This game needs to be streamlined

[GwentMaster2163]

The current situation of Age of Empires 3 cannot be simply attributed to the game itself being too complex or not “simplified” enough. In the entire Age of Empires series, the early Age of Empires 1 has a relatively smaller player base and a more immature game mechanism, but this does not hinder its importance in the history of the series. Another example is that Age of Mythology has never surpassed Age of Empires 3 (traditionally, when no remakes have appeared)in terms of the number of players, but it is obviously more valued by the publisher, and both games have official competitions directly held. I think it is difficult to attribute the lack of attention of Age of Empires 3 to the small number of players caused by the “bad” game. From the observation of many targeted “discriminations” in the past, I think it is better to say that it is the subjective preference of World’s Edge, although you have always opposed this.

Although some people criticize the depth and complexity of Age of Empires 3, this depth is precisely the key to attracting many core players who are not few at present. The game’s civilization design, deck system, and strategic choices provide different players with rich gameplay, even beyond the traditional “micro-operation” orientation. Players who think the game is too complicated may have overlooked that the learning curve of the game is a common feature of many RTS games. At least for me personally, maintaining this complexity allows players to obtain long-term game fun and challenges rather than directly simplifying the game.

The development path of the game should not be simply attributed to certain complaints from the player community or the design of the game itself. “Age of Empires 3” did experience an ESO-C patch period in the past, and many old players believe that it was the “golden age” of the game. However, even so, that period did not attract more new players or maintain high popularity because the game had stopped official support and new content updates at that time. A patch alone cannot change the fundamental trend of the game. Only the official continued investment and content development can keep the game alive.

Is the so-called “better version” really suitable for more players? Although the past version attracted some old players, the current version obviously attracts more players and official events. Therefore, the so-called “better” should be based on the actual participation of players and market feedback, rather than simply relying on the nostalgia of some people.

It is now four o’clock in the morning Beijing time. I really should go to bed. I hope to continue this discussion with you tomorrow.

[Adribird90]

First ESO-C patch started in November 2015 if I am not mistaken. Not DLC, not official support.

A steep learning curve in knowledge within an RTS is worse than in APM mechanics, etc. In one you understand why you lose or what you could have done differently, in the other you don’t even know what’s going on until you’ve been in the game for a long time and put a lot of time into it.

[Moonshadow7475]

@Adribird90

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

Actually the game is more intuitive than aoe2, and the only reason you think it is not is because you played too much aoe2 and think that the nonsense there is intuitive.

Take for example the dynamics between infantry and cavalry.
In aoe2 you have nonsense such as infantry being faster than cavalry, archers being able to counter cavalry simply because they move too slowly to close the gap.

In aoe3 this is no longer the case. Unless your infantry is armed with some sort of pike, heavy cavalry will make short work of it. But what about musketers, will you say. Musketeers are essentially armed with pikes.

@Adribird90

• 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.

You are just dramatizing.
The important unit classes in aoe3 are the following:

• Heavy infantry - they generally do well vs heavy cavalry and are decent at taking down buildings. Exceptions being grenadiers and AK, which get countered by heavy cavalry. It doesn’t really matter if said heavy infantry is ranged (musketeers) or melee (the heavy melee infantry you mentioned earlier). The peculiar one here is the grenadier, but this one has been a point of debate for a very long time.
• Light infantry - they do well vs heavy infantry and light cavalry. They get absolutely wrecked by heavy cavalry (as they should, unlike the nonsense in aoe2 where archers can dispatcher heavily armored knights without losses). It doesn’t matter if said light infantry is using a bow or gun.
• Heavy cavalry / shock infantry - they do well vs light infantry and cannons. Some of them are also somewhat good against heavy infantry (lancer types), but heavy infantry can still win vs those, it comes down to a cost game.
• Light cavalry / ranged shock infantry - generally only good vs heavy cavalry, but they can deal with cannons as well in some situations. It doesn’t matter if they are wielding pistols or bows or whatever
• Cannons - good against all infantry types, may win in some situations vs cavalry, depending on how much resources were invested. It is worth noting that cannons do damage vs infantry (not the specific heavy or light variation, but all heavy and light infantry will also have the infantry tag)
• Pets - generally nobody does bonus damage to them except villagers, but they don’t do bonus damage to others either (except the neutral treasure guardians)
• Treasure guardians - they don’t do bonus damage, generally, but they do take bonus damage from explorers, pets and villagers.
• Civilians (villagers, healers, other non-combat units). Some units specialize in killing these dudes.

That being said, whatever else comes on top of these 8 categories in secondary, and only the top 5 really matter unless you’re dealing with some sophisticated cheese. It doesn’t really matter if a musketeer is native warrior, mercenary, or the usual unit. They will always be countered by light infantry. The hero units will generally carry the tags of their unit class (the euro explorer is tagged as infantry and will die to whatever does bonus damage to infantry like cannons or lancers)

There are some units that will have peculiarities. Those are the equivalents of unique units in aoe2, those actually have to be learned, like the Aztec jaguar warrior being effective against heavy infantry, but these don’t really break the counter system.

Once you drilled these down, you will have an easier time learning which are the exceptions.

Note that most natives and mercs will actually mirror one of the common unit types. So while there may seem to be a lot of units to remember, some of them are actually copies of others.

But just to top off the other categories you mentioned:

1. Native warriors - they cost no pop, are number capped, might have an additional twist on top of the base unit
2. Outlaws - cheap, strong-ish (usually carries the age3 stats of the base unit), costs a lot of pop. They are generally useless past age3, unless there’s some fantasy unit that makes sense for that civ, like the cowboy
3. Mercenary - more expensive, usually costs more pop than the base unit, it fits somewhere between an age4 and an age5 version of the base unit stats wise, and gets the age5 stats equivalent of the base unit if you age up with merc contractor. They get countered by spies, on top of their usual counters they inherit from the base unit. They fall off in usefulness in age5, unless said upgrade is taken.

Base unit means the unit type you can get as a playable civ (e.g. musketeer, pikeman, longbowman, hussar etc)
So to take the case of the skirmisher:

1. Native warrior type: Cherokee rifleman
2. Outlaw type: renegado
3. Merc type: Jagger.

[Adribird90]

• You’re missing the distinction between ranged and melee heavy infantry (and within melee, those with area damage and those without). A pikeman is more specific than a musketeer, and a musketeer, besides being more versatile, counters a pikeman or any melee unit except the Aztec warrior, and other exceptions that I can easily find.

• In the light infantry section, there are units with a slow firing animation but fire faster, and others with a more standard shot and a faster animation, meaning some need to be used more statically and others require more mobility. There are some exceptions when it comes to not giving bonuses against ranged cavalry and when countering other light infantry.

• Heavy cavalry also has its nuances, as some are used for tanking and others are more for flanking and raiding. Some are more specific against light infantry (bad against other cavalry), others are more versatile, and others are special units that can kill heavy infantry like the Rifle Rider and Spanish lancer.

• The same goes for light cavalry, some are more static (cavalry archer) and others need to be on the move (dragoons). The rifle rider has a double tag.

• In the cannon section, there are culverins and mortars, so your description is incomplete.

• For whatever reason, you didn’t include ships.

But it’s not just the number of exceptions (which are numerous), not just the multiple tags of each unit or how they should function in battle, not just the over 300 different playable units, but it’s only 1 part of the game with many others that need to be learned.

It rewards knowledge more than skill, it rewards which strategy is more broken in order to abuse in PvP and annoy the game experience for players, especially new players.

By the way, I have 1200 hours in the DE and even more hours in the old AoE3, so no, I haven’t played AoE2 over AoE3, I’m just worried that the game doesn’t grow, that the community is conformist and doesn’t understand what the game needs to grow (there are things about the UI and gameplay that are separate) and that WE doesn’t pay more attention to it.

Several prefer to wait for a rework of a civilization or for them to change a skin of a specific unit. That’s how the game is going.

[Moonshadow7475]

These particularities you mentioned do not break the counter system. I intentionally left them out because they aren’t as important as you think they are. And I’ve been playing this game since it first came out in mid 2000s.

The melee infantry will lose to skirmishers just as hard as the musketeers do. Pike units are not that different from samurai, they all do bonus damage to cavalry.

The only reason this feels overwhelming is because there’s a lot of different models and names because aoe3 cared for historical representation more than aoe2. But in the end, most units will fall into the 5 categories, and the couple dozen that don’t can be remembered as such

As for other peculiarities, it’s no different than units getting civ bonuses or not having access to specific upgrades as they are in aoe2.

The reality is, age of empires games are large games with lots of contents. It’s very difficult for one person to grasp the entire knowledge base of all age of empires games at the same time. You will need to dedicate time to each one. I don’t think aoe2 is necessarily easier to get into than aoe3. The civ differences can just as deadly. And aoe3 is fortunately the one with most content, even though people do not expect that.

[FiveWind6951746]

I don’t know how we can have a discussion on growth but not mention the elephant in the room which is the atrocious marketing. You have a game set in a period not many games cover that offers unique gameplay but proceed to neglect it in favor of this:

[EricTheRed283]

@Moonshadow7475

@Adribird90

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

Actually the game is more intuitive than aoe2, and the only reason you think it is not is because you played too much aoe2 and think that the nonsense there is intuitive.

Yep

The following is a great example of a counter intuitive unit from Age of Empires II

Based off of its looks I would assume its a melee unit which is good against Cavalry but in reality it is a ranged unit that is good against Archers.

The following are from Empire Earth, Age of Empires Definitive Edition, Age of Mythology Retold and Age of Empires III Definitive Edition

Sometimes when I haven’t played Age of Empires II Definitive Edition in a long time and see a Skirmisher I think it is something completely different then it is until it attacks because of other RTS games I have played.

Age of Empires II isn’t even close to being as intuitive as made out to be and it doesn’t even have damage modifiers in its stats to help like Age of Empires III does. Why doesn’t Age of Empires II Definitive Edition show damage modifiers with the stats with all the room it has to fit it?

[Adribird90]

It is that an advanced counter system goes beyond the tags you have put and you know it.

In SP content AoE3 does not reach AoE2, it only wins in real variety of civilizations (maybe maps).

With 2 BO well learned, in AoE2 you can play more than half of the civilizations. Its asymmetry starts, especially from Castles.

They are not only different models and names, but also different stats and even some units with passive or active abilities. Let’s not talk about readability.

The historical accuracy is not accuracy enough at all and it is not very intuitive.

It is not the same to dedicate time to a game where you understand things as you go along and you know relatively quickly why things happen than a game where you need an encyclopedia and thousands of hours to understand civilizations, units, buildings, cards, etc.

I’m giving a lot of stick, but I repeat, I’m worried about this. Then you wonder why they hardly count on AoE3…

@EricTheRed283 When a skirmisher is moving, you can tell it is a skirmisher. The Hoplite in AoM has a different skin in early ages.

And with this I will end for today.

[OperaticShip743]

Well, there are people who think similar things about the relatively “simpler” game.

Stop updating age 2!

Actually i agree on the part of stop adding stuff to aoe II, this game has changed too much and for the worse compared to the original game, people around barely knows enough of the game mechanics to understand how much have they changed and broke the game, in a small comparison there used to be 5 Dominant civs in AOC, now we have like 15 broken civs just in terms of balance, the game is so poor balanced that all tournaments needs to use DRAFT system so the players do not pick the same civs and …

[KarlosBR96]

@Konahrik1140

I think these changes would solve the problem, although I doubt we will ever see them implemented due to the enormous work involved in redoing all the revolutions.

Since we’re pitching new ideas… I too have some ideas for a revolution overhaul.

Two types of Revolution:

1)National Revolution. These would function more or less like the current system, but each Revolution would be unique to each civilization. For instance, the French Revolution would be available only to France(duh), the Meiji Restoration only to Japan, the Risorgimento only to Italy, etc etc. These Revolution would bring radical changes to the your gameplan and have unique decks centered around a certain theme that is tailored-made for its base civilization.

2)Independence Revolution. These Revolutions wouldn’t be tied to any specific civilization, but instead they would be tied to the map being played. So if you are playing in the Great Lakes, for instance, you would have access to the American or Canadian Revolutions, but not Mexico or Brazil, no matter which civ you are playing. These Revolutions would be balanced around taking advantage of the map’s unique features and natives, without changing your civ completely, but instead it would combine your original civ with new features that from the map you’re playing at.

Actually, that would probably end up getting really messy too, nevermind.

@OperaticShip743

Well, there are people who think similar things about the relatively “simpler” game.

Actually i agree on the part of stop adding stuff to aoe II, this game has changed too much and for the worse compared to the original game, people around barely knows enough of the game mechanics to understand how much have they changed and broke the game, in a small comparison there used to be 5 Dominant civs in AOC, now we have like 15 broken civs just in terms of balance, the game is so poor balanced that all tournaments needs to use DRAFT system so the players do not pick the same civs and …

The AoE2DE discussion board is actually kind of cute from the perspective of an AoE3DE player, it’s like they don’t know how lucky they are to still get semi-frequent DLCs.

[FiveWind6951746]

I’ve seen a few threads regarding content creep and worry the game is getting too complicated in the AoE2 subforum but can’t be bothered to look for them.

I commented in that obvious troll thread but was put off by the replies denigrating 3 & IV. Typical.

[Moonshadow7475]

The other nuances come from totally obvious stats differences. The ranged musketeers will have an edge against their melee heavy infantry cousins, because they are ranged. And obviously ranged units will have an edge over melee units. The same goes for dragoons Vs muskets, where range and speed allows dragoons to win with micro vs musketeers.

Cannons are generally good at killing other cannons, because of their similar range. Again, pretty obvious and intuitive things.

Another completely intuitive thing is that once melee units make contact with ranged units, it’s pretty much over for the ranged units. This is the case across the board.

[GwentMaster2163]

During the ESO-C patch period, the number of active players in the game, even if the highest value was taken, could only barely reach the most basic daily level of today’s “Definitive Edition”. Without official support and updated content, players may be interested in it for a while, but without the long-term infusion of new content, it is naturally difficult to sustain. On the other hand, with official support and continuous updates, the overall number of players in “Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition” is much higher than that in the ESO-C patch period. This shows that the long-term vitality and healthy development of the game rely more on the support and continuous updates of the publisher, rather than just the adjustments brought by the player’s own patches.

Compared with the complexity of operation (APM), understanding the depth and tactics of the game may take more time, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. The core fun of many RTS lies in gradually mastering the complexity of the game and improving through learning and experience. In the minds of many players, RTS is not only a challenge to hand speed and operation, but also a competition of intelligence and tactics. By gradually mastering the game mechanism, understanding the differences in civilizations and tactical choices, players can continuously optimize their own gameplay, which is far more attractive than simple operation skills. In Age of Empires III, the accumulation of knowledge and tactical decision-making can also be gradually improved through continuous learning and practice. It is this complex tactical depth that makes Age of Empires III different from other RTS games and can attract some special players, such as me and the vast majority of people here. I see that you have been responding to posts criticizing Age of Empires III in the community for a long time. I guess you are also an Age of Empires III player, at least you like this game and can probably understand the charm of this game, otherwise you don’t need to be active in this community repeatedly.

[Adribird90]

@Moonshadow7475 You say that with your perspective as a veteran player, not a new player. It’s like if you’re a math teacher, you say algebra is easy and you try to teach it to elementary school kids.

There are more exceptions than there should be, double or triple tag than there should be and excessive variety that overwhelms the new player and I’m not getting off this boat. Not to mention mechanics like snare (better implemented in AoM) that frustrate other players, but that’s another topic.

@GwentMaster2163 No one is saying there can’t be content or updates to the game, but I’ve shown you that a community of players can retain or increase players without additional content. The marketing for the AOE3 DE release is way beyond what the old ESO-C could absorb, there were even people in the past who played RE-Patch who didn’t even know the community patch existed. Again, I’m all for SP content or updates, but with control and simplifying competitive mode (going back to 20 cards, limiting the number of maps, adding advanced tutorials for each civ and counters in the game, and simplifying unit tags and reduce exceptions might be a good start).

[GwentMaster2163]

Age of Empires 3 has been updated to 25 cards for more than a decade. If it is reduced to 20 cards hastily, it will lead to drastic changes in the entire battle environment. Are you sure that this move will not cause more complaints and loss of core players? Moreover, although reducing the number of cards may make the game simpler, it cannot solve the problem of game balance or attract new players. It will only limit the creativity and operability of players.

You always believe that “simplifying” the game can attract more players, but this view is not supported by data and is not based on any market research or player data. This so-called “better” and “more attractive” game design does not have any evidence to show that such simplification measures can bring more players. Simplifying the game design may attract certain types of players, but it may not satisfy the large and diverse player base of Age of Empires 3.

As for who should do the market research? It is definitely not you and me. However, after the release of Age of Empires 3, there was no market research based on Age3 (or even inclined to it), and the developers could only improve and adjust the game based on their understanding of the player community.

As shown in this discussion, there are some players who share your views, and there are many players who share my views, who are attracted by the rich content and deep tactical deployment of Age of Empires 3. Without the support of data, we cannot hastily state that a certain direction of “simplification” or “deepening” is correct.

[Adribird90]

It is logical that they are less supportive of my positions in this section of the forum which represents a certain percentage of AoE3 players (not a majority either). What about those who left or potential new players?

I have not commented on simplifying the game, but parts of the competitive mode. In custom like if they want to add a mod with 100 units, 10 civilizations and 50 new cards.

If a player has enough difficulty to understand a game the first days/weeks, it is quite likely that frustration and abandonment of the game will arise, I don’t have to do a study on that. There are very few players who are patient, dedicate a lot of time to the game or have a special interest in the historical period.

The low numbers of ranked players speak for themselves.

And I repeat, I value variety and depth, but do not go crazy because then we see more frustration for not understanding and very broken things.

[SirBarnzy1]

If the Poles and Danish appear with a few units each with whatever gimmick/traits alongside a majority of standard units then all is well.

Poles will no doubt have Polish versions of certain units, much like the Russians with their units due to how these regions differ to Western/Southern European standards in military at the time, but as long as they fit into the unit ‘slots’ it’s fine.

[vanBladdeck]

Aoe2 is so bad in explaining its mechanics, countersystem and providing readability, spiritofthelaw has an entire channel dedicated to it. It would be impossible to have an equivalent channel in aoe3 since you can just read the tags and youll be fine in 99% of all cases

[MatM1996]

@vividlyplain

No wonder they also play on 1.7x speed. Something which isn’t needed in aoe3. I feel like age 1 is much more apm intensive in aoe3 with treasure micro and contentions as well as herding. Also, you’re not doing the exact same boring scout for 8 sheep and 2 boars like 95% of aoe2 games.

@Adribird90

I think we are all agreed in this area of ​​the forum that Age 1 of AoE3 is more interesting than AoE2 (and for me the best of all AoE), but beyond basic herding, producing villagers non-stop without problems of lack of food and building 1-2 buildings in the vast majority of cases, what you have to focus on is that, micromanaging the treasures and exploring.

@wiraqocha9917

Not really xD you have to push deers which is tedious and nobody likes it but it has become meta now you have to similar to how you have to constantly push hunt in aoe3 throughout early game

@wiraqocha9917

As an experienced aoe2/3 player i have to say,
Quickwall and buildings are tedious and annoying but you have to do it, else enemy units will raid you constantly, and a hole can cost you the game. Aoe3 better because everyone plays open at least until super late game

Dodging arrows or mangonel shots feels similar to me, or dodging ballistics

Monk micro is just same as other units, except they don’t automatic do their things, it is similar to clicking skirms onto musks in aoe3. Btw aoe3 incas has monk (healer) micro too

Several army formation well aoe3 has those formation too

Patrol is similar to aoe3, unless you talking about patrol stand ground or stacking units etc…those tricks feel lame to me in aoe2, those should never be a thing in the first place

Placing farms is tedious and everyone agrees, thats why there is the new auto place farms in aoe2 and it is welcomed by everyone.

I would say aoe3 micro is similarly apm intensive as aoe2 but it is more meaningful

@wiraqocha9917

Another thing i think is very streamlined in aoe3 is a flat 20% 30% 50% buff for upgrades in different ages, they mostly have the same cost as well. In the market food upgrade costs wood and coin, wood up cost food and coin, coin up costs food wood. It feels super streamlined and standard, while in aoe2 elite upgrades and unit upgrades costs different and has different effects

Yes, in that sense both games are very similar… the only difference is that in AoE 2 you deposit resources and in AoE 3 you don’t…

@KarlosBR96

R-USA now has its own full 25 card deck, half of the deck was about replacing the dutch roster of units with the American roster of units, I had now to consider which Dutch cards would better synergize with the american roster of units. So I began to take notes of what units and effects the R-USA deck would have on my Dutch civ and -HOLY S-, WHY AM I HAVING TO TAKE NOTES ON A F-ING IN-GAME REVOLUTION?! I JUST WANTED TO PLAY SKIRMISH FFS!

Yes, the same, it is not that difficult to set up a Dutch deck… you put in a lot of cheap cards to make the merchants collect a lot of coins and do a Fast Industrial and then with the USA rev you go all-in with mercenaries and gatlings and that’s it…

@Adribird90

Underneath the hood, there is less micro skill depth to the game compared to the others. There is a ceiling to micro caused by unit formation pathing, and melee attack slowing. economy compared to 2 and 4 is simplified with the lack of drop off points. Mechanics wise the deck system is the only thing this game has going for it. There are a lot of builds but you need to know what each of the civs do, what their units do etc etc. add on the potentially confusing unit models etc etc… This game rewards game knowledge more than game skill compared to the others.

aoe2 and to a lesser extent aoe4 have simple uniform game mechanics that are easy to pick up and a higher skill ceiling to strive for. Aoe3 at this point has a larger upfront learning cost for an arguably lesser reward. Sure the mechanics are streamlined, but now you have to figure out 22 civs each of their unique units and cards etc… the beginner experience is something like ok what bullshit cheese strat is my opponents civ capable of. repeat for 100 games until you build up game knowledge. And you pretty much have to play and try yourself, since guides and build videos older than 1 year are outdated and no longer work.

But look at the comments here and really ask yourself why this game isnt more popular. As of now there are like 5 commenters here saying aoe3 looks nicer. Do you really think aoe2 players care about graphics? They’re playing a sprite based game whos’ art style was made in 1999. It also still straight up runs great on even shitty computers, which aoe3 does not.

Like are the super cool aoe3 portraits the deciding factor why you aren’t playing aoe4. come on now… Its pretty clear a decent portion of the aoe3 player base is more interested in the fact that the germans can field 5 different reskinned HRE musketeers mercs than having a coherent competitive game. …And that’s completely fine. Aoe3 right now has the same feel as the forgotten empires mod, extreme amount of variety, loving attention to unit skins and detail. but ultimately its for a niche audience, and thats fine. Every aoe game needs its own lane if they are to coexist next to each other /rant".

@GwentMaster2163

In any game, there are players who are dissatisfied with the current situation, and this is not uncommon among top players. I think this statement makes sense, but it is not particularly representative.
Age of Empires III is indeed different from other Age of Empires games, but this is precisely its unique charm. Although the game’s economic mechanism is relatively simple and the upper limit of micro-operation seems not as high as Age of Empires II or Age of Empires IV, it has unique depth in other aspects. The deck system gives the game more strategic diversity and long-term planning possibilities, rather than just a test of micro-operation. Familiarity with 22 different civilizations and their unique units and cards certainly requires a certain learning cost, but this complexity is the core fun of Age of Empires III. Compared with simple mechanical operations, this game emphasizes players’ understanding of the situation, tactical flexibility and adaptability.

As for whether Age of Empires III has a more “mainstream” competitive experience, this is not the core of the problem. Every game has its own audience, and Age of Empires III has found its own place in its rich tactical choices, unique civilization design and historical immersion. The interest point of those who like Age of Empires III may not be purely competitive, but the love of the deep historical feelings, civilization diversity and complex strategic requirements in the game. Although this makes it a “niche” game, it does not mean that its value is lower than other versions. On the contrary, it’s this differentiation that allows Age of Empires III to carve out a niche in the Age of Empires series and provide endless fun for those willing to invest the time and effort to master it.

Of course, I couldn’t have said it better…

@Adribird90

The best version of AoE3 was the old ESO-C patch between 2016-2020, where they mixed variety, depth and competitiveness and videos with tens of thousands of views.

Right around that time I was playing a lot of PlayStation 4…

@Adribird90

First ESO-C patch started in November 2015 if I am not mistaken. Not DLC, not official support.

At that time I was fully immersed in university… I studied from 8 AM to 11 PM…

@Moonshadow7475

• Heavy infantry - they generally do well vs heavy cavalry and are decent at taking down buildings. Exceptions being grenadiers and AK, which get countered by heavy cavalry. It doesn’t really matter if said heavy infantry is ranged (musketeers) or melee (the heavy melee infantry you mentioned earlier). The peculiar one here is the grenadier, but this one has been a point of debate for a very long time.
• Light infantry - they do well vs heavy infantry and light cavalry. They get absolutely wrecked by heavy cavalry (as they should, unlike the nonsense in aoe2 where archers can dispatcher heavily armored knights without losses). It doesn’t matter if said light infantry is using a bow or gun.
• Heavy cavalry / shock infantry - they do well vs light infantry and cannons. Some of them are also somewhat good against heavy infantry (lancer types), but heavy infantry can still win vs those, it comes down to a cost game.
• Light cavalry / ranged shock infantry - generally only good vs heavy cavalry, but they can deal with cannons as well in some situations. It doesn’t matter if they are wielding pistols or bows or whatever
• Cannons - good against all infantry types, may win in some situations vs cavalry, depending on how much resources were invested. It is worth noting that cannons do damage vs infantry (not the specific heavy or light variation, but all heavy and light infantry will also have the infantry tag)
• Pets - generally nobody does bonus damage to them except villagers, but they don’t do bonus damage to others either (except the neutral treasure guardians)
• Treasure guardians - they don’t do bonus damage, generally, but they do take bonus damage from explorers, pets and villagers.
• Civilians (villagers, healers, other non-combat units). Some units specialize in killing these dudes.

@Moonshadow7475

• Native warriors - they cost no pop, are number capped, might have an additional twist on top of the base unit
• Outlaws - cheap, strong-ish (usually carries the age3 stats of the base unit), costs a lot of pop. They are generally useless past age3, unless there’s some fantasy unit that makes sense for that civ, like the cowboy
• Mercenary - more expensive, usually costs more pop than the base unit, it fits somewhere between an age4 and an age5 version of the base unit stats wise, and gets the age5 stats equivalent of the base unit if you age up with merc contractor. They get countered by spies, on top of their usual counters they inherit from the base unit. They fall off in usefulness in age5, unless said upgrade is taken.

Yes, cut and dry…

@Moonshadow7475

The reality is, age of empires games are large games with lots of contents. It’s very difficult for one person to grasp the entire knowledge base of all age of empires games at the same time. You will need to dedicate time to each one. I don’t think aoe2 is necessarily easier to get into than aoe3. The civ differences can just as deadly. And aoe3 is fortunately the one with most content, even though people do not expect that.

Yes, that’s true… I alternate between Ages and change the chip… but I’m not crazy about playing ranked because I would go crazy…

@FiveWind6951746

I don’t know how we can have a discussion on growth but not mention the elephant in the room which is the atrocious marketing. You have a game set in a period not many games cover that offers unique gameplay but proceed to neglect it in favor of this:

Yes, don’t remind me…if you’re going to promote an event after the 16th century you use AoE 3, not the overused AoE 2…

@KarlosBR96

1)National Revolution. These would function more or less like the current system, but each Revolution would be unique to each civilization. For instance, the French Revolution would be available only to France(duh), the Meiji Restoration only to Japan, the Risorgimento only to Italy, etc etc. These Revolution would bring radical changes to the your gameplan and have unique decks centered around a certain theme that is tailored-made for its base civilization.

2)Independence Revolution. These Revolutions wouldn’t be tied to any specific civilization, but instead they would be tied to the map being played. So if you are playing in the Great Lakes, for instance, you would have access to the American or Canadian Revolutions, but not Mexico or Brazil, no matter which civ you are playing. These Revolutions would be balanced around taking advantage of the map’s unique features and natives, without changing your civ completely, but instead it would combine your original civ with new features that from the map you’re playing at.

I like the idea…

@KarlosBR96

The AoE2DE discussion board is actually kind of cute from the perspective of an AoE3DE player, it’s like they don’t know how lucky they are to still get semi-frequent DLCs.

Yes, AoE 2 players complain that they have too much content and AoE 3 players cry because they don’t pay attention to us…

@GwentMaster2163

During the ESO-C patch period, the number of active players in the game, even if the highest value was taken, could only barely reach the most basic daily level of today’s “Definitive Edition”. Without official support and updated content, players may be interested in it for a while, but without the long-term infusion of new content, it is naturally difficult to sustain. On the other hand, with official support and continuous updates, the overall number of players in “Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition” is much higher than that in the ESO-C patch period. This shows that the long-term vitality and healthy development of the game rely more on the support and continuous updates of the publisher, rather than just the adjustments brought by the player’s own patches.

Yes, not to mention … AOE 3 is much better now than at that time … I prefer to have 6k players even if they don’t give us DLCS, than to return to that time in which they only support 2 HD …

@vanBladdeck

Aoe2 is so bad in explaining its mechanics, countersystem and providing readability, spiritofthelaw has an entire channel dedicated to it. It would be impossible to have an equivalent channel in aoe3 since you can just read the tags and youll be fine in 99% of all cases

Yes, although AussieDrongo and Pilsen made several explaining stuff of the game…

[Adribird90]

Yes it is true that there are hidden bonuses and in that it fails, but the units are easily recognizable in movement, in battle and already their community at the time made sure what each unit is or is not good against.

AoE2 is far from being as deep as AoE3 is, maybe when it has 60 civs who knows.

I respect what you say, but you simply have to understand the critics.