Yes, it is true that AoE2 civilizations have more symmetry between them (obviously they are not exactly the same, but many are similar in Early-Mid gameplay).
I know that there are overrepresented users here who come from games where the civilizations are very different, the balance is very poor and the competitiveness shines for its irrelevance (AoE3, AoM and AoEO. Perhaps AoM is the only one that could be saved with “AoM Retold” if they don’t go crazy with the content).
Yup, that’s my point. Early game is indeed basically the same for all civs (except the ones that start with extra villagers and/or less resources) but from Feudal and Castle on, the “uniqueness” of 2’s civs shines through.
I would say rather from the Castles Age to Imperial Age in its vast majority XD.
I think perceptions here of symmetry is just wrong.
AoE2’s civilizations may have fewer bonuses and “differences”, but the bonuses tend to stronger define a certain gameplay aspect of that civilization.
AoE4 on the other hand, features bonuses that are hardly gamechanging. While +2 melee armour is nice for HRE’s Spearman, does that allow them to only spam that unit and win? The answer is no. In fact, nothing in the game is like that. Every civilization in AoE4 does the same Rock-paper-scissor gameplay, and every significant difference in terms of AoE4 civ design, does not change this fundamental moment-to-moment homogeneous experience.
One shining beacon in AoE2 is that Castle units tend to actually be strong.
Because Castle units do not exist and are therefore just another unit in a building, AoE4 cannot make them too strong, since they are available in basic production buildings. So units like Horse Archer (which is a civ specific unit) is just meh. Why would you design units to just be “meh”?
Identity should be one of the motivating factors for people to pick up a civilization. The vast majority of players do not pick a civilization just because it has favourable winrates. Most players pick a civilization like say, Mongols, because they have that Mongol imagery in their minds, and gameplay NEEDS to accommodate that. The problem is exposed when whatever makes a unit special, is either broken, or barely special. Think how Mongol’s core mechanic of being able to move buildings being an utterly broken mess of a mechanic.
Or alternatively, think of how Prelates are even considered a Unique Unit. How Elephants are useless.
AoE4 developers have designed civilizations with too much constraint if anything. What sense is there in designing civilization specific units to be so god awful that every civilization ends up spamming rock-paper-scissors anyway?
At that point, it doesn’t matter if you’re playing Mongols, English, Chinese. All you do is make Spearman, Archer, or Horsemen. If you’re lucky, you get a special version of those units for bonus points. And that, is only a recent development.
EDIT: Makes me wonder if Landmark-specific units should be a bigger part of the game. I recall one of the main reasons of liking Chinese is because their Dynasty units are worth making; of course coming at a heavy cost. But, it creates identity and makes the fact that you chose Chinese matter.
Of course… don’t worry about the balance because the devs know it and they are correcting the civs so that they are not so OP and at the same time they continue to be unique… the idea is that AoE 4 tries to be better than AoE 3, no worse…
No, my idea is to change the HRE MMA for the Teutonic Knight, just as they did with the Abbasid MAA for the Ghulam…
I agree with that…instead of adding monsters they could improve the game in another way, such as graphic improvements and glitches…
You don’t have to be so pessimistic either…AoE 3 DE is still incredible…the European dlc improved the game in an abysmal way…it seems like a new game within the same game…AoE 3 DE has never been in better shape that now…
Yeah, looks good to me…strong UUs coming from the landmarks…
There is no need to complicate, the terms are what they are:
Symmetry implies that all civilizations in the game have a similar set of units, buildings, and abilities. This means that, broadly speaking, all civilizations have access to almost the same tools and abilities, although there may be some minor differences in terms of visual design or unit names. Symmetry tends to promote a better balance between civilizations, as they all have the same base units and capabilities.
Asymmetry means that civilizations differ in terms of units, buildings, and abilities. Each civilization has a unique set of characteristics that distinguishes it from the others. This can include special units, exclusive technologies, specific bonuses, and unique structures. Asymmetry adds an additional layer of strategy to the game, as players must adapt to the particular strengths and weaknesses of their chosen civilization.
AoE4 has more symmetric parts compared to AoE3 and more asymmetric parts compared to AoE2. Another different thing is that the balance or lack of content makes a civilization one-dimensional.
P.S: There are several meme units in AoE2 castles. Not all are strong.
There are games where HRE only wins with MAA, French with Knights, English with Lb and Chinese with Zhuge Nu circumstantially, for example. Maybe there are some Abbasids who want to win with Ghulams without getting countered.
It is true that there are UUs that need to be improved, but that civs are not played differently because there is a base of balance such as R-P-S is not true.
The European civilizations of AoE 3 for example…