it is in variety) should have simplified several things a long time ago, now perhaps it is too late.

I understand your venting on this topic and I share it. A lot of people don’t want to understand that AoE3 is the least intuitive of the franchise, it scares new players and then they complain about why AoE3 doesn’t get the same treatment as the rest (which doesn’t justify a lousy treatment either, but it does justify it being the last priority).

@OperaticShip743 More Variety = More complexity = Steeper learning curve.

7 Likes
7

Maybe so, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Things like natives, mercenaries, and outlaws aren’t things that were implemented all at once, as each DLC has only brought a handful of them. They’re added over the years.

They may make the game more complex overall, but they don’t make each playthrough more complex, which is why I say it brings variety rather than complexity.

3 Likes
8

There was enough variety 15 years ago. Too many new things are unnecessarily complex. You can have variety without the complexity of certain mechanics and addition of new unit classes that break the counter system and other fundamental design principles.

1 Like
9

I love this game to death, it’s my all-time favorite.

But, yes. YES. Too many units, too complicated. I just build a big army full of guys with guns and shoot everyone.

2 Likes
10

To be honest i think aoe3 is simpler. There are a lot of unique unitsbbut they works the same, whether it is ashigaru or tomahwk or janissary or sepoy or highlander they are treated like musketeers anyway. Same for all those different skirmishers different cavs and so on. In aoe2 having one extra armour or one upgrade can impact the interaction between units dramatically even if they are the same unit. All unique units also behave differently in unique ways. Due to bonus damages hidden.

It is also difficult to tech switch so most of the time you need to stick to a unit type and then later on add more. For example when you open knights it is hard to switch to cav archer or archer, because those numerous upgrades and buikdings required . But in aoe3 you make huss and goons from same building with no difficulties switching. You can easily switch between making musks and skirms also. So every one play with a combo of units (skirm goon cav for example )

In aoe3 every civ has a functional cav, functional skirm/archer, or some heavy inf. Or some goons. Every civ is capable of a similar unit combo. In aoe2 some civs are bad at archer some are bad at cav due to missing upgrades. It makes decision making more complicated, and there are just a lot more civs

4 Likes
11

Interesting that you feel AOE3 is simpler…

Aside from the initial facade of less resources, less reliance on hierarchies for unlocking stuff (buildings/ages - it’s all less than previous AoEs) and maybe the trade system (ooh no trade carts!)… It’s actually bat-poop more crazy complex.

Unit tagging versus their actual archetypal role or how they appear in-game often feels loose which I feel is the biggest problem. I would shudder to introduce a friend to AoE3 to a friend with even the ‘variety’ of musketeers - like Tomahawks?!

Outlaws personally annoy me. Essemble Studios to blame here with the introduction, but they appear (on America maps at least) horribly anachronistic, especially compared to the Mercs available, and their role is so super niche acting as a resource cheaper, earlier to access (yay repeating rifles and revolvers in the 1500s) but more population-taking Merc-lites.

1 Like
12

this is just because you havent put time, as much as in aoe3, into aoe2.

for completive play, i would say both are as much complex as each other - in different aspect.

for example, map reading is much more complex for aoe2 than 3 due to number of reasons like limited reasource and wood line walling. well we cannot simply say 2 is more streamline just going though 1000 Arabia.

others like blacksmith teching, building placement as building in 2 is much harder to take down by troops and hills …, are their own way of complicity

1 Like
13

AoE II outside the campaigns are boring to me. Civilizations are similar to each other and Mirror matches are especially bad in AoE II because there is no ability for anything to be different like in AoM with different minor god paths that could be taken or like AoE III with different Decks to go with the different age up choices.

I am glad AoE III is they way it is if it was just like AoE II but in a different time period I wouldn’t love it and would stop playing it after beating the campaigns like I have with AoE I and AoE II.

I love having so much stuff in AoE III with decks, minor natives, outlaws, mercenaries and so on because it allows you to try out so many new things which is fun to me. I don’t want to be doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over gain ZzZ

7 Likes
14

I’ve put lots of time into AOE2, heck I grew up with it.

Competitive play and its own complexitiy is a different entity entirely, for both. I’m not even going to look at that as it’s a completely different subject other than its gameplay, meta and popularity is based off a good foundation built into the main game.

I’m talking about the basics. About unit identities, recognition, ease of use, the on-boarding for new players.

Picking up AOE2 as a young kid, I could tell you that the men with the pointy sticks would be generally good against cav. Guys with shields and javellins counter archers. Archers beat infantry, etc.

Picking up the AOE3 (the original), I could tell, despite the big shift towards gunpowder (and actually the shift to units having both melee and ranged attacks) changing the dynamic slightly, that the infantry guys with musket and bayonets would be great versus cav and that the melee cav would do pretty well against the wimpy-looking skirmishers (who I could tell were the skirmishing 'hunter’ry by how they carried their weapons).

If I was to picking the DE version as a kid, there are instantly speedbumps appearing - for example “You telling me the guy with the bow & arrow for the Ottomans is contary to other archers, NOT Light Infantry and not a counter to HI, but is a HI and counters cav?!”. That is mad.

Subverting unit roles isn’t new - it’s done in other AOE games including AOE2, but it is far more sparing. than AOE3. They should be few inbetween.

Regarding Mercs/Outlaws:

TWC brought into the equation more ease to acquiring Mercs and the introduciton to map-specific Outlaws to the Tavern which changed the gameplay somewhat, diluting the intially hard-to-aquire Mercs and adding a new line of units, Outlaws who started to muddy things.

In my opinion Outlaws should have been accessable either via neutral Outlaw camps or an extra building - Outlaw Camp (great naming). Just something to further reinforce the fact that they are NOT Mercs. Also thematically works better - a seperate camp that allows access to Ne’er-do-wells rather than the concept of hiring wanted Outlaws from within your town makes more sense. Outlaws themselves should have something that further makes them different to Merc - gain Coin from a unit kill (robbing)? I don’t know.

To summarise, I realllllllllly love AOE3 - it is my absolute favourite game of the series. I love the eras and I love how unique the civs are. I also really love the historical touches wether it be textures, names, shipments, whatever.

…But there is an overcreep with unit design. Regardless of how units look texture/historically accurate-wise or how historical their design is, they need to fit into clear-cut slots - with more of an emphasis on wrapping the historical fun around the gameplay and unit archetypes rather the other way round. For example, if a Strelet is categorised as a Light Infantry, surely it needs to hold the form of typical Gunpowder-based Light Infantry, i.e gun held out infront of chest, rather than that of a Heavy Infantry musket-user - resting the gun on the shoulder. Regardless of how you feel ont he historical side (which, btw a Strelet should have totally been a early Musketeer/HI type in my opinion!), we need to tighten these categories and how the units associate with them.

4 Likes
15

What do Azap, Grenadier, Carolean, Bolas Warrior and Arrow Knight have in common?

They are all heavy ranged infantry. Do they have the same roles? No.

You can argue that “it is necessary to differentiate the musketeers” and I can say that, if we separate the tags of each unit, we get the following:

  • Hero.
  • Healer unit.
  • Natives (each one of a different type).
  • Mercenaries (each of a different type).
  • Outlaws.
  • Heavy ranged infantry with musket.
  • Heavy ranged infantry without musket.
  • Archer-type ranged heavy infantry.
  • Grenade Trooper ranged heavy infantry.
  • Heavy infantry melee pikeman style.
  • Halberdier style heavy melee infantry.
  • Heavy melee infantry with area damage.

All this without naming light infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, artillery or ships and without naming special units.

All this without mentioning the hundreds of cards, the more than 30 maps in ranked, the bonuses of the civilizations, the micromanagement mechanics in the game, etc, etc.

Where is the simplicity? Where is the readability? Where is the intuitiveness?

I understand that infinite replayability is given and that is fine for those who have been playing the game for years or have a lot of patience, a lot of curiosity and a lot of time to learn how to play, but it is proven that the less you understand something the less you tend to like it.

1 Like
16

I mean aoe3 is streamlined enough. But if they classify units in your method then it is not streamlined anymore. It is a mess

1 Like
17

The only thing about the game that is more streamlined is the reduction of micro intensity (except in the snare and pull trick, not intuitive mechanics) and some aspects of the macro such as producing batches of 5 by 5 or that economic upgrades (except HC) are in the market, mills, estates and capitol or not depositing resources in a building.

I mean, you need a little less multitasking to play this game, but from the perspective of a new player or someone who has not played this game for a long time, this game is a scarecrow.

So much so that they don’t even watch the game on Stream beyond veterans, as they don’t understand a quarter of what they say or explain.

Not to mention that a well done and advanced table of counters could take me a long time or that armors in percentages is less intuitive than armors with numbers and basic arithmetic.

This game is almost like a Paradox game but in RTS form (i.e. high knowledge difficulty + multitasking).

3 Likes
18

aoe3 on paper need less skill in terms of micro but it is not true. my aoe2 elo is same as aoe3 and aoe2 micro is just dodging arrows, aoe3 has different stances and snaring and cover mode, invisible etc… also fighting treasure, i feel aoe3 is very micro intensive and apm required for both games are similar. especially aoe2 recently added auto placing farms to reduce apm

1 Like
19

Monk micro exists as well when you want to make the most out of your conversions if you don’t have Theocracy but yep, 3 has more micro options.

20

AoE2 has:

  • Quick walls/buildings.
  • Dodge arrows (with all that implies) and with the hill bonus.
  • Dodge mangonels and siege shots.
  • Monk micro.
  • Several army formations to dodge or place you.
  • Patrol.
  • Placing farms.

AoE3 has:

  • Some interesting formation like cover mode (sometimes split mode).
  • Snare (something better implemented in AoM imo).
  • Pull trick (almost nobody of medium or low level does it).
  • Stealth and it is quite circumstantial.
  • Treasures.
  • Herding.

The apm you need to take treasures is not as demanding and neither the early game (although interesting to look at and the best for me) is as mechanically intense as AoE2.

It is more micro intensive and you need more hands in AoE2 to climb in the game. Nor have I commented in this post on how intuitive the micromanagement of each game is.

The personal experience of a player who has similar elo in both games doesn’t say much, it’s just his personal experience.

But I didn’t want to get sidetracked by micromanagement, but by understanding how the game works and its mechanics.

2 Likes