What should Age of Empires IV improve?

sea rework was a forced mechanic but is a hit or miss to play on water maps which is the main purpose but the lack of variety of ships makes it tedious for hybrid maps or boring as there only 3 type of ships and nothing new compared to aoe 2. at least they could add aoe dmg to arrow ships so there an inniciative to micro to reduce dmg income.

Originally AoE 4 was going to be like CoH and it was not going to have naval combat or water maps, recently later in development (2019-2020?) they decided to make water maps (Relic is not very expert in that, for some reason the campaigns The originals do not have any water map, only the last of the Rus with a transport lodya)… that is why the naval combat feels simple or imposed…

Do the Ottomans and Byzantines count?..

Do you have a source for this?

Curious about this too.

It lines up with how clunky most siege is. They all have a micro packing time like all the deployable guns in CoH.

I don’t remember where I heard it, but I think it was an interview with a developer.

2 Likes

One of the devs said it in an interview…I don’t remember which one…

2 Likes

Oh I think I remember that one. It was in one of Isgreen’s pre-release interviews where he said they’ll added water gameplay back after receiving feedback from the council.

The best evidence of the initial lack of water gameplay are the four base game campaigns.

4 Likes

Of course, that’s what I mean…also note that Relic does not have games with naval combat (DoW or CoH sagas) until AoE 4…that’s why naval combat is what it is…

3 Likes

Also look at the state of coh3, the main game of Relic and how many (or little) players it has.
That’s why aoe4 is what it is.
A technical disaster.

CoH 3 was fully managed by Relic under Sega, with Sega being the controlling publisher. It was released later than AoE IV (and indeed was delayed from its original release date, though arguably not long enough).

AoE IV was released under Microsoft’s umbrella, which is why on Steam the publisher is listed as Xbox Game Studios. It was developed under very different circumstances.

CoH’s issues seem from reviews (and being active in the community alphas, etc) to be very much technical. AoE IV’s issue from my experience of being here for years at this point weren’t so much technical as “feeling” like an AoE game. The review scores (including user reviews) reflect this, with the number actually trending upwards over time, if I’m remembering correctly. It’s up to 87% all time / 88% recent on Steam now :slight_smile:

Not bad for “a technical disaster”.

1 Like

I don’t see it as a disaster as some say, just points where the game can improve.

The game is good, and a lot of people like it and the franchise too. Balancing is something all games with combat against other players need, and it’s normal. A disaster would be not having balance or executing it in a completely irresponsible way. But not everything is perfect, and there are clearly poorly planned points that are not seen as a focus, and many games can also have this. If they want to improve, they just need to put a good team to work and do the best they can. However, it’s undeniable that the sea in Age is very poorly planned, and even though they have improved it compared to what it was at launch, I still believe they could enhance the experience and make it much more attractive.

As some have said, the sea is always a fight with the same units, always the same, with no variation, making it relatively the same in all games. If there is sea, it’s the only option; otherwise, the opponent will always be ahead no matter what happens.

While on land, we have infantry, a backline like archers, cavalry to flank, counter units, siege units for specific control situations, and defensive buildings. Tell me, what variations does the sea have? A dock that serves for military, economic, and merchant units and upgrades? Four identical units for almost every civilization? You’ll see a naval battle, and it’s exactly the same and boring for many players.

A match with sea, in my view, shouldn’t be mandatory unless it’s an island map where the sea must be obligatory. But in maps with small lakes or land paths to the enemy, it should be optional, but obviously with its benefits.

I think they could split the dock so that more constructions are needed to get everything the sea can offer, like a military dock, maybe a technological dock that might not need to be built next to the sea, a dock for fishermen with its technologies, and perhaps others. Make it so that the market can also build merchant ships if placed near the sea. Maybe a lighthouse that serves as a tower and provides vision.

I think there’s a lot that can be worked on to make it much more attractive and balanced. It wasn’t my intention to think of suggestions, but I got excited and found the idea interesting. The sea could indeed be something like this.

2 Likes

Nice ideas for water gameplay!

2 Likes

when you rebrand the game and reduce the the price to 20 dolalrs to make it worthy of its actual quality it does but still most of them already left you can see the current steamchart player base recent drops. ALSO take in consideration gamepass users dont generate enough income to make it up the cost for the games in the plataform that it made ms to cut the fat with several layoff. In other words the game was destined since start to be mediocre at best.

User reviews disagree with you. And if user reviews are magically irrelevant for whatever reason, then we can all pretend CoH 3 is perfect and nobody said anything bad about it :joy:

I don’t expect to convince you, but I figured I’d reply this once. Beyond that I’d really like to get back to things the game can improve on (like water combat, which was mentioned above, or the mod tools, which I personally champion).

2 Likes

This is how you fix water.

Lets start with combat. Why is water warfare underwhelming?

  1. The ships pathing is unbearable and requires too much babysitting. Even at the tournament pro levels you can see those guys struggling to manage pathing issues.
  2. Demolishes ships are strong BUT are too easily countered by a small fleet of archer ships AND sufficient springald ships can kite them down.
  3. Yet at the same time a single successful connection of a small number of demos can result in GG…
  4. There isn’t much variety both functionally and visually. All water warfare devolves into springald vs springald mass and trying to sneak in key demos connections. Oh and 2 to 3 archer ships to help deny the sneaky demos.

These are ideas how to address each of the issues above.

First make it so Larger ships CANNOT bodyblock smaller ships. This will be ship size order springalds > archer > demo. This will allow archer and demo maneuvering to be seamless. For example a blob of demos SHOULD be able to slip thru your frontline of springald ships instead of having to circumvent or babysit the frontline with god-like micro.

Next demo ships are getting overhauled!! 20s train time, 75w 60g cost, 290HP!! 2.5 tile/s speed, 95 base damage, 170 bonus vs large ships, 300 bonus buildings. This change and th previous pathing change will make demos more of a sure thing, however the damage reduction means you now need 3 demos to kill a springald ship. The increase in HP means springald can no longer effectively counter them AND that you need a 3rd archer ship in order to 1 shot a demo.

These are only 2 ideas of variety, we definitely need more. First is a RAM ship that has a charging mech. Charge damage should equate to that of 300 dmg single target plus a 100 damage DOT and 5 second slow effect on the inflicted ship. Standard damage will be 100 dmg per 4 seconds, and it can attack on the move (only in the forward directions up to 60 degrees off its front and center line). It should be countered by demo ships but will require 5 demos to one shot. Next is the byzantine dormon needs to be much faster than a springald ship, require 4 demos to die and can fire on the move (only in the forward direction, up to 60 degrees off the front and center line).

Final point wasnt directly stated but part of why springald mass i so boring is the remanent of shoot and scoot mechanic. Everyone wants to see a brawl, not springalds shooting then immediately trying to dodge the opposing springald fire?? So the solution to this is to make springalds work exactly like zhuge nu!!! Yes, give them a firing wind up but up there stationary dps by giving them 3 successive projectiles. So their base and bonus damages will go down to 15 base and 15 bonus. Make sure to spread the 3 burst far enough apart to deter the notorious shoot and scoot, BUT having the burst shots be fast enough that the enemy can’t maneuver between the volleys and force shots to not execute. This will also be another way to make springalds UNABLE to counter demo ships.

Overall i believe the community wants more strategy and less babysitting of units, as well as less immediately decided games given 1 mistake/mishap. And having 1 or 2 unique/niche units creates a little more strategy.

The main issue I want to see improved is multiplayer ranked ladder map pool.
I believe there are more than 40 maps, and there should be more. The EGC tournament maps should mostly be added to the games map list.

I dont understand why each ranked season theres only roughly 8-12 maps available. Each player receives 3 veto’s, and there’s usually 2-3 maps which are very unpopular. That leaves roughly 3-5 maps to be played in ranked.

I see this being a major reason player count drops off as each season goes on. Boredom, same maps and strats are used throughout the season over and over.

There should be a larger number of maps in the ranked ladder map pool. I say 15-20 maps available (add some EGC maps). Change the vetos from 3 to 5, so each player has to be comfortable and willing to play more maps. This way, each season a player in solo ranked won’t be playing a singular map more than 20% of games at most. Making the ladder experience more diverse and refreshing. Even swapping some maps out quarterly or halfway through the season.

a bit late but is easy to explain. Do you know how many ppl actually change their review and is not just first impression review that have little substance especially on rts that for an actual review you need hours dedicated to bring an actualopinion if you re a new player? I mean most ppl that already left also made a good bunch of the positive review so the % of positive reviews in this game is biased in steam. forums yo u can looks at yourselfthat thisone shows thetrue naturee of it but other sites like reddit become an echochamber.dont believe me? see this
imagen
when the bunch of layuer thatlike thisgamedont actually participate in the forum but just a a bunch of the ppl says everything about it. the last one before this number were about 300 ish at best.
. Also add the drop of players whichit tell the actual satisfaction ofthis game that still steady days after your response.

the difference between those 2 games is that one is the same as sc2 vs aoe or the unity of the whole fanbase where one can just mov eonethere only 2 option to stay or move to the new one bu for aoe every aoe has different experience which are still relevant because today aoe are mostly made worse than the og ones released