my idea is to implement choose a leader each time you age up like in aoe and aoe3 in dark age to feudal itd be choose squire or priest in castle to imperial it would be king or duke each one of them focuses on different bonuses squire gives infantry bonuses and for example duke aids economy it would be refreshing
celts and japanese player would always choose squire its obvious squire leader would benefit infantry and it ties well with their civ bonuses come one let’s brainstorm which other leaders and bonuses priest i think would benefit villagers not monasteries because thatd be too obvious dont you think
still waiting why doesnt anybody reply my idea is not that bad come on
1 Like
Was gonna reply on your idea but saw you begging for reply then i don’t want to reply anymore
7 Likes
Samesies
It took only two hours for you to beg for replies.
Be patient. You won’t always get a response right away.
1 Like
As for the thread’s topic, I disagree massively. You’re asking for an insane overhaul of the age-up mechanic which the game really doesn’t need, and other titles in the franchise already perform rather well.
Please don’t encourage misleading players. Not everything needs to be complex for the sake of complexity.
3 Likes
Aoe does not have such a thing and majority aoe2 players dont like the card deck mechanic in aoe3.
We have already done this in a more simpler and aoe2 friendly way in our rome at war mod.you can check that out if you like.
2 Likes
This idea could work nicely in a mod – but in my opinion, making such a fundamental change to the game as a whole at this stage in its life is a poor idea. Every civilisation and campaign would need rebalancing as a result of this. I think the fact that other games in the series have a similar feature is an argument against this rather than for it – there is value in different AoE games being different from each other.
How could your leader be a squire? It’s impossible for a squire to be a leader, because a squire is necessarily subordinate to a knight.
A bonus being “too obvious” is not the problem here – the problem is that you’ve proposed the priest as a Feudal Age leader, but monasteries aren’t available in Feudal Age. You could have the priest provide the bonus that monasteries are available in Feudal Age, but I think Feudal Age monks would be at least as much of a noob trap as a benefit.
They probably meant AoM. AoE4 also has something similar, with landmarks.
yes i meant aom and sorry for being too impatient ill try to be more patient in the future as for my idea let me develop you will have four leaders to choose from not two like in the other games what do you think four instead of two is much better
why does it matter man a squire is a higher rank than a peasant
which ties well with my proposal that the priest will give general economic bonuses.
picture this in feudal age the leader is the priest in castle its bishop in imperial its pope this means there will always be a religious leader but what happens if the player doesnt play monks this leader will go unused and since the minority of players go monks it would be a waste of programming effort if the priest bishop pope benefits monasteries you get where im getting at
I disagree with this idea as it would force the player down different paths. Currently if you pick a tech, worst case scenario it won’t be useful and you wasted resources and time. But it doesn’t lock you out of another tech. A bonus choice would do that, picking one bonus would mean forfeiting the other choices for the rest of the game.
It would depart too much from what AOE2 is.
1 Like
no no i dont mean this like aom where choosing a god effectivly negates the techs of another god in fact chosing a leader wont give any new tech at all everything stays the same in that regard what i propose is that the leader gives automatic improvements like squire automatically gives infantry +0.5 movement speed
It works the same, picking the squire’s speed bonus means you won’t get the sergeant’s faster training time or the burgher’s better market rates. Making it a bonus instead of a tech only means you get it immediately upon age up, and for free. You’d lose flexibility as you’d be locked out of some options.
Other concern : balancing it would be a nightmare as there definitely would be very powerful synergies for some civs.
yes thats my point imagine celts with even faster infantry itd be ever so funny try to catch a hyped woad rider with a knight itd be so so fun.
Balance is a serious business in AOE2. Civs are already very well balanced for the most part, why throw all that out of the window for a questionable new feature ?
2 Likes
Whoops, it turns out I was wrong and there’s another meaning of the word squire I wasn’t aware of. Moving on, nothing to see here…
Functionally, leader choice is a free tech that locks you out of a different free tech. The fact that it’s not called a tech is irrelevant.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting here – are you really saying your point is to mess up the game balance because it would be “funny”? Because that’s what it sounds like, and that makes it hard to take your suggestion seriously.
1 Like
You can be like, age up with a free attack upgrade, defense upgrade. Or age up with 5 archers or 3 vills or 3 knights. Like aoe3 age up menu if you have played it. You pick one but you can still get the other one. You can apply other techs or bonuses too but you get the idea. I think that’s fun.
For example if you are under pressure of enemy archers you can age up with 3 skirmishers. If you are not under pressure and want a better boom you can age up with extra vills, or an eco tech. If you want an archer push you can age up with attack upgrade. Those are the decision making and thinking process when we play aoe3, and aoe2 can have them too maybe.
I am afraid this change too much to the game as well so i don’t mind making it a separate game mode, just like the 9 vill start, or empire wars, that currently exist