10 civs from Europe? How many civs do you think this game is going to have?
2 Likes
Do people really want mediterranean civs? aka more generic europe cavarly civs?
sikeâŠ
You know not what you speak.
4 Likes
I know of what I speak.
I agree that it would be quite difficult to build out 10 civs from Europe and have them feel unique and asymmetric. Meanwhile, from a practical standpoint, there are constraints to developing a game â we canât just have infinite civs. Every civ added by definition rules out a different civ. I canât really imagine a version of AoE4 where the game would be best designed with that many European civs.
2 Likes
Only if you know nothing about history.
5 Likes
If this is less asymmetric than aoe3, I would say this game will eventually get about 25 civs, I know that sounds like a lot, but think about it, aoe3 has 17 civs, and this is slightly less asymmetric than aoe3, also this game is almost certainly going to be more popular than aoe3, meaning the devs will likely want to add more dlc to make more money. Assuming every dlc has 3 civs ( there might be some with 4 or some with 2) and with the base 8, that would be about 17 dlc civs,
This means about 5-6 expansions eventually, not super far fetched as aoe2 list of expansions is
1 conquerors
2 forgotten empires
3rise of the rajas
4 African kingdoms
5 the last khans
6 lords of the west
7 upcoming dawn of the dukes
So we could probably get around the same number of expansions, and of course it will be a while before we hit the numbers Iâm talking about here,
Let me just throw some ideas for expansions people might want in the far future
1 new world expansion ( American civs) Aztec, Inca, either Mayan or a North American civ
2 African kingdoms (Africans) Malians, Ethiopians, Berber
3 Asian dynasties ( Asia) japan, kmher, another Indian civ
4 European expansion ( Europe) byzantines, Vikings/ Danes, either castile or Portugal
5 central Asian and Eastern Europe expansion, lots of good choices here I could give plenty of examples but one could be Poland Lithuania.
1 Like
Perhaps you are used to being spoken to that way, but I am not, and certainly not on this forum. I would be pleased if you could address the substance of my comment and show me more about how you would see a game be asymmetric and well designed and have 10 civs from Europe. Perhaps your definition of asymmetry and mine are different. Certainly AoE2 has 21 European civs, so a game could certainly have that level of symmetry.
Yeah, true. They could have 25 civs planned for all we know. I just assume they will land somewhere around AoE2 or AoE3âs initial runs (before the post-Ensemble expansions of recent years).
No, you do not. [mod edit: last warning, stop with the personal attacks]
The Mediterraneans were the most technologically innovative civs in Europe.
The kingdoms that coalesced into Spain were indeed focused on masses of Heavy Cavalry, but also had impressive Light Cavalry Genitours that often smashed Asian-style Horse Archers, with sheer speed and precision, not to mention they were amongst the earliest adopters of Gunpowder weaponry.
Portugal had almost no Cavalry at all, and had very little population, but compensated for it with sturdy and very well drilled Spearmen and Crossbowmen, a lot of exotic Siege and Battlefield Engines, and an Engineer Corp that rivalled the Italian geniuses of the Renaissance.
The several kingdoms and city-states of Italy had the most varied armies of the whole period, and the entire peninsula was flooded with mercenaries from around the Medieval world. It probably saw more fighting styles and different weapons, than any other battlefield to date.
Byzantium had the famous Greek Fire, the first Grenades, Cavalry Archer corps that often beat even the Turks, Cataphracts copied from Persia, and the extremely famous Varangian Guard.
No, you do not know what you speak. [mod edit: last warning, stop with the personal attacks]
4 Likes
I could have swore we saw glimpses of the Vikings and Byzantines in a trailer or screenshots ( I donât remember which) We know the two other civs are the Rus and HRE.
3 Likes
Do all factions have to feel unique and asymmetric?
I personally preferred the way AoE1, AoE2, Cossacks and American Conquest did make their factions.
Sure, you had 10 - 20 very similar factions, but the unique ones did very stand out.
1 Like
Judging by the first 8 civs so far, it seems yes, I know lots of people say mongols looks like the most different, I think the most different is abassid, the civs are much for different from each other than aoe2.
If I could go to a single location where I enjoy all the civs then fine. But generally it doesnât work out that way. I would much rather if they gave us the most popular civs regardless of location. Geographic theming for expansions is stupid and pedantic.
What do you name the DLC then?
miscellaneous
The Conquerors, the Rise of Rome, The Forgotten
There is no way to answer your question that will satisfy everyone. I prefer civs to be far more asymmetric than AoE2 or even AoE3, for that matter. Obviously this place is full of players who are used to AoE2 and like those civs just fine. It sounds like you may be more on the AoE2 side of the spectrum?
If we can find any common ground, it may be to try to agree on what the Developers mean when they describe their wishes for civ design in this game. Though thatâs also going to be tricky to nail down, especially before the game is released.
But my sense from the publicly available information is that they say they intend to make civs more asymmetric than AoE2 and appear to be doing that. However, I do not see any evidence that the civs are reaching the quality of civ design seen in the post-AoE2 titles â Age of Mythology, AoE3, and Age of Empires Online.
2 Likes
I think Starcraft 2 did. With 3 Base factions, also the 18 added Co-op factions âthey can be played in custom games vs AI and other playersâ I think they did quite a decent job.
Its kind of ironic how many teams try to achieve Blizzards Starcraft online mechanics,
but Blizzard went by SC2 far beyond. In the end factions from second Starcraft are more symmetrical. Therefore I personally see the concept of asymmetry as outdated. There is simply a point reached where gameplay gets worse from big faction difference.
1 Like
Issue with asymmetry in a historical title is that Medieval armies were not all that asymmetrical to start with.
Everybody had Spearmen, Archers/Crossbowmen, Polearm infantry, Light Cavalry and Lance Cavalry, one way or the other.
Sure, you could not give your Arabs Pikes, because they never used them, but you will likely give them Longspears, which they did use, and sort of compensate for lacking European Pikes, when you need an Infantry unit that counters Cavalry.
Similarly, you may not give your Steppe Peoples Crossbows, but you will likely give them Recurved Bows, which will amount to a similar Ranged unit, with slower attack but a lot more damage than your Archers.
Asymmetry is not really a factor in the Middle Ages, unless you go for really exotic civilizations, like in the Americas or South Africa, and then you find it is less of a case of asymmetry, and more of a case of completely lacking unit types, while their own unit types DO have counterparts in the Eurasian civs army rosters.
2 Likes
This is true, because you honestly get to a point in which one faction has an attribute or unit that the others cannot really counter, or one which is so useful that it just beats the other factions on functionality alone.
Asymmetry is overrated.
The Asian civs in AoE3 are more played than the Native civs, mostly because they are more symmetrical with the European civs, and so have all the appropriate counters.
Meanwhile AoE3 Aztecs have no real answer to Falc-Skirm compositions, and just lose if they cannot Rush the opponent to death.
1 Like