Yeah where did you come up with the mirror matches btw?
2 Likes
Why do people want to nerf a mediocre civ?
2 Likes
Noobs not knowing what they are doing, is their problem. Balance obviously has to be focused on the high level. Like the chinese for example, are a hard civ to play and suck at noobs hands, but are one of the best at high level. Which is obviously a good thing, if something is hard, it should come with rewards.
Now elephants are fine for DM too imo. Again problem is with noob, not balance. I despise any sort of warcraft3/aoe3 style pop usage, where units cost anything more than 1. (Iâm actually fine with karambit being half the cost though, since it doesnât limit the number of your units, instead does the opposite)
1 Like
Thereâs a reason why AoE2 is the superior game though.
3 Likes
It was tried in the 90s, which is why C&C games become Light Tank or Bike + Buggy rushes, and AoE2 was originally a game of who had the most and best Knights.
The problem with even trying to balance for lower skilled players, is that the imbalances become that much greater in higher skilled gameplay.
There would be a point where a unit that was balanced for low ELO matches, would just be âOP GG EZâ for high ELO matches, like the original Mangudai or Conquistador, which were the only thing Mongols and Spanish made, because they were grossly OP in higher ELOs.
1 Like
It is not a good AOE game, maybe a good RTS game tho
And you still want a game that is closer to AOE3 than AOE2
This. Although you start with enough stone to almost make 10 castles, you donât play with âaegisâ, the castles take a lot of time so youâll have to be making stables, barracks, archery ranges and siege workshops first.
4 Likes
and you still have to start with 3 vills and hussar with 5 pop space, am I correct? Mongols donât get treadmill crane, so thereâs that too
3 Likes
Yessum. 
AoE3 was a massive failure, precisely because it plays almost nothing like AoE1 and 2.
People want sequels, not new gameplay that differs extremely from the original, for the sake of quirky notions of balance.
Gendarmes are the Paladins of AoE3, cost a lot of pop, and that still did not stop France players from massing them, because they were extremely OP and infinite Gold is easy to get in AoE3.
1 Like
They are Paladins that kill Pikes.
Super OP, insta training time.
+1
If we had a game in colonial era that played like AOE2, we would pay way more attention to it than we did to AOE3
1 Like
That Homecity card mechanicsâŠ
AoE3 was always such a balanced game!
The homecity card isnt that bad, it allows for nice uncontinius spikes which can be interesting.
It has flaws, sure.kike I really disliked how it predetermined your playstyle by the fixed card game (like if you donât have late game cards and It does go lategame then you are â â â â â â , would be better if all cards were available so a unlimited deck size)
Gendsrms grossly op because they are too pop efficient and in general train recution being absurd in aoe 3. Both could have been fixed. Gendsrms base hp should be lowered and price a bit compensated (compare war Elefant proposal) and the effect of train time reduction cards and techs in general greatly lowered. Instant train time really ruins the lategame in aoe 3 to a boring spawm fest.
Again, we donât want 2 pop ideas
Also, War Elephants arenât really OP
If you see 60 of them in your base, it was your own mistake
1 Like
In theory, this is what it should have done.
In practice, it allowed for stupid-silly powerspikes, instant armies, instant Siege (2 Falconets after a Fast Fortress is the most common played card), and buff stacking to ridiculous degrees (insta training Gendarmes, for example).
The Homecity Card mechanics was one of the worst additions to the game, when it comes to balance.
Sure, it is fun in Singleplayer, after you eventually grind to have the max amount of cards, and all the cards you need; but it made Multiplayer not only unfair, but also unfun.
It became a game of abuse.
This happens with every RTS with overly complex mechanics. AoE2 and RA2 did it best: simple units and mechanics, complex strategies and maps.
1 Like
Yes for multilayer ar cards should have been available from the start. It was a big mistake and new player got punished.
After that when even ground where reached it is in a competitive sence not a bad mechanic.
It does indeed change the aoe gameplay a lot. It is not just aoe1 or aoe2 in a different time and this did â â â â of people.
But at the end, the game itself is not as bad as its reputation (atelast the vanilla game, I hate the expansionsâŠ)
What I want to say is, that taking ideas from aoe 3 that are actually working could help improve aoe 2, but often times it goes as follows x is in aoe 3 so x must be bad and would ruined aoe 2
They should have not been available at all!
Homecity mechanics should have been a Campaign only feature.
MP civs should have just had more upgrades and actual balanced unit rosters, instead of going for novelty, which is what the whole game did.
Pop costs greater than 1 was also a silly mechanic, that just does not work.
2 Likes
I agree on that.
Imagine playing a world map. And you receive forces from your homecity, from outside the map, to yourâŠhomecity??? And thatâs just the immersion part. It messes up multiplayer balance too imo.
Funny thing in a way for the single player part where you are actually roleplaying to be away from your homecity.
1 Like
In AoE3, you are not building an Empire yourself, you are building a Colony to expand your Empire.
Indeed.
Sounds like Age of Colonies and not Age of Empires though.
2 Likes