So, one of the reasons for players to move so quickly from AoE to AoE II back in 1999 was the addition of gates to the walls. The walls in the original AoE are used as conductors: you locate the “gate” (hole in the wall) where you want the enemies to enter through. Therefore, the “gate” is a bottle neck, you concentrate your towers there and you better not create a “escape gate” because it will instantly become a “flank route” to the enemy. AoE II added gates and siege took on a new scale that gave birth to the turtling strategy. Although turtling is possible in the original AoE (specially with Babylonians, shang and choson) it’s not as dinamic as in posterior instalements because of the lack of gates. I haven’t seen any wall gates in the material released so far, so I hope is just a reference to the original Ensemble work and that the final version features actual wall gates.
What do you think?
3 Likes
I think gates shouldn’t belong to AoE1 since they take away amazing rush oppurtunities, and it also supports an “active-defense” playstyle, so you can’t camp in your amazing fortress and prevents from a passive gameplay in the end-game.
I don’t think gates are necessary. To solve your turtling problem, you could just not leave a hole in the wall. You can then build up in peace and delete a piece of the wall once you’re ready to get out. You can even wall it back up once you have left.
But even though gates are not necessary, I don’t think adding them would hurt anything either.
I think this fully depends on how original they want to keep the game. Its not game breaking if there aren’t any gates, but the addition of gates would be great as well. But remember that age of empires does not have any super long range siege units. No trebuchets like in Age of empires 2. So having no gates also makes the game a lot faster in a way.
If they want gates, they need to put in new siege units too. I dont really see that happening and it would take away from the original. Being able to funnel enemies is already strong enough, especially if you have a good strategy around it.
Adding gates might be a lot more difficult to realise than you think
It’s true that without gates the defense needs to be active, but you still can camp if you resort to the “hallway of death” strategy where you make a discontinuous wall, but very intrincated, so that you locate your towers around it and wait for the enemy to fall in. It might not work against human players, but AI totally falls for it. The rush can be avoided even without gates. You simple leave no hole in the wall and you are shielded.
I don’t know AOE II was great with “passive defense” stuff, but I really like that if you want to defeat your enemy, you have the option of pushing through the little gap in it’s walls, or just break the ■■■■ out of them, not a fan of fortress gates in the original AOE, the first game I play in PC.
@EagleEaye said:
I think this fully depends on how original they want to keep the game. Its not game breaking if there aren’t any gates, but the addition of gates would be great as well. But remember that age of empires does not have any super long range siege units. No trebuchets like in Age of empires 2. So having no gates also makes the game a lot faster in a way.
If they want gates, they need to put in new siege units too. I dont really see that happening and it would take away from the original. Being able to funnel enemies is already strong enough, especially if you have a good strategy around it.
Adding gates might be a lot more difficult to realise than you think
I don’t this so. Having followed competitive AoE2 play, almost on one uses gates, so if they are added to AoE1 in the same way it would not change the balance to any direction. Also, heavy catapults are much stronger than trebuchets, having only a bit less range, but not having to pack and unpack between moving and firing.
I’m aware it might be a ton of coding and bug fixing to implement them. That’s a point in favour of no-gates.
Many people including me got used to AOE2 gameplay however I played AOE1 aswell because I love that era, and I think gates should exist in the game because it improves your defenses and your unit management but still can be broken through with siege weapons or you can bait the enemy units to open it for you. Not to mention that it widens the diversity of playing styles. Having discussed with friends and other RTS and AOE players we all agree on this and I think the community in general aswell however I see the point in your comment but I think it has more pros than cons.Thank you for your patience.
Even historically the game needs gates. It won’t be a big problem to add them.
If there is an option for more or less genuine gameplay, I think both gaters and non-gaters could be satisfied. I think there is a large portion of players (both old and new prospective players) who really want gates, myself included.
Wow. I really dont know why people is saying no gates…
I support the gate thing, i would even say that walls should come with a few archers at top. (have ranged attack like a tower a little weaker and rams should do less attack to walls and more to gates)
Its like sayin that aoe de doesnt need to imporve the unit formations or farm restocking…
If you want the original game go play the original this should be a improved version.
@Player716208890 said:
I’m aware it might be a ton of coding and bug fixing to implement them. That’s a point in favour of no-gates.
As a coder I don’t really agree. The most difficult part of an RTS game is usually the Pathfinding algorithm which they have already updated. (Starcraft 2 has the best so far) However a gate has a definite state at one time and all of them cannot really bug into each other the biggest problem, which is still tiny, is multiplayer synchronization but It has already been done in AOE2,AOE3…
@EagleEaye said:
I think this fully depends on how original they want to keep the game. Its not game breaking if there aren’t any gates, but the addition of gates would be great as well. But remember that age of empires does not have any super long range siege units. No trebuchets like in Age of empires 2. So having no gates also makes the game a lot faster in a way.
If they want gates, they need to put in new siege units too. I dont really see that happening and it would take away from the original. Being able to funnel enemies is already strong enough, especially if you have a good strategy around it.
Adding gates might be a lot more difficult to realise than you think
It might be a good opportunity now to think about having multiple rulesets. I’m not sure how such changes will affect gameplay, but they will, for sure. Having a larger - community extendable - set of buildings, units and cultures could make the game more interesting in the long term.
I’d hope for a vanilla/classic game and a game that is vastly extended. I’d love to see battle-formations that set siege to the back, archers in the middle and foot soldiers and infantry to the front. That would drastically change the game, too and I’d love to see both - new ideas and the original to choose from.a
Personally I would rather not see gates in the game, I would like it to be as close to the original as possible.
However, I would be ok and in support of gates if it is a selectible option in the pre-game settings - so you can choose to play with gates or without.
I think if gates are to be included they should be much weaker than the walls because otherwise people will just destroy the wall instead. Making the gates weaker than the walls will encourage the attacker to attack the gatehouse instead of the walls. This way you can plan for the assault by placing towers and perhaps traps around your gatehouse.
@ownerpr0 said:
I think if gates are to be included they should be much weaker than the walls because otherwise people will just destroy the wall instead. Making the gates weaker than the walls will encourage the attacker to attack the gatehouse instead of the walls. This way you can plan for the assault by placing towers and perhaps traps around your gatehouse.
What’s wrong with destroying the walls? You can’t expect the attacker to always choose your doorway. And it’s a common sense that you put your defenses more densely near the gate so going that way is not always the best idea.
@AsunderHarp8390 said:
What’s wrong with destroying the walls? You can’t expect the attacker to always choose your doorway. And it’s a common sense that you put your defenses more densely near the gate so going that way is not always the best idea.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with destroying the walls, but I just think it would be fun if battering rams can quickly open the gates, and walls require a little bit more effort, This adds another element to the building of your defences and the siege.
Im a very experienced player in DM (wouldn’t know about Rm scenarios or showdowns) and one gate will not make any difference, if anything, it would block your army up being an actual disadvantage.
Taking into consideration that one of the most played civ was Hitites, those war elephants and catapults would thank your gate for making it easier, because all your units would be on the same place. Plus, in that kind of multiplayer game, you can reach your pop limit within 15 minutes or less, kinda sounds hard to manage 200 or more units in 2, 3 or 4 gates.
On the other hand, I would just hit your walls, right in the spot where you are not paying attention? siege works very differently in AoE 1 than in AoE 2, so I’m not even sure the gates will even fit the metagame. At least not in Deathmatch encounters. Couldnt tell for RM.
I think adding gates would not change much.
Personally, I would like to take advantage of gates, if only for the RP (the ancient civilizations were already using the gates), and for me, anyway, at the beginning of the game, they are not of much use in front of a rush well conducted, then if the part pulls along the length, their mechanics becomes interesting, if only in the dimension where they allow a better control of the terrain, not forgetting that the enemy, too, can use them , which greatly balances the fight.
Personally, I have always preferred to see the walls as “obstacles” rather than as “tools for tilting”.
After that, it’s only a vision, but in my opinion, the addition of doors does not carry too much consequence.