关于翻译……目前中文是这样的，无论简繁。本地化确实是一个影响推广的大问题，总不能让所有新玩家都先下载一个文本mod。
Azap在繁中统一“鄂图曼轻步兵”还好，简中是“奥斯曼阿札布步兵”和“奥斯曼步兵”换着来……
Ulufeli在繁中好像是“乌鲁菲利斯”吧？挺尴尬就是了，这个词的意义不明
Deli的话你就真的有点会错意了，这个词在土耳其语就是“疯狂”的意思。然后他们的RG名叫Rumeliot，指的确实是鲁米利亚地区没问题啊？
1 Like
So, Chinese also has localization issues
Edit: I won’t say better localizations would help bring new players, but it would make the nonEnglish speaker players feel better
3 Likes
Yes. This word is a transliteration. Don’t know its meaning at all.
But what I stated is that their imperial upgrade is not “Imperial Ulufeli (帝國烏魯菲利斯)”, but directly changed to “Imperial Clerk Soldier (帝國文書兵)”.
(Note: Sith Ghost is not me.)
Its imperial upgrade should be named “Imperial Rumeliot (帝國魯美里亞人)”, but now it is “Rumelian Empire (魯美里亞帝國)”.
You can use a Stable to train an empire. 
1 Like
I think that DLC including popular countries like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Habsburgs or Korea would attract players, especially from “those” countries.
看上去繁中翻译比简中还要离谱。（20字补丁）
2 Likes
Yeah and in the case of Korea they can attract players of AoE 2 TC with the Turtle Ship
那么确实非常离谱了，简体中文和繁体中文各有千秋（（（
简体中文的翻译有明显问题的都在我们社区成梗了，例如“爱尔兰旅士兵”变成了“爱尔兰准将”，瑞典可以量产准将，怎么想怎么滑稽
3 Likes
Talking about the turtle ship, some people think the Atakebune (misspelled Atakabune in TAD and never fixed) is a misattributed turtle ship
Even though the only vaguely similar thing in both of them is the dragon figurehead:
And the Atakebune was real: Atakebune - Wikipedia
I did check and it was invented after the turtle ship, not that that’s weird:
Yeah,it for that reason…and because they are from the same era…The Japanese used the Atakabune for the invasion of Korea;and the Koreans used the Turtle ship in respond of the Japanese ships…
Dragon head is a common motif for decoration so that’s not very special. The key feature of the turtle ship is the spiked covering.
In the same wiki page there is an atakebune model without the dragon’s head and looks more like the “tekkosen” in game.
And they are almost the same thing:
" Around that time, the Japanese daimyō [Oda ##################################################### had made, according to the diary of the Abbot of the Tamon-I, six iron-covered big atakebunes in 1578. These ships were called “Tekkōsen” (鉄甲船), literally meaning “iron ships”, which is not to imply they were of iron, but that their superstructure may have been reinforced with iron plates against cannon and fire arrows"
" However, in the letter from João Rodrigues to Luís Fróis in 1593, full iron-covered atakebune built by Toyotomi Hideyoshi were mentioned."
The atakebune were armed with four at most (six if there were two smaller breech-loading swivel guns) cannons and numerous large-caliber arquebuses because it lacked the strength to withstand the recoil of cannon. The Oda defeated the Mori’s navy with them at the mouth of the Kizu River, Osaka in 1578 in a successful naval blockade. These ships, the best of the atakebune, were used somewhat in contrast to Japanese naval tactics of the time, which viewed naval combat as a battle between the crews of ships, rather than between the ships themselves (which contributed to the primary Japanese naval tactic of drawing near and boarding opposing ships, as the Japanese crews excelled at hand-to-hand combat).[citation needed]
In the Japanese invasion of Korea the shortcomings of these ships became pronounced as they proved to be of no match to the superior build and fire power of the Korean navy’s Panokseon ships, which could accommodate far more number of cannons due to sturdier structure and thus were employed in a distance engagement by cannon tactics rather than the grappling tactics of the atakebune-based Japanese navy.[citation needed]
“Atakemaru” (安宅丸), the big atakebune made by Mukai Shōgen Tadakatsu for Tokugawa Hidetada and Tokugawa Iemitsu was fully covered by copper plates.
Turtle ships participated in the war against Japanese naval forces supporting Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s attempts to conquer Korea from 1592 to 1598.[4] Korean Admiral Yi Sun-sin, who won all battles against the Japanese Navy, is credited with designing the improved turtle ship. From their first appearance in the Battle of Sacheon, his turtle ships, equipped with at least five different types of cannon, greatly contributed to winning 16 times in 16 battles against the Japanese Navy until they were destroyed, under the command of Won Gyun, in the Battle of Chilcheollyang. Their most distinguishable feature was a dragon-shaped head at the bow (front) that could launch cannon fire or flames from the mouth. Each was also equipped with a fully covered deck to protect against arrow fire, musket-shots, and incendiary weapons.[5] The deck was covered with iron spikes to discourage the enemy from attempting to board the ship.
If the devs put the Koreans in the game the leader would be Yi Sun-sin…
If this is the logic, buckle up for two South American civs.
2 Likes
Remove cards, home city, and change the music–it’s rubbish.
have to ask, you ok?
4 Likes
New campaigns and announce it big. For example, a campaign set and focused on Europe and the Napoleonic wars. I think it was the most important conflict in the period that AOE-3 represents.
One week free on steam and on xbox game pass (Even without paying for xbox game pass). Announce it at a major event like gamescom. Show cinematics and real gameplay that explain various aspects such as alliances with natives, mercenaries, unique units, etc.
Show the game really how the game is. People often think that it all comes down to musketeers and cannons, and “free” units with the cards.
Microsoft should take AOE-3 a bit more seriously. In a presentation they “embellished” the game, but the truth was they made it look like an indie game. For someone who sees this for the first time without knowing anything about AOE-3 it makes it look like a ridiculous game, or for another type of public.
Age of Empires 25th Anniversary [EN OC] - YouTube Around minute 22 there is talk of AOE-3.
This doesn’t look much like AOE-3. If the intention is to sell it and expose it, they could make it look a little more epic. They never even mention what the game is really about and what possibilities there are in it.
Please also give credit to AOE-3 when they introduce AOE-3 features into AOE-4. It might also sow curiosity for people who don’t know AOE-3 at all.
5 Likes
If you mean a completely rubbish idea to change any of those, then agreed. Because the music is great and removing a central mechanic and the most defining characteristic of AOE3 is one of the worst ideas in history, up there with invading Russia without preparing for winter.
4 Likes
I think they intentionally do not give credit to AoE3 for all the AoE4 features that belong to AoE3.
6 Likes
Give credit how? AoE4 pulls ideas from all the previous AoE games.
There’s not some conspiracy to hurt AoE 3 in order to help AoE4.
I think there is.
Any feature from AoE2, or any difference from it, is highlighted. Such as “hey units don’t attack buildings with swords anymore. They use torches wow.”
But they wont say: “They use torches, like in AoE3”.
9 Likes
No they actually did.
They highlighted “there are players who want the card system from AOE Online and we do not understand”
3 Likes