Return of Campaigns + Updates to existing ones
You know there is some assets that are not updated. Some gameplay mechanics that are not in pair with recent patches.
For example, why the heck you have an Arsenal on Campaigns when you clearly have a Blacksmith on MP?
Why the abilities are not sorted as the ones you get when playing a Skirmish?
A revamp of its SP content is very much needed
Yes, true. It would be important to update the gameplay and campaign features, as seen in the current base game.
I hope they revisit the campaigns from time to time.
I totally understand you, cavalry can be super frustrating on large maps and in team games.
In 1v1 itās not so bad because you can micromanage better. In team games, what really helps is banning open maps, playing more closed maps, and building outposts, keeps, and walls (especially stone ones) to limit cavalry. Coordinating with your team also makes a difference. Youāre not obligated to play ranked either.
In the end, the strength of cavalry, especially on team maps, is part of the aggressive version of the game, and with a little strategy, you can counter it without having to change mechanics (perhaps snare is worse for the player retention). Letās not forget that infantry has a temporary charge that helps them move faster.
What are you talking about? Roguelike is the premium sp content and the good people already decided it is far better than campaigns.
Say ācampaignā again and you are a hater
Yes, I agreeā¦in fact in AoE 3 you see the flags on your buildings and you can always change it with some modā¦
Yes, at least historical battles playing with Spanish against Aztecs and Incasā¦
Yes, Ismailās campaign from AoE 2 but for AoE 4ā¦
Yes, a campaign of Tamerlan, Ulug Beg and Babur (3 missions for each) (1370-1527)ā¦
Yes, a Viking campaign from Ragnar to Harald III (793-1066)ā¦
Yes, in short, Rajendraās campaign from AoE 2 but in AoE 4ā¦
Yes, literally the original campaigns have the same dataset as the gameās release 4 years ago (except TSA which has the same dataset as the aforementioned expansion) (the civs there are the same as the gameās release and the same with the UU, for example the English only have the longbowman and thatās it) and the arsenal thing is because it was originally going to be a building to be used in multiplayer, but they separated its technologies between the university and the blacksmith and it just stayed there in the campaign and nothing moreā¦
Yes, itās good, but itās just a ādefend the wonderā mode, so we shouldnāt neglect the more traditional campaignsā¦
Yeah more diversity!
SP Content overhaul
More customization options
Visual/Engine updates!
Campaign (Now, Iām a hater)
Correct bugs
I main mongol and itās unbearable : āselect all siege unitsā >>> it selects unpacked buildings, so you get archery ranges or steppe redoubt in the middle of battle
The upgraded (stone) military academy RESETS the Khaganate Palace delay (itās worse than have the regular military academyā¦..)
AAAH
Hounds Upgrade to The scouts, Individual scout upgrade that will add a hound following the scout and attacking just wolf animation can be used with a Dog skin.
Scouts by default should not see into stealth forest and reveal shinobis, Hounds gives vision into the stealth forest even when a scout is outside the stealth forest. Without a hound scouts should not see into the stealth forest unless they are in the stealth forest.
This will improve the use of stealth forests to hide troops and build proxy in the early game. I think Stealth forest mechanic is amazing in AOE4 that should be further utilized to evade armies.
Nice suggestion!
100 agree
Allow you to recruit units in groups of up to 5 instead of waiting for them to be created one by one as in AOE3. As well as making certain AOE4 civs take elements from their AOE3 equivalents, such as the Rus being able to train villagers and military units in groups like the Russians, and the Ottomans being able to automatically create villagers for free in the Town Center like their AOE3 counterparts.
Why donāt you just play AoE3? These features are specific to that game for a reason. I wouldnāt want to see them find their way to AoE4 as the game has a different design philosophy that makes it feel different to AoE3 for a reason.
Being different was the reason why many people didnāt like AOE4. This game should have been continuist with AOE3, similar to how AOE2 was a continuist sequel to AOE1. They should have left the development of this game to Forgotten Empires. I feel that this studio was the only one that understood the essence and could maintain the legacy of the Age of Empires series created by Ensemble Studios.
Well, thatās certainly a take. So by your logic, they failed by not mimicking AoE3 and therefore, the people who stuck with it should basically be discarded for the sake of pleasing AoE3 players that donāt like AoE4 to begin with?
The game has already been made. Trying to turn a cake into a pizza will only piss off people who like each.
Like I said earlier, AoE3 already exists, so play that. If this was at all about success then I must remind you that AoE3 was not some kind of brilliant success that needed to be repeated, it was in fact exactly because AoE3 didnāt do as well as they hoped that they have chosen to go in a different path.
And that different path has led AoE4 to being objectively more successful than AoE3.
But I didnāt like the direction they took with AOE4. As has been the case with the variants, the campaigns donāt have the same epicness and deep narrative that the AOM and AOE3 campaigns had. I also donāt like the more simplistic art style compared to the more realistic art of AOE3. For that reason, the development of the game should have been left in the hands of Forgotten Empires and not Relic Entertainment or Worldās Edge. And they should have used the Bang Engine from AOE3DE instead of the Essence Engine from the Company of Heroes games.
While itās true that criticism of the variants or aspects of the art style or campaigns that you donāt like is legitimate, in terms of the graphics engine, AoE4ās is more modern and fluid. The artistic style sought legibility in gameplay, although it could have been more detailed.
By the way, FE collaborates with Relic, and WE is responsible for managing, supervising, and coordinating the franchise.
Sure, and anyway, FE AoE 3 devs are in charge of the AoE 4 expansions, so little to little, they would reach the AoE 3 uniquenessā¦I think the next year we will get a Reconquista/New World expansion and the Spanish, Aztecs and Incas will be like the AoE 3 ones and maybe the Danes like the AoM Norseā¦
Iāve been playing a lot with the English civilization, and while I really enjoy their defensive and economy-focused design, itās clear that they often feel a bit slow to get going ā especially in metas with early aggression or fast tempo plays.
Their late-game economy is amazing once it kicks in, but getting there safely can be tough.
Thatās why Iāve been thinking: what if the English had a small passive bonus to Stone gathering?
It would fit their defensive identity perfectly ā giving them more flexibility to build early towers, walls, and keeps to survive the early pressure ā until their economy naturally explodes in the mid and late game.
This wouldnāt be an overpowered buff to their economy or army; instead, it would support their intended playstyle and make them more consistent across different matchups.
It could also open up new strategies, like turtle builds or map-control play, without making the civ oppressive or changing its core fantasy.
What do you all think?
Would a small Stone bonus help bring the English back into the meta ā or would it push them too far defensively?
Yeah would be better to improve English on defense features as the civ was designed to be