I know, but even so the message is not very proactive.
Yes, but this does not reflect the number of sales or total players. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the XBOX platform never shows the number of players online, so we don’t know how many there are. I think it’s around 10 or 15%.
I didn’t say it wasn’t polite outright, I said it wouldn’t be a very polite answer, being a bit sarcastic. In other words, this is not proactive. If I were proactive this thread wouldn’t have strayed the way it did.
There is nothing to accept or reject. It’s just another read.
I’d be more optimistic and say it is a great setting but undeveloped.
Medieval is heavily fantasized. Most people’s perceptions of “knights in shining armor” are not so medieval. Either it is only high medieval, or even late renaissance. Modern entertainment created this fantastical “medieval setting”.
It could do the same for early modern period. In fact a lot of modern countries’ identity and their national myth are formed in this period. That’s why there is a large portion of Latin American players of AOE3.
The American Independence is a popular theme. Napoleon is a popular theme. Eastern European historical fantasies (e.g. Sienkiewicz) are more centered on early modern than medieval. There is also the long-lasting, heavily fantasized pirate theme which again has little to do with real history. With popular history become more widespread on the internet, I don’t think there is any “less appealing historical setting” at all.
Let’s look at some attempts of not-so-successful early modern games:
AOE3: we’ve all talked a lot about it. It has its core design that may not appeal to traditional RTS players so much, and it ran into the decline of RTS.
Empire Total War: it was actually really hyped when announced. But it got poorly executed. Napoleon was a much polished game, but then it is too narrow and still suffers from the “reputation” of ETW.
Cossacks: it was made by a smaller group with limited resources and capabilities. Still a great game though.
I’d say most of them are not the setting’s “fault”.
Before Battlefield 1 I’d say 80% of the people would be like “nah WWI is not such an interesting topic”. It is probably an even “less appealing” period than 18~19th century. But it ended up being maybe the most successful BF game for quite a while. And it is, again, heavily fantasized (I don’t think there are so many automatic weapons or body armour in real WWI).
I’d also like to mention Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai. It focused on again a less interesting time period (1860s, under the Pax Britannica where there were not may major events besides some colonial conflicts, in the eyes of western audience of course) on a less interesting subject (Boshin War of Japan, compared to the Sengoku period of Japan itself, or the Naopleonic Wars of Europe), but it was considered as one of the best and most creative expansions in the series. Well but you didn’t have fully armoured samurai charging into Gatling guns in reality.
Modern entertainment has the ability to make anything entertaining, as long as they want to. It’s just that publishers are too timid to explore the not-so-safe zones.
Agreed. I’m really curious about what direction AoEV takes. I really can’t picture a post-Industrial Revolution AoE game. I don’t think it would feel very AoE to me. I suspect if ES had developed it like it was planned to do so I wouldn’t have been really excited about it way back then, either. In that regard perhaps focusing on smaller periods of time as you suggest would be a wise move. And quite frankly aside from perhaps WWI the WWII period is overly saturated with every genre of game, you can think of.
In short, I agree with you totally about the core gameplay loop not fitting in a modern setting.
I hope AoEIV has a long life cycle because aside from the curiosity of what time period AoEV takes place in I don’t want to think too much about it lol. Conversations like this may stray off-topic but usually, it’s the only time when topics like this are broached.
As I’ve said before, there is still a lot of interest in more 3DE DLC outside of the forum and Discord. I try to remain optimistic as hard as that can be sometimes.
Sure, but what would you propose here? Indian camels but Ottoman artillery?
I had an idea I had been tumbling over with using a unique Age Up system where each option helps fill out Persia’s unit roster, which is otherwise barebones. By choosing a dynasty with each age up, you get a new unit type to train, as well as an economic benefit. This way, the Persians would be a modular civilization that could be min-maxed, or versatile. Overall, the Persian roster would emphasize fighting at range (is that too much like the US), with a Persian commander trying to keep their units away from the enemy when engaged in battle.
Khan: Shared with Tatars, this is your hero. Probably functionally similar to African explorers, being a mounted unit with both ranged and melee attack.
Tufangchi: Cheap musketeer that excels at range and in large groups
Sarbadar Archer: High-HP archer
Tajik: Basic melee unit, functioning somewhere between a Pike and Rodelero
Jazayerchi: Home-city exclusive, rifle skirmisher with the stun ability like Lenape Warriors
Tribal Cavalry: Relatively generic melee cavalry, maybe with a big-button ability to avoid snagging like Chimu Runners
Zamburak: Shared with India
Bronze Cannon: Versatile artillery, similar to the Light Cannon
Aq Qoyunlu - Ghulam: Heavy melee infantry with a charged bonus melee attack
Timurids - Turkoman: Rapid-fire Cavalry Archer, like Lipka Tatar or Tatar Archer
Safavids - Qizilbash recruitable without unit limit from the Stable/Caravanserai
Afsharids - Jazayerchi now recruitable from the Barracks, but build limit is limited
Qara Qoyunlu/Hotakis - Not sure who should be the fifth civilization, but they should have an infantry focus
Mughals - Can now train Mahouts from the Stable/Caravanserai
Durrani - Pashtun Cavalry: Dragoon-type cavalry with extra long range but low hitpoints
Qajar - Nezam Infantry (Persian musketeer similar to Nizam-i-Cedit), Persian Cossack
I did some reading to make a legitimate Persia proposal, but I honestly thought it was gonna be a real DLC. The main issue here is mostly whether to design it as an Asian civ, which feels silly but I guess not too distanced from what India is, or just design a culture to go alongside it as well.
I like you idea. I had something similar in mind. However, instead of obtaining new units, you would obtain upgrades for the Persian units. For example, if you promote the Turkic peoples , you would improve units like the Qizilbash while if you choose the Iranians you would improve the Ghulams.
Maybe it could be a mixture of both, where you could obtain both unique units and upgrades by picking a faction or dynasty when aging up
Right, I think the issue is that while my proposed dynasty system makes a lot of sense for the Persians, it wouldn’t fit with any other hypothetical Middle Eastern civilization, such as Moroccans or Omanis. I actually think the African alliance system works better for these two civilizations.
Dynasties could thematically work for Tatars, where we have a lot of choices for different Khanates, but would impart a very different set of bonuses from Persia’s.
In the case of the Omani it might work, albeit with some differences. Maybe you could choose to become “more African”, representing the Sultanate of Zanzibar or stay more Arab (representing the modern Sultanate of Oman).
Maybe the first option could grant some African mechanics or units.
I don’t really like the idea of Morocco as Middle Eastern by principle. Like what realistically makes it Middle Eastern?
Is it because they are Arabs? Because then Egypt wouldn’t be a Middle Eastern civ since most of the population identifies as Misr rather than arabic. so there’d be a really weird gap there.
Is it because they speak arabic? Because Persians sure do not speak arabic.
Is it because they are muslim? Because then Hausa sure should become a Middle Eastern Civ.
So I’d rather just cut it at the safe spot and just have Middle Eastern be civs that were actually primarily located in the Middle East. (Which makes a funny case for Oman since they moved their capital to Zanzibar eventually, but such is the case of colonial empires.)
Of course, there’s also a lot of people who are gonna argue for a Middle East Ottoman civ, which is very much its own can of worms. Although a very, very important part of the Ottoman Empire was located in Europe during this period.
I’d rather just play it safe and have Morocco as an African civ, most likely the devs think the same.
I agree, it wouldn’t make much sense to give them similar mechanics to the Persians, althought I’m not sure if the African mechanics would fit them either, since they seem to be made for Sub-Saharian peoples. They’re in weird spot
Well, I remember it was one the reasons one of the devs said, in the WoL Discord itself or maybe not*. Another one was that every patch the mod was going to break, but 3DE has additive mods now. And that it wasn’t known how modable the game was going to be
*It was that the models would have to be made from scratch to have the same visual style