As a Conquer I player, some time may reach Conquer II, what makes me concerned now is this games seems emphasize too much on map control, everyone is going outside of the map contesting deers boars and doing early aggressions all the time, this is not good in terms of the diversity of playing style. We should have civs like Abbasid being allowed to be free from punishment for going 2TC, and you have to keep up with your economy then fight them in castle or imperial to win. Another consequence is the fundamental horse-spear-archer counter chain is in an imbalanced state right now, going cavalry is rewarded more that almost every game I just go stable asap even I see a barrack on my opponent’s side because I can force his spear to stay in his base and defend while I can go on to the map for resource. I feel we really need more play styles to the game
What you really want is a boring double TC metagame like in the old days, where there are no attacks until a certain minute. Controlling the map should benefit the player, and turtling should be temporary to a certain extent. The best way I see to balance that is with varied maps.
Currently, we are in what is probably the most varied meta in history, where there are civilizations with various playstyles and alternatives (and more yet to be discovered).
I was a bit vague / too lazy to go into details. I’d say it’s mostly (half-arsed) design than balance, if that helps. It could be to not rock the boat too much in terms of balance.
The bloat is also inescapable, because the whole thing is designed around releasing civs.
Yes, I could feel even in closed beta that there was something there. I can only imagine how many more players would have stuck around if it stayed one more year in the oven, and if they didn’t cut costs during the past couple of years.
I must say why I think AoE4 can’t compare to DoW4 in terms of expandability, even if we put aside the modding aspect. AoE4 is always tied to a historical framework, and within this fixed framework, it can’t go much further. We can also look at its unit structure and the existing unit system. If AoE4 really had more content and expansion as you said, then the game would have already reached its limit in terms of unit variety because there are so many units in history that have not been included, regardless of the reasons. They just haven’t been added to the game. Moreover, the studio needs to ensure that each unit has its purpose, fits its role, and remains in line with the historical framework, while also trying to infuse it with a sense of romance. But it’s always bound to this framework. On the other hand, 40K has a sci-fi setting, and as you said, it’s massive.
But you’re wrong about one thing: precisely because it’s so vast, it doesn’t need to show you everything. Just showing part of it is enough to reveal the immense background and content without the constraints of a real-world framework. Even if all we’re playing is one conflict in the galaxy, the amount of content already existing in this war can be freely drawn upon. The greatest advantage of the 40K setting is that, in such a complex and ever-changing galactic war, any battle can be pulled out and still carry significant meaning within the 40K universe. This directly relates to its background. You say repeating the same battles isn’t meaningful, and I won’t argue with that because it’s true, but DoW4 doesn’t have limitations on the use or recruitment of units.
I’ve said many times, having more factions doesn’t mean more content. And Age of Empires 4 doesn’t have much to offer in terms of player interaction. Just comparing a faction’s unit numbers, tactical choices, physical interactions across the battlefield, more profound game design, varied formations, unit animation upgrades, skill combos, and the overall commander system—these are all part of the content. I don’t know why you always overlook this and focus on your own thinking. But I think I’ve made myself very clear. No matter how many factions and variants AoE4 has, there’s not much you can actually interact with. As I said, it already loses out in terms of unit numbers, let alone other designs. The emphasis on biomes and map customization in your reply doesn’t surpass what we saw in AoE2, AoE3, and Age of Mythology. Your response just refuses to accept that DoW4’s success could be more exciting than AoE4’s because you like AoE4. In the end, your last point seems more like you’re making an excuse for yourself, saying you have no bias and also like DoW4, but from your words, it’s clear you haven’t thoroughly understood the DoW IP or some of the design choices in Warhammer 40K. Additionally, DoW4’s available factions don’t need to be many because each faction’s unit count, role, tactical focus, and distinct playstyle—along with their completely different background—are enough. On the other hand, AoE4 suffers from severe homogenization. I don’t believe your claim that you’ve waited many years for DoW4 makes you desperately eager to play it. Honestly, your last point is quite weak, and there’s no need to say all that. Just admit what you like or dislike directly.
Hmm?? well …I can’t really understand what are you talking about ？
Diversified gameplay is indeed necessary, but I think it’s hard to achieve—not only because of the engine used in AoE4, but also because of their planning direction. The pace of AoE4 is very fast now, and its direction and gameplay are indeed becoming more and more homogenized, leaning toward esports. Additionally, you can now see that building stone walls doesn’t really matter anymore because the fast pace might make it unnecessary to build them, and they’re not very useful. Also, defenders never have enough countermeasures to deal with the enemy’s siege weapons, and stone walls are fragile, wasting stone resources. Moreover, I personally think the gameplay in AoE4 is indeed quite homogeneous.
But this is just my personal opinion.
Well, now it’s a matter of individual opinion for each player.
You think one way… I think another way… Rsrsrsrs.
There’s not much to be done.
I disagree and will always disagree.
For me, content is indeed having more campaigns, civilizations/variants, and maps/biomes.
Civilizations and variants are precisely the possible interactions between players, with different ways to play, new units, and new bonuses.
Even if you say that Warhammer 40k has more diversity, in reality, if the game had 20 factions, you would see a repetition of styles similar to Age of Empires.
Example:
Look at the “Unification” mod for Dawn of War 1.
In that mod, there are more than 30 factions (I think there are 37 or 36 in total). Many of them are similar to each other… and why? Because there’s nothing left to “invent”… you have to follow the official lore/story, and many weapons are similar across the various faction variations.
However, Dawn of War 4 has already mentioned that there will be no new units and upgrades for the faction “variations”… only the “Leader/Hero” will bring new abilities that will interact with your army and support your army.
- Even though Age of Empires 4 “appears” to lack diversity, simply because everyone has archers or horses or infantry… and this starts to intensify with the increase in more civilizations and variants… this obviously affects the Warhammer 40k universe, the more factions and variations, the more similar and even identical weapons and technologies are repeated, as seen in the official story and mods.
Anyway,
What matters is that we both like Warhammer 40k.
There’s no point in discussing much.
What matters is hoping for the success of Dawn of War 4, so they continue developing new DLCs with campaigns, maps, and factions.
Thank you.
Exactly, this game has gone too far on esports. Encouraging map control does make game watching fantastic, but as a player I feel game playing become more and more unsatisfying. Under an exports oriented way, pro players are like actors on a show, their gaming experience doesn’t matter, what matters is if their play can please the audience. But the thing is, video games are meant to be enjoyed and played by the majority, not be played by only a couple of pros where the rest of us just watch, that’s how Starcraft dead, and I really don’t want to see AoE repeating this. I know it is hard to balance between esport and normal playing, but I do hope devs can realize they need both to keep this game alive
The reason they’re pushing esports is because that’s what propelled Starcraft BW in Korea to unparalleled heights, and ever since, all RTS devs are using esports as a marketing tool for their game. I do think to some extent this is good marketing for a game, but I also agree that there are other ways, like catering to the casuals (CO-OP please!), and that the cavalry meta is a bit much right now. It’s incredibly easy to roam around with cavalry and pick off villagers when the game encourages you to spread out for resources, and outposts barely help with this (because arrows tickle, and blink and you’ve lost a couple vills). The only thing I’ve found efficient is going for cavalry myself, turning the game into Starcraft 2’s cheesy gameplay, where the one who picks off more villagers at the end wins. There’s also the problem of every game being Knight-Archer, regardless of the civ, and 2TC being a death wish. The game needs better tools against cavalry. Maybe caltrops, or some other tool to slow down gameplay.