What are your thoughts on the current state of AoE4, including its design, balance, gameplay, and overall direction?

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

Despite the fact that I’ve posted similar threads before, this time I’m genuinely curious about how everyone sees some very specific issues in detail:

1. Has anyone felt that some of the recent changes in Age of Empires IV ignore unit roles and their intended purpose? Based on your experience, do you think the developers actually play the game, or are they just changing things blindly? Have you or people around you ever proposed more logical balance ideas that clearly show the devs aren’t approaching changes from a player perspective? Or is there some other reason behind these decisions?

2. After all these years, does AoE4 feel increasingly unfamiliar?
For example:

  • The value of infantry feels inconsistent or unclear

  • Certain units are repeatedly buffed or nerfed in extreme ways

  • The overall framework feels more scattered after so many balance patches

Also, what do you think about naval combat — especially naval damage against land units and the general strength of navy?

3. How do you feel about the pattern of extreme buffing followed by extreme nerfing every season?
Do you know which groups the developers rely on for feedback when balancing the game?
How do you feel about the constant adjustments based mainly on statistics and data?
And how would you evaluate the current level of unique identity between civilizations?

4. What do you think the game’s current direction actually is?
Does it feel more like a game focused on single-player enjoyment, or is it clearly aiming toward e-sports and competitive play?

5. Has anyone wondered why cavalry sometimes can’t catch infantry — or even villagers?
And how do you view the current divide and conflict among different player groups within the community?

**6. Do you think the constant balancing chaos is happening because the game focuses too much on competitive play — or because it still isn’t competitive enough?

7. With the recent news about Dawn of War 4 focusing on:

  • more content

  • fun gameplay

  • strong single-player design

  • tactical depth

Are you now more excited for DoW4 than waiting for AoE4 to finally improve? Do you believe AoE4 can rise again next year, or has another RTS already taken its place?

8. Based on the developers’ behavior so far, do you still expect meaningful growth for AoE4?
Do you believe AoE4 can inherit the spirit and legacy of AoE2 — or do you think this might be where it ends?

**9. Besides AoE4, do you play other RTS games — and if so, what alternatives have you found?

10. What made you like AoE4 originally, and what led to your disappointment?
Or, if you dislike the game — what made you stick with it anyway?

3 Likes
2
  1. In regards to unit balance it feels tough at times. I’ll have a spear mass with scattered crossbows and opposing knights seem to overpower them still. Especially to early rushes of knights where you may only have a handful of spears and feels like we are churning through our armies and making more vs their very durable and long lasting knights
1 Like
3
  1. The gameplay still feels familiar. I used to play the first age of empires and thoroughly enjoyed it but it was clearer on the dynamics back then of how to counter. Spear > horseman > archers. Mind you things were a bit more simplified and things like men at arms type characters were an additional unit but didn’t affect that core rock paper scissors style of unit counters that made it clear and how to strategize against your opponent
1 Like
4
  1. In regards to the big post launch swing it can be a bit uncomfortable for the experience. Introducing something new and great but with unexpected consequences to then be heavily nerfed. I would say more testing would benefit this or maybe even a soft launch or prelaunch with some civs to test those things out at a bigger scale and then launch it closer to what is balanced. In general after every patch it always feels more balanced. Not sure their process on it all, I would be curious about it but I trust them to do the right thing to continue to create a balanced experience.
1 Like
5

I feel they are adding too many Horse Archer units. The recent expansion has added Kipchak, which although thematic and proper for Golden Horde, has just made Team games even more insufferable. I think this wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for how Horsemen work; they simply cannot catch up. Either Horse Archers need to walk slower, Horsemen don’t stop to attack, or they attack while moving, because it is nigh impossible to catch Horse Archers in the current state of the game, and you’re instead delegated to walling off and forcing a fight, something that in team games, can be circumvented quite easily with mobile units and makes dealing with Horse Archers insanely expensive for what they cost to make.

Some team game maps are too big for their size (2v2, 3v3, 4v4).

I feel like Trebuchets could be made stronger. Rams are just too convenient and strong in contrast.

I’m not a fan of all of these ability based civilizations. I’m very against Sengoku’s ninja bullshit.

They need to take another look at water. It can be fun, but they need to reduce the amount of units you’re managing. Make them cost more, take up more space.

Also not a fan of resource generation, which they seem to be ramping up. It promotes turtling and kills the strategic component of the game out in the map. As a bonus note, I hate the “points of interests”. This isn’t AoE3 and there are plenty of resources to manage. I hate that you interact with points of interests with your army; this isn’t Warcraft 3. In Age of Empires, you gain boons with your villagers and economy, not with your army.

I’ll also add that there is some clear favouritism. They listen to streamers too much and I can tell the devs are buddy-buddy with them to the detriment of this game. Elements that made AoE4 unique in its infancy are being made redundant for the sake of balance. Flavour that made civilizations interesting are being given to their variants so you can pay more. It’s a form of development cannibalism, enshittification if you will.

2 Likes
6

AoE IV has always been more ability-heavy than earlier franchise entries (from the earliest days of English Longbowmen with Palings, and other things like Campfires. I’m very English-heavy, so those are my go-to examples).

I get that “I don’t want more” is a valid stance, but their inclusion has always been a part of this iteration, so it makes sense to keep including them in new designs. I’ve seen high-level complaints about Sengoku though, so they seem to be a stand-out (unsure if your opposition if because history, ability-first or impact on any given game - or a combo).

1 Like
7

You’re misunderstanding. I am not saying AoE4 shouldn’t have abilities. I like Trample, Berserk, Shield Wall and so on. I am saying that civilizations like Macedonians have too many, surpassing even Byzantines by featuring an ability in almost every unit available to them. Sengoku’s ninja ability is also beyond what I think should be in a game like AoE4. Choose any stealth forest and spam ninjas that have an insane impact? They might as well be a map-wide artillery ability. No, I’d much prefer you make actual units to have such an impact.

2 Likes
8

I would say that the balance between the units is reasonably “balanced.” It’s not perfect, but it’s functional.
There could be some improvements to bonus damage, health, and unit price.

Regarding drastic balance changes… well, I’ve seen that in other RTS games and I don’t mind. As long as the game evolves for the better, everything is fine.

I watched a professional from my country… and he mentioned the issue of balance.

In his words:
“Since civilizations are asymmetrical, there will never be a perfect balance. It’s clear that some civilizations perform better against certain other civilizations, but that same civilization will also be weaker against another type of enemy civilization.”

  • In short: the balance is very much like rock, paper, scissors… where each civilization has a slight advantage over some other civilization, while at the same time having a slight disadvantage against another type of civilization.

This is quite noticeable for professional players, where players played at maximum skill speed, taking advantage of every moment without making gross mistakes.

Another detail I notice is that many players may complain about the balance, but they don’t know how to use the units.

Example:

I watched a smaller championship in my region, and a player used the variant: “Tughlaq Dynasty”.
Basically, he used the “Raider Elephant” unit as if it were a war elephant.
When the enemy had large numbers of archers, he didn’t use the “Raider Elephant,” basically only using it to fight infantry and cavalry… Bizarre!
The “Raider Elephant” has bonus damage against ranged units and no bonus damage against infantry and cavalry.
Obviously he lost… because the enemy had large numbers of archers, who weren’t being taken down and were constantly accumulating, and he didn’t use his large number of Raider Elephants correctly.

And this repeats with various units…
It seems that players get lost due to the wide variety of unique units, and they don’t read the unit descriptions to use them correctly, and thus, they use them as they see fit.

I see it with my friends and family… it’s a mess, lol.
Many people use them haphazardly, and then complain that they’re not killing enemy units that seem to be “immortal.” lol

—> Basically, many don’t read the unit descriptions and don’t even know how to check their unit’s bonus damage (*note: that’s the worst part, they don’t check where the bonus damage is being distributed. It’s possible to check to know how to use your unit better, but they don’t do it).

But obviously Age of Empires 4 is satisfactory in terms of balance.
It’s not perfect, but it’s doing well

Otherwise… there wouldn’t be so many tournaments happening.

I’m happy to be able to watch AoE4 tournaments from time to time.

1 Like
9

Yes. I’m looking forward to Dawn of War 4.
I’ve waited many years for this sequel to finally come out.

NOTE: I didn’t buy Dawn of War 3 due to poor decisions made during the game’s development. However, with Dawn of War 4, it seems they’ve finally decided to listen to the community.
So, I’m definitely happy and I will buy and play Dawn of War 4!!!

However, I disagree on the issue of more content.

  • If Dawn of War 4 reaches 10 or 12 factions in the game, it will already be its peak. Which is a much lower number than Age of Empires 4.
  • Age of Empires 4 has many more civilizations and variants, as well as many more biomes and many more map models that are randomly generated every time you play!
  • However, Dawn of War 4 will be more realistic and cinematic and will have a co-op campaign, in addition to having many more colors to customize your civilization! I love this customization, something that is still very bad in Age of Empires 4.
  • So I would say that each of the games has its strong points and weak points!

There is a probability that Dawn of War 4 will have a larger player base than Age of Empires 4.
However, this will depend on the upcoming DLCs, both for Dawn of War 4 and Age of Empires 4.
So around 2029, we will be able to see who is reigning with the largest number of players.

Because now at launch, it shouldn’t even count; every new game at launch, if it’s a good game, will always have a good number of online players, but we will only know if the game doesn’t get boring after at least 3 years.

1 Like
10

Love this game and feeling pretty alright about balance, other than one tiny issue. Or maybe I should say large issue, some 400 health healer problem, this one unit is so game warping I am so sick of it. Just had to deal with almost 3,000 health of elephants with unkillable archers due to the healing in feudal age. So over this complete mistake of a unit. Nothing fun about playing against it.

1 Like
11

TL;DR Development and Management teams don’t know how to do with the game and its future
A pretty solid argument I must say

1 Like
12

What I mean by “balance” is not just the simple strength or weakness of civilizations. What I really want to know is how you view the developers’ current habit of constantly changing balance, and how you see their numerical-design mindset—something being extremely strong or extremely weak, then constantly adjusted over and over again. Why does it always end up like this every time?

And when I say DoW4 has “more content,” I don’t mean faction count. I’m talking about the game’s overall design philosophy, direction, framework, map interaction, depth, and all the broader elements that shape a real RTS. From the developers’ own statements, DoW4 is clearly a game that focuses on single-player enjoyment, aiming to recreate the chaotic Warhammer 40K battlefield with retro sci-fi, high-intensity combat, while providing more freedom and long-term expansion. Content is not simply about how many factions you have. Even a single 40K faction already has far more unit variety and deeper lore than an AoE4 civ. Whether all of that can be fully realized is another matter, but Unity is far more flexible and adaptable than the Essence engine—it isn’t limited to realism or cinematic style, and it supports things like co-op campaigns, customization, mission creation, unit upgrades, and much more.

DoW4’s real goal is to recreate the interplanetary conflicts across the entire galaxy of the 41st millennium, with more custom missions, unit progression, and a larger, expandable framework. This simply isn’t something AoE4 can be compared to. I know you personally prefer AoE4, but it’s obvious you don’t know the DoW IP well enough. DoW4 doesn’t rely on DLC; as long as the base game succeeds, it will never fall below AoE4. AoE4, whether in terms of engine, production capacity, background limitations, or its studio, all faces systemic issues. And you must understand: both AoE and DoW have survived not because the developers are particularly strong, but because the modding communities kept them alive with long-lasting passion and updates.

In terms of physical interaction, AI logic, battlefield tension, and overall impact, DoW is simply stronger. As for AoE4, I don’t have a positive or negative view anymore, because I’ve stopped expecting anything from it—it’s just too slow. At this point, paying attention to whether DoW4 succeeds is more realistic. AoE4 being slow is fine, whatever, I’m not going to criticize it further. And regarding new content: I heard the next DLC is a Chinese campaign early next year, with faction DLCs only arriving in Q3–Q4. So what exactly does AoE4 even have throughout the entire year? Compared to that, AoE2’s 2026 roadmap is far more interesting.

Like I said earlier, I know you like AoE4, but your bias is too strong—you should calm down a little.

13

DOW4 plans ：DoW4’s Development Blueprint

DoW4 is shaping up to build a large-scale, high-density content framework that includes:

  1. Combat Presentation:
    The strongest in the series — a dynamic, procedural action-RTS combat system.

  2. Single-Player Content:
    An equipment system, branching missions, and commander-build customization.

  3. Faction Design:
    Highly asymmetric factions with deeply lore-accurate mechanics unique to each 40K army.

  4. Game Scale:
    Between 100 to 400+ unit models, aiming for a galaxy-level warfare atmosphere.

  5. Technical Foundation:
    Rebuilt responsiveness and support for significantly larger on-screen unit counts.

  6. Co-op Mode:
    A full campaign playable in co-op, with two players sharing control of the same army.

  7. Multiplayer Philosophy:
    A long-term ecosystem focused on fairness and faction diversity, not forced esports.

  8. Mod Support:
    Confirmed openness to modding, ensuring long-lasting community-driven longevity.

  9. Engine Flexibility:
    Unity provides far greater extensibility and creative freedom than AoE4’s current engine limitations.

===========================================================================================

original ：

Q: Aside from Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War IV, what was the most recent RTS you played, and what did you like about it?
Jan: Dawn of War 1 – Ultimate Edition. It feels surprisingly similar to DoW4. I also own Stormrise – Collector’s Edition, but haven’t played it yet.
Elliott: Finished Homeworld 3; praised its visual design and the nostalgia it brings from the original game.

Q: What was the biggest lesson learned from Iron Harvest?
Elliott: Balancing impactful animations with responsive unit controls. This has been improved for DoW4.
Jan: RTS games are difficult. We rewrote the Iron Harvest codebase to achieve better performance and more responsive units. Mission lengths now vary, and the engine can support more units on screen simultaneously.

Q: What is the overall vision for DoW4?
Elliott: To capture the excitement of the original Dawn of War; evoke nostalgia similar to classic RTS experiences.
Jan: Aim to stand alongside DoW1 and DoW2. Development is driven by a sincere love for the classic series.

Q: What do you think of the community and its discussions?
Elliott: The community’s excitement is inspiring—please keep sharing your thoughts.
Jan: Passionate feedback is valuable. Time constraints limit what can be done, but some ideas truly help improve the game.

Q: Will story choices in the campaign influence the ending?
Elliott: The campaign narrative is mostly linear; choices affect mission-specific elements and commander selection.
Jan: Some decisions have longer-term consequences, but most are within individual campaign arcs.

Q: How does the co-op campaign work?
Elliott: Both players control the same army—similar to StarCraft II’s Archon mode, rather than separate co-op campaigns.

Q: Do commanders have equipment upgrades?
Jan: Heroes unlock equipment and abilities over the course of the campaign. You can customize their loadouts before each mission, though it costs resources. Strategic abilities remain active once unlocked.

Q: What are the plans for multiplayer and competitive play?
Elliott: Multiplayer is important for longevity. Multiple modes are planned, and the game stays faithful to the Warhammer 40K universe.
Jan: Esports potential depends on the players. The goal is a fair and enjoyable experience, not forcing the game into a competitive mold.

Q: What about long-term balancing and global communication?
Jan: Competitive viability depends on the players; balance helps, but isn’t the ultimate aim.
Elliott: Deep Silver handles global communication and aims to support all regions.

Q: Will there be a dedicated balance team or testing phase?
Jan: Extensive internal testing plus player feedback. Balancing is complicated but essential.

Q: Are there idle animations and voice lines?
Elliott: Yes, including idle animations and voice lines. They may vary depending on the situation in a match.

Q: Are there multiple firing/shooting animations?
Elliott: Combat visuals are still being polished. More details will be shared later.

Q: Will the game display full unit stats?
Elliott: There will be basic stats and tooltips: HP, armor, penetration, experience, veterancy levels, and unit traits.

Q: Are transport vehicles included?
Elliott: No buildable transport units. Each faction has its own unique method of rapid troop movement.

Q: How do you balance player skill and convenience features?
Elliott: RTS games should avoid “brainless” decisions—players of all skill levels should have meaningful choices.
Jan: Micro and macro must be balanced. Convenience options (auto-cast, attack-move box, etc.) help newcomers, but skilled players can still outperform them.

Q: How does the synchronized combat / battle director system work?
Elliott: Context-based procedural animation blending, affected by unit count, enemy size, and other factors.
Jan: Melee “binding” allows dynamic tactics. Early disengage and retreat options enable responsive withdrawal from fights.

Q: Why is there no morale or suppression system?
Elliott: Mechanics must fit faction lore. Morale doesn’t make sense for many units (e.g., Necrons, Terminators).
Jan: Many previous mechanics were removed because they didn’t suit faction themes.

Q: Do weapon loadouts count toward the “100 models” limit?
Elliott: No. The “100+ units” refers to unique models.
Jan: Counting configuration variants, the total could reach around 400.

Q: Will mod support be included?
Elliott: Modding is important. No detailed info yet, but it is planned.
Jan: No further comment available.

Q: Details on the game’s economy (upkeep, point decay, power, asymmetry, Necron specifics)?
Elliott:
– Upkeep affects recruitment resources, optional in skirmish/multiplayer.
– No resource point decay.
– Power works like DoW2: capture points and build generators.
– Faction-specific differences: Orks’ Waaagh!, Necrons gain resources and buffs through territorial expansion.
The economic system has been iterated and refined during development.

Q: How does stealth work?
Elliott: Stealthed units are invisible until they attack or enter detection radius. All units can detect stealth. Faction upgrades may enhance stealth mechanics.

Q: Do units have veterancy levels?
Elliott: Yes. They gain experience through combat, increasing HP, damage, and unlocking abilities. Broadly applies, though some factions emphasize it more.

Q: Are there more units than what was shown in the trailer?
Elliott: Yes.
Jan: Yes—many units are still hidden.

1 Like
14

Relax, I’m not prejudiced.

I know the DOW franchise.

I played DOW1 and DOW2 quite a bit and followed channels that detail the history of the races, important leaders, and significant events.

Regarding content, I still disagree.
For me, content boils down to what I can select in the game and change my experience with it.

The Warhammer 40k story is extremely long and incredible. But the DOW4 game won’t tell the whole story… only a small fraction of that story will be seen.
Precisely because the story is too big and it wouldn’t make sense to repeat the same “Campaigns” in all the games in the DoW series.

I can’t pretend that AoE4 has less content when compared to what will be included in DoW4.

Content, for me and for many, boils down to what I can directly interact with, whether in campaigns, Civilization selection, biomes/maps.

Age of Empires 4 stands out in the amount of content regarding the number of playable civilizations/variants and the amount of selection and customization of Biomes and Maps. DoW will never surpass Age of Empires in these 2 aspects.

But that doesn’t make DoW any less… DoW4 will be incredible.
And I really waited many years for DoW4, I’m anxious to play it.
And DoW4 does need DLCs, nobody wants to be stuck with only these 4 playable factions forever!
The vast majority of players want to see the other factions/races in future DLCs. And that’s good, in addition to new incredible campaigns coming.

15

With the recent announcements about IV, I see they are hearing the community

Campaign and CO OP content = SP and Casual Players happy
2 NEW Base Civs = Multiplayer and Competitve Players happy

1 Like
16

There’s things I dislike about how AoE4 turned out: the concept of variants, the fact some unique units have different stats just for the sake of it, or that some huge buildings cost 50 gold/wood while others cost thousands of resources, or some of the elephants costing much less than other elephants etc. There’s a lot of inconsistencies and bloat, that will prevent this game from ever becoming a classic, even if it’s re-released as a definitive edition.

That said, it’s the best modern RTS for multiplayer, in terms of modern design and gameplay. They managed to diminish frustrating design, to streamline a lot of RTS chores without simplifying gameplay, and to create gameplay that doesn’t feel like following a recipe book, which makes it a joy to play. This aspect they truly nailed. They also managed to land a decent balance, considering the amount of civs and mechanics in the game, but part of it is due to the bloat I mentioned earlier (a lot of uniqueness is inconsequential, or equivalent).

TLDR The biggest issues for me are recycled content lacking theme (the redesigned civs coexisting in the game with the original ones), bloat and some design that isn’t meaningful enough (like a unique civ bonus or unit difference that is there just to be different, but isn’t impactful enough either for gameplay or theme; identical units with different names is another example of bloat).

17

We’re doing well.

In fact, I’d say that during Season 11 there was already a balance among most civilizations. The biggest problems were with naval play: Templars were broken, and they ruined the balance of the underwater maps.

Now in Season 12, the Knight Templar (KT) problem on the sea has been resolved, and now people are playing multiple civilizations more comfortably on naval maps.

That said, there was a problem with the Golden Horde’s (GH) Infinite Torghut combo, but the last patch fixed it, and now you can play FFA, 3v3, and 4v4 games more safely.

Regarding the Tughlaq elephants, they’re an interesting addition to the game, since they practically work very well as a Support civilization in teams.

That said, only now that the GH’s broken combo is gone can you safely play FFA, 3v3, and 4v4 games.

Therefore, the game can only improve, and the announcement of the DLC increased the community’s hype.

18

About DoW4, it’s not out yet. I feel it’s premature to compare it to AoE4. I remember Company of Heroes 3 being hyped by the developers, and we all know how that turned out. I also remember other games being prematurely compared to AoE4, such as the infamous Stormgate, or Age of Mythology Retold. I don’t think it’s an easy feat to make a game that’s better than AoE4. It’s definitely possible, but it would have to be an outstanding game, maybe similar to how Starcraft 2 was when it came out, but updated to current day standards.

About balance, I’ve never felt they’re changing stats around just for the sake of it, that might just be your prejudice. If you can give me some examples where they changed stats around without a clear purpose (to nerf/buff, or to rework), maybe I could consider that as valid criticism, but nothing comes to mind.

19

Pretty sure the things you’re describing are “design and balance”, but it’s hard to tell from the generalisations.

Casual players tend to drive what games (in the rear view mirror) are defined as “classics”. Very few PvP-heavy games become classics (in the RTS space you have what, SC: BW? SC2 I guess counts by proxy. Maybe early CnC as well).

So the problems you’re describing basically won’t register when it comes to considering something a classic or not.

Beyond that, I agree. AoE IV had a bit of a rocky start, but survived with decent impressions out of the gate and a significant turnaround in the years following release (even considering Variants). It’s now solidly-reviewed and a great entry in the franchise, with more solid content in the works. Looking forward to it.

20

I think biggest problem of those games was the focus on multiplayer.