That’s true… AoE Online has Celts, but few people wanted to play it because it’s cartoonish… now to see Celts in Antiquity we’ll have to wait for them to be included in Chronicles or Retold…
Of course, and there were going to be few civs because the idea was for them to be asymmetrical, so it takes more time to develop them…
Sure, AoE Online is cartoony, but it has a lot of content and overall it’s fun and quite sociable since your empire trades with other empires in real time all the time even outside the game…
Of course, AoE 2 is not cartoonish, but within its graphical limits, it is realistic…
Sure, AoE 4 was missing Byzantines and Japanese and now it feels like a more complete game… look at the civs map I made for TSA and you’ll see that there aren’t so many blank holes…
Africa/West Africa (missing Berbers, Kanem, Sudanese, Ethiophians and Zimbabwe)
Of course, in short, AoE 1 or AoE Online but with modern and realistic graphics… last October AoE Online introduced the Indians (Mauryas) and they draw heavily from the new civs from Chronicles, since with each age you can choose a unique economic or military technology…
Yes, I feel the Middle Ages are very oversaturated in the RTS genre (mainly due to medieval fantasy)… there aren’t that many RTS set in Antiquity (if you ignore the latest historical Total War games -Troy, Pharaoh- and the new Anno: 117 which is more of a city builder) and let’s not even talk about the colonial era (Cossacks 3 in 2016, AoE 3 DE in 2020 and the port of Empire Total War to mobile and elsewhere)… then WW1, the last Petroplyph game (The Great War: Western Front), then there’s no Cold War RTS, and there’s no Modern Era RTS either (talking about recent years)…
Of course, if they had launched AoE Online in 2011 but with the 8 civs it has now, things would have been different… obviously people would have complained about the cartoon aesthetic, but since it has a lot of content, the criticism wouldn’t have lasted so long… I play Project Celeste a lot and I love the events although I’m short on resources for the buildings in my capital xd…
I don’t agree with this logic. The Middle Ages lasted many centuries and many cultures emerged and disappear. Borders kept changing (and in many cases borders themselves were meaningless). Just showing a bunch of empires at different times at their maximum extent doesn’t say much. Otherwise, why have the Ottomans if we have the Byzantines, why have the Rus and the Chinese if they were conquered by the Mongols, why having both Ayyubids and Abbasids, or why do we have French and the HRE when a Frank civ could cover both?
I don’t like this blank hole covering thing.
Surprisingly few, and the few that exist mostly focus just on Rome. I can’t think of any RTS that features the hugely underrated Hellenistic kingdoms for example
Quite a few actually, often as a side-effect of portraying the rise of Rome. Rome TW1&2, Imperator Rome… start in the early 3th century ACN with the successor kingdoms doing their things while Rome is about to face Carthage. But indeed that’s more grand-strategy.
The main issue is it needs specifically portraying the period, as with an AOE-like civs model they would otherwise default to being Greeks or Macedonians, ignoring the influence from other realms.
Maybe by extending the chronicles, after the expected Alexander one ?
These two are decades old, and very different from aoe, and Imperator Rome is not an RTS (underrated game btw, too bad it got abandoned. Why do I always like games that share that fate?). But something with the aoe formula im Ancient times is not common at all, especially compared to the Middle Ages.
I guess this depends on how symmetrical the civ have to be. Other game like AOM, AOE4 and, especially, AOE3 show that this can be perfectly implemented with some creativity.
Same reason why AOE1 and then AOE3 are dropped : overexpansion. Trying to support too many games at once only mean splitting developper capacity and the player base.
In the early 1950s McDonald’s found out that over 80% of their sales were only 3 products (burger, fries & coca cola), guess how they overhauled their menu (cutting everything else, then building on those 3 items).
Antiquity is less popular than more modern periods as it’s harder to relate to civs, besides the Greeks and Romans it feels very distant for most. While most medieval european kingdoms still exist in some form. And then the hellinistic period is stuck between 2 of the most famous periods, Classical Greece/Alexander and the Romans. This makes the period relatively obscure to most. Making it more likely such games get cut first, if they are even made at all.
The issue is I hardly see such realms that only lasted for a couple centuries be used as civs alongside the Egyptians that lasted for thousands of years. If you keep the antiquity setting broad.
With the AOE4 model which allows unique gameplay features for civs, maybe they could be used as a specialisation for later-ages Macedonia by outright taking influences from other civs, that way it could be done.
Actually having looked at some screenshots (since I haven’t played it for a while), AoE4’s more cartoony than I remembered. Especially the buildings, which are undersized relative to the units and somehow look unconvincing, like they’re children’s toys rather than actual buildings.
Yes, that’s what I meant by them being “more specific”. But it is very inconsistent, especially when you include the variant civs.
This seems sensible. Personally I wouldn’t push the time period that far, especially now that Return of Rome and Chronicles exist – keep it properly Iron Age (something AoE1 failed at somehow), so no Romans, no Persians (maybe Medes instead?), and Greeks would be archaic rather than classical. But this would probably not sell as well, and your suggestion makes more commercial sense.
While that’s usually the case. In my examples there are other reasons. Imperator Rome didn’t have enough players, mostly due to its poor launch, but I also agree with you about Antiquity being less popular. However, it being so distant is part of why I personally find it so appealing. Playing in a setting that is some ways relatable while in others completely alien…
And well, regarding aoe3, it is quite clear that World’s Edge has never shown any enthusiasm for that game, to put it lightly.
Ironically, the Early Modern era is also less popular that the Middle Ages despite already having most of the countries and cultures we know today. I guess that romanticed version of the Middle Ages so prevalent pop-culture is just too strong.
Yeah, you’re right. It wouldn’t be too hard, just make the Macedonians get bonuses from other cultures when reaching the latter ages.
If the gameplay is very different, I don’t see how it would conflict with RoR or Chronicles. Much like aoe2 and aoe4 are very different despite both being medieval games. If anything, I think making a game set in the early Iron age would be too limiting, as there wouldn’t be many civs, the only civizations that really thrived were Phoenicia, Assyria and the Babylonians, and not even at the same time.
For me, the ideal time frame would be from the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the creation of the Roman Empire (possibly up to the third century if new expansions focus on other regions of the world)
Though they only controlled that for a short time, their empire didn’t survive Ogedei finding out the hard way that eastern europeans make strong vodka.
Part of the premise of the suggestion was that the overlap between AoE2 and AoE4 is a problem. Of course, you don’t have to agree with that.
Maybe, but I didn’t suggest that. Persians, Romans and classical Greeks are not Iron Age. AoE1 ended up in a weird situation where most of its official campaigns were set after its time period was supposed to have ended – I was partly trying to avoid that.
Maybe it is, but I think the main problem is the missied opportunity of having made a new game set in Antiquity rather than the Middle Ages again.
Ah, ok. I see your point. I just simply meant that a purely Iron Age game (let say from 1200 to 600 BC) would be very limited in the civs selection, as many of the well-known Antiquity civs were not there yet, as you said, and other Bronze age civs like Hittites and Minoans were completely gone by then.
What I would suggest is a game that starts in the Iron Age and finishes around the creation of the Roman Empire (and maybe up to 3rd Century with further expansions).
In theory, the Koreans were a satellite state of the Yuan (aka Mongols) until 1356…they could enter as the Goryeo dynasty (918-1270), Joseon (1392-1598) or simply Koreans (918-1598)…
Joseon flag (It is more recognizable as a Korean insignia)
Sure, I see the Byzantines as covering the period from 1000 to 1450 and the Ottomans from 1450 to 1600… the Rus and Chinese appear because they fought against the Mongols (as it appears in the Mongol campaign)… the Ayyubids I do see them as being put in because of Saladin when they could have put the Mamelukes instead… and France and HRE being separated is because the game is set post-1000 CE (so you have a French civ and a German civ as well as in AoE 2 you have Franks -Carolingians- and Teutons)…
Sure, if they touch on Antiquity it’s mainly Rome, only Fertile Crescent and Total War Troy and Pharaoh touch on the Bronze Age…afterwards, nothing…and Chronicles doesn’t count because it’s a 2DE DLC, it’s not a separate game (although they could sell it separately from the base game someday when the mode has like 15 civs)…
Of course, they are more grand strategy, they are not RTS per se…I’m already tired of releasing so many medieval RTS (especially medieval fantasy ones), knights and castles, there are other historical periods too…
Sure, although I think that after the Alexander DLC they will focus on the rise of the Mauryas in India (324-232 BC) (like in AoE Online):
Chandragupta (324-293 BC): You would fight against the Nanda and the Seleucids (which would be added in the Alexander DLC along with the Macedonians and the Ptolemies)
Bindusara (293-268 BC): You would fight against the Kalinga and the Dravidians (new civs in the DLC)
Ashoka (268-232 BC): You would complete all the Mauryan conquests from Bactria and Sogdiana in the northwest to the Ganges in the east and Sri Lanka in the south conquering the Kalinga in 260 BC (the Kalinga war cost 250k lives)…
Afterwards I would probably see a first “Chronicles of Rome” If not with the foundation of Rome in 753 BC (something like a prologue), with the foundation of the Roman Republic in 509 BC and then continuing until the battle of Allia and the sacking of Rome by Brennus in 387 BC (here we would have the Roman Republic, Etruscans and Gauls or Celts as civs) (like the Celtic invasion of Rome quest pack from AoEO)…
Then another “Chronicles of Rome” with the Latin and Samnite Wars (383-290 BC) and perhaps the Pyrrhic Wars (280-275 BC) but from the side of Rome…there you skip the Punic Wars since you have 1 DE for that (let’s see when they put Rise of Rome campaigns in Return of Rome) and you focus on the Celtiberian and Viriathus Wars (181-133 BC) in another dlc and so on until you get to the birth of the Roman Empire…
Sure that’s true…at least new civs in those games make them fresher…
Of course, they trusted that they would be able to “maintain” all the games (in quotes because they abandoned 1DE before the release of 3DE) and there were 2DE and 3DE and partly 4 until Retold came out (and then they also abandoned 3DE)… they can’t maintain them all because they don’t have enough devs to do it…
Of course, you think of Antiquity and Egypt comes to mind (Pyramids, Pharaohs, Tutankhamun and Cleopatra), Greece (Trojan War and Alexander movies), Persia around there (because of the movie “300”) and Rome (because of the movies of sandals and gladiators) and it’s like you lump everything together in a single period…
Sure, something like AoE Online without Romans or Indians or 0 AD (500-0 BC)…
Egypt (Ptolemies)
Classical Greece
Macedonia (Alexander and Diadochii)
Persia (Achaemenids)
Babylon (post-conquest of Assyria)
Pontus
Armenia
Celts
And that’s it…
I’m not including Bronze Age civs like Hittites and Phoenicians or civs like Rome or Carthage or even Asian civs like Mauryas, Qin or Lac Viet…
Yes, besides the fact that it is a somewhat controversial period and that it does not have so many current blockbuster films set in this period (You have The Patriot 25 years ago, then the Pirates of the Caribbean saga and now Napoleon by Ridley Scott 2 years ago and out)…
Yes, they are Mongols (the cyan blue is for the flag they have in the game)…the Rus would be the grey ones; the Mongols occupy so much because they reached the Urals and sacked Moscow, I could have even said that they occupied Poland, but it was for a short time since Ogodei died in 1241 and they withdrew from Europe…remember that in Genghis Khan’s campaign, the Mongols conquered Central Asia, China, Persia, Russia and defeated Poland and Hungary…
Of course, there are more than 20 years between one game and another… AoE 4 is what AoE 2 would be if it had come out in 2021 and vice versa in 1999…
Of course, although the Iron Age lasted in general from 1200 to 550 BC, in some places it lasted longer… Greece and Rome used iron until 400 AD and in Germany and Scandinavia it continued to be used until 800 AD (Viking Age)… so as it is in AoE 1 it is not bad per se, since the Iron Age would go from 1200 BC to 800 AD and that is why you have the Roman campaigns from 300 BC (Gallic invasions and Pyrrhic wars) to 400 AD (Barbarian invasions and fall of Rome) and well, the Yamato campaign which would be the exception reaching until 740 CE in the early Middle Ages after Tariq and Tours in 2 DE…
Of course, although I think that AoE Online did not go as well as a “pseudo-reboot of the saga in Antiquity”, they decided to continue with the chronology and that is why AoE 4 is medieval to play it safe and stop so many experiments… now AoE 5 would be colonial like AoE 3 but going more to the safe side like Cossacks 3, that is, Europe from the 16th to the 19th century (1500-1800) (that is, Renaissance, Thirty Years’ War, Seven Years’ War and Napoleonic Wars) and nothing else… I don’t think they will touch America or Asia this time (to not hurt sensibilities of “colonialism”)… then AoE 6 will be modern (1800-2000) and AoE 7 futuristic (2000-2500) as I put above… and only with AoE 8 will they restart the saga again in the Antiquity…
Of course, between 1200-600 BC you don’t have much either… Alba Longa, Celts at most, pre-classical Greece, Egypt and Babylon occupied by Assyria, Assyria itself, Israel (big NO), Media and that’s it… there’s no more…
I think that AoE4 is way more inferior. It lacks soul, I mean, I give them props for designing civs and elevating that uniqueness that AoE2 strived to have, but probably was constricted due to technical and development timespan reasons.
The campaigns have no character, it’s giving propper documentary but with a boring, waiting just to be over narration. The graphics are fine, but the building designs are, if I dare to say, exclusively made to be less in the eyes for competetive players( so no soul too). I love the wonder age ups, but it becomes tedious after some time.
Some units feel clunky, the siege units feel “weak” too fragile.
There is potential, some stuff can still be elevated but AoE4 (nor any following game in the franchise) will beat AoE2. That game can’t and will never die. It was built with an everlasting formula, idk how to explain, but it feels just right, smooth and fun.
Yes, they will never surpass it because AoE 2 is already a classic of popular culture, you just have to improve the games so that they are other different alternatives to 2…
What does this even mean? How do Landmarks become tedious?
Siege units are too fragile? Compared to what? Because in AoE2 they die in 2 hits.
AoE2 has been re-released multiple times. Initial game was pure sprites. Current game is pre-rendered 3D units. No, AoE2 won’t die, you don’t have to be insecure about AoE4. Just enjoy the entry you enjoy. I think AoE2 has its charm.
Yes, the landmarks are good… I think he means that they become repetitive after a few games and it is because there are landmarks that are used more than others…
Of course they are not comparable… AoE 2 has its large established community and 25 years behind it… AoM and AoE 3 have their communities, small but faithful, and AoE 4 tries to find its place in the saga…
Well I didn’t say that AoE4 will die. I hope it doesn’t, because I play every entry almost daily. What I did say is that AoE2 has something special, it has a charm which doesn’t any other entry have, that’s the reasons why it still has and will have the largest player base of all games.
I was more thinking that just clicking age ups is more simple and for me, easier and better. But I don’t have anything against landmarks, it’s a nice detailed “realistic” system which is pushed by AoE4. For me it just becomes tedious to build them after some time. I just said that the simplicity in AoE2 is more what I prefer.
