As the developers said, there has to be a balance to continue with the same gameplay model that the first game of the franchise provides but at the same time add new game mechanics that were not implemented at that time due to the limitations of the engine.
I think this comparison between the games of the frank half silly because they are games with totally different mechanics and that happen in different historical moments, then you do not have to compare them.
Got your point on balance between new and old, it’s a remake after all. Can’t agree though that AoE and AoK have totally different mechanics. Virtually identical economy (expanded by fish traps which are basically farms on sea, plus the Market resource trading), same base building, similar unit classes and upgrade lines, researching, limited population. Sure that there are some major differences, like much bigger emphasis on the counters system, or gates - but come on, AoK is evolution not revolution. This is no Command&Conquer 4 that out of a sudden abandoned base building that was more than well established after 3 games in the franchise and 3 Red Alert spinoffs.
@mlascosmoerel said:
Got your point on balance between new and old, it’s a remake after all. Can’t agree though that AoE and AoK have totally different mechanics. Virtually identical economy (expanded by fish traps which are basically farms on sea, plus the Market resource trading), same base building, similar unit classes and upgrade lines, researching, limited population. Sure that there are some major differences, like much bigger emphasis on the counters system, or gates - but come on, AoK is evolution not revolution. This is no Command&Conquer 4 that out of a sudden abandoned base building.
When I said different mechanics I was referring to the form of the game, since AOK is much more used in the macro and in the AOE the micro, besides the alignment of the army and even the economy has its differences, as for example in the first game is much more Used hunting than in relation to the AOK you get with sheep (which makes more sense due to the historical moment) and further ahead in the game can choose to hunt or jump directly to the farms, so I talked about different game mechanics But we sure have an equal base in every franchise game, you’re right!
@UnknownMortal said:
@mlascosmoerel said:
Got your point on balance between new and old, it’s a remake after all. Can’t agree though that AoE and AoK have totally different mechanics. Virtually identical economy (expanded by fish traps which are basically farms on sea, plus the Market resource trading), same base building, similar unit classes and upgrade lines, researching, limited population. Sure that there are some major differences, like much bigger emphasis on the counters system, or gates - but come on, AoK is evolution not revolution. This is no Command&Conquer 4 that out of a sudden abandoned base building.When I said different mechanics I was referring to the form of the game, since AOK is much more used in the macro and in the AOE the micro, besides the alignment of the army and even the economy has its differences, as for example in the first game is much more Used hunting than in relation to the AOK you get with sheep (which makes more sense due to the historical moment) and further ahead in the game can choose to hunt or jump directly to the farms, so I talked about different game mechanics But we sure have an equal base in every franchise game, you’re right!
AOK has a totally different feel to ROR. AOK is more forgiving as can hide in the TC and get palisade wall so makes it unlikely that you will die in Fuedal (occasional towering aside) the game is almost more about destroying the TC’s than the villagers. In team games cartography makes coordination easier. Raids in ROR are far more deadly.
AOK is more new player friendly as build Orders can be applied to the often standardised maps, wolves are not a threat unlike lions and quite a bit of economic micro is taken away.
I like early Castle in AOK but find imperial just a game of queuing and spamming units to way points with little manoeuvre.
After playing ROR tonight I don’t want intelligent villagers or waypoints in the DE particularly.
@Zsombro said:
Ok maybe not everybody, but I see more than enough discussion about it.
( Gates were fun in AoE2. Will there be gates in AoE:DE ?
Or towers shooting multiple arrows like AoE2 castles )
C’mon! If you want to play AoE2 then play it!Anybody here for AoE:DE because he/she loves AoE:RoR?
I’m barely older than AoE1. I grew up with it. It was the first game i’ve ever played with. I want AoE:RoR feeling and not AoE2.
I never played the first one…just later AOE games.
What is the biggest differences between AOE and AOE II?
@“Mystic Taboo” said:
AOK is more new player friendly as build Orders can be applied to the often standardised maps, wolves are not a threat unlike lions and quite a bit of economic micro is taken away.
After playing ROR tonight I don’t want intelligent villagers or waypoints in the DE particularly.
I see your point here. As a software engineer and ux designer, I believe that our difference in opinion boils down to the difference between a competitive and a casual gamer. Competitive gamers are like power users who mastered the software despite if its usability flaws and steep learning curve; most changes to it will decrease their efficiency… initially. Casual gamers on the other hand are like regular users who haven’t (or couldn’t) invested that much time into figuring out the optimal way to use the software, and most changes will increase their efficiency - thus there is less resistance to change from them.
I wonder how FE is going to strike a proper balance between competitive and casual gameplay. Anyone can cite the devs on that?
@“Wicked Wulf” said:
What is the biggest differences between AOE and AOE II?
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed), unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding), less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions), fewer counter unit classes, no castles and no gates. In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well. And a setting that is a MILLION times more awesome than any of the sequels - but this is largely my personal opinion.
@mlascosmoerel said:
@“Wicked Wulf” said:
What is the biggest differences between AOE and AOE II?Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed), unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding), less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions), fewer counter unit classes, no castles and no gates. In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well. And a setting that is a MILLION times more awesome than any of the sequels - but this is largely my personal opinion.
Wow…that’s quite a lot…I happen to like those elephants lol.
Will be interesting to see what they will do to make it special…and not just a revamped AOE II - pretending to be AOE original?
I like AOE II so far…how the heck do you go out side of walls to steal rss & attack the enemy…if no gates? You have to destroy walls each time and rebuild?
@mlascosmoerel said:
I see your point here. As a software engineer and ux designer, I believe that our difference in opinion boils down to the difference between a competitive and a casual gamer. Competitive gamers are like power users who mastered the software despite if its usability flaws and steep learning curve; most changes to it will decrease their efficiency… initially. Casual gamers on the other hand are like regular users who haven’t (or couldn’t) invested that much time into figuring out the optimal way to use the software, and most changes will increase their efficiency - thus there is less resistance to change from them.
I doubt that’s the split. Competitive gamers have the original game to play on voobly anyway. The split here seems like it stems from AoE1 fans vs AoE2 fans. AoE2 fans see 1 as a inferior product and want the remaster to make it more like 2. AoE1 fans see 2 as a inferior product and doesn’t want the remake to make the same mistakes as the sequel did. And then there is a spectrum of opinions between these two extremes.
I wonder how FE is going to strike a proper balance between competitive and casual gameplay. Anyone can cite the devs on that?
They said they would keep the game as close as possible to the original. With only minor gameplay improvements (pathfinding etc) and balance changes.
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed), unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding), less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions), fewer counter unit classes, no castles and no gates. In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well. And a setting that is a MILLION times more awesome than any of the sequels - but this is largely my personal opinion.
This is a pretty biased rundown. Let me provide a counter perspective (for science, of course):
-
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed): This one is simply false for the most part. AoE1 is significantly faster paced than AoE2. Units are much faster in AoE1 compared to map size and base sizes, and games are generally over much quicker than those in AoE2 (both mp and causal random maps).
-
unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding): This is true. AoE1 has worse pathfinding (not that AoE2 don’t have issues). There are also no stances or formations, this makes AoE1 play a lot more like Warcraft and other fast paced strategy games. Some people prefer this.
-
less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions): True. And some of us prefer this. We think it is more interesting when players have to make the important choices during a game rather than before it. There’s something nice about the simplicity of chess without needing to give each queen special abilities depending on it’s color.
-
fewer counter unit classes: In vanilla AoE there was none actually, in RoR they added the slinger and the camel as counter units. They feel kind of out of place in AoE1, this is more AoE2’s territory. They are very different games for a reason.
-
In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well.: True. Aren’t those singleplayer missions wonderful though? They are so simple to pick up and play with and relax. None of this crazy trigger stuff that usually limits gameplay options and generally wastes your time in favor of exposition. It’s just you, a setup and a map to solve.
@mlascosmoerel said:
I see your point here. As a software engineer and ux designer, I believe that our difference in opinion boils down to the difference between a competitive and a casual gamer. Competitive gamers are like power users who mastered the software despite if its usability flaws and steep learning curve; most changes to it will decrease their efficiency… initially. Casual gamers on the other hand are like regular users who haven’t (or couldn’t) invested that much time into figuring out the optimal way to use the software, and most changes will increase their efficiency - thus there is less resistance to change from them.
I doubt that’s the split. Competitive gamers have the original game to play on voobly anyway. The split here seems like it stems from AoE1 fans vs AoE2 fans. AoE2 fans see 1 as a inferior product and want the remaster to make it more like 2. AoE1 fans see 2 as a inferior product and doesn’t want the remake to make the same mistakes as the sequel did. And then there is a spectrum of opinions between these two extremes.
I wonder how FE is going to strike a proper balance between competitive and casual gameplay. Anyone can cite the devs on that?
They said they would keep the game as close as possible to the original. With only minor gameplay improvements (pathfinding etc) and balance changes.
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed), unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding), less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions), fewer counter unit classes, no castles and no gates. In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well. And a setting that is a MILLION times more awesome than any of the sequels - but this is largely my personal opinion.
This is a pretty biased rundown. Let me provide a counter perspective (for science, of course):
-
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed): This one is simply false for the most part. AoE1 is significantly faster paced than AoE2. Units are much faster in AoE1 compared to map size and base sizes, and games are generally over much quicker than those in AoE2 (both mp and causal random maps). Units are created slower as you say, but this actually contributes to the game being even faster paced - because it means battles are more decisive (a good example of this effect is Starcraft, where units are created even slower than in AoE1/2)
-
unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding): This is true. AoE1 has worse pathfinding (not that AoE2 don’t have issues). There are also no stances or formations, this makes AoE1 play a lot more like Warcraft and other fast paced strategy games. Some people prefer this.
-
less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions): True. And some of us prefer this. We think it is more interesting when players have to make the important choices during a game rather than before it. There’s something nice about the simplicity of chess without needing to give each queen special abilities depending on it’s color.
-
fewer counter unit classes: In vanilla AoE there was none actually, in RoR they added the slinger and the camel as counter units. They feel kind of out of place in AoE1, this is more AoE2’s territory. They are very different games for a reason.
-
In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well.: True. Aren’t those singleplayer missions wonderful though? They are so simple to pick up and play with and relax. None of this crazy trigger stuff that usually limits gameplay options and generally wastes your time in favor of exposition. It’s just you, a setup and a map to solve.
@mlascosmoerel said:
I see your point here. As a software engineer and ux designer, I believe that our difference in opinion boils down to the difference between a competitive and a casual gamer. Competitive gamers are like power users who mastered the software despite if its usability flaws and steep learning curve; most changes to it will decrease their efficiency… initially. Casual gamers on the other hand are like regular users who haven’t (or couldn’t) invested that much time into figuring out the optimal way to use the software, and most changes will increase their efficiency - thus there is less resistance to change from them.
I doubt that’s the split. Competitive gamers have the original game to play on voobly anyway. The split here seems like it stems from AoE1 fans vs AoE2 fans. AoE2 fans see 1 as a inferior product and want the remaster to make it more like 2. AoE1 fans see 2 as a inferior product and doesn’t want the remake to make the same mistakes as the sequel did. And then there is a spectrum of opinions between these two extremes.
I wonder how FE is going to strike a proper balance between competitive and casual gameplay. Anyone can cite the devs on that?
They said they would keep the game as close as possible to the original. With only minor gameplay improvements (pathfinding etc) and balance changes.
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed), unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding), less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions), fewer counter unit classes, no castles and no gates. In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well. And a setting that is a MILLION times more awesome than any of the sequels - but this is largely my personal opinion.
This is a pretty biased rundown. Let me provide a counter perspective (for science, of course):
-
Slower pace (slower creation and research speeds, unit movement speed): This one is simply false for the most part. AoE1 is significantly faster paced than AoE2. Units are much faster in AoE1 compared to map size and base sizes, and games are generally over much quicker than those in AoE2 (both mp and causal random maps). Units are created slower as you say, but this actually contributes to the game being even faster paced - because it means battles are more decisive (a good example of this effect is Starcraft, where units are created even slower than in AoE1/2)
-
unit AI (no unit stances, quite dumb pathfinding): This is true. AoE1 has worse pathfinding (not that AoE2 don’t have issues). There are also no stances or formations, this makes AoE1 play a lot more like Warcraft and other fast paced strategy games. Some people prefer this.
-
less accentuated differences between civilizations (no unique units and technologies, only tech tree exclusions): True. And some of us prefer this. We think it is more interesting when players have to make the important choices during a game rather than before it. There’s something nice about the simplicity of chess without needing to give each queen special abilities depending on it’s color.
-
fewer counter unit classes: In vanilla AoE there was none actually, in RoR they added the slinger and the camel as counter units. They feel kind of out of place in AoE1, this is more AoE2’s territory. They are very different games for a reason.
-
In singleplayer no triggers (scripted missions) as well.: True. Aren’t those singleplayer missions wonderful though? They are so simple to pick up and play with and relax. None of this crazy trigger stuff that usually limits gameplay options and generally wastes your time in favor of exposition. It’s just you, a setup and a map to solve.
Castles, Gates, Auto-farms were the only improvements on ROR that I appreciated. The lack of intelligent villagers made micro and building up more important.
There is a stand ground stance in ROR but in multiplayer I rarely ever use stances.
AOK’s graphics didn’t excite me, grouped units move like they have glue and ruler spacing between them and the Garrison in in TC’s turned the games feel in the wrong direction.
Individual army units mean nothing in AOK as gets so spammy in imperial just having military buildings everywhere means you can react to enemy movements. Symmetrical maps, poorer flora and fauna suck the life out the map, cheaper cartography makes the game have less of an ‘exploration’ of a new world feel.
Thanks for your input, @GepardenKalle. You’ve provided some valuable counterpoints. Now the only thing @“Wicked Wulf” needs to have an opinion is to actually try out AoE by playing it. 
Never realized that game pace issue, simply got the ‘faster’ feel of AoK from observing unit speeds relative to other map objects, not to map size. Good to learn something new after the 20 years!
About the triggers though, I’ve always believed that in any RTS, campaigns are meant to be story oriented, as opposed to random map / skirmish / custom game / call-it-as-you-want human vs AI. And I think you’ll agree that scripted scenarios give much more immersion in the story than those without any scripting - especially in exploration/spec ops missions. The plus side of supporting triggers is that you can alternate between heavily and less (or almost not at all - the “you, setup and a map to solve”) scripted scenarios, while without trigger support… well, there’s only the starting state of the map.
And to clarify, I consider myself a big fan of AoE, much more than AoK. I just miss the “quality of life” improvements and scripting from the latter.
@“Mystic Taboo” said:
Castles, Gates, Auto-farms were the only improvements on** ROR **that I appreciated. The lack of intelligent villagers made micro and building up more important.There is a stand ground stance in ROR but in multiplayer I rarely ever use stances.
Do you mean AoK here? RoR has no castles, gates, or auto-farm 
Stand ground was useful in RoR - catapults will not attack at all, so I used it as a “please don’t squash my army” button when the enemy sends in a suicide kamikaze unit. It also would stop your army chasing villagers in single player, because of the way the AI controls them, walks away as soon as it gets shot, ends up leading your army half way across the map!
I had my triremes on stand ground on one of the campaign maps and they still fired on the enemy, I seem to recall catapults still firing even when on stand ground, they just wouldn’t move.
@Penelinfi said:
Stand ground was useful in RoR - catapults will not attack at all, so I used it as a “please don’t squash my army” button when the enemy sends in a suicide kamikaze unit.
Cannot imagine fielding catapults without this button. Saved my sorry bum more than a dozen times. It’s only pity that stand ground needs to be constantly reissued, as it is an order not a stance, and each order cancels it.
Thanks for all the info…so much to catch up on & learn…think I might have to put a few other games on the back burner for now…need more experience in AOE stuff lol
@“Wicked Wulf” said:
Thanks for all the info…so much to catch up on & learn…think I might have to put a few other games on the back burner for now…need more experience in AOE stuff lol
You may need to join us on Voobly :),
I would imagine the aim is to keep it as authentic as possible with the main differences being improved graphics/audio and additional minor game mechanics.
They may later decide to release AoE 2 DE with the new sprites, 4k textures and maybe the new dlc all in one; who can say for sure.
I don’t know, perhaps those people haven’t played the original in a while and have forgotten the differences?
I think stand ground in normal AoE was that catapults still fire, but in RoR they changed it so they don’t do anything. Unless that’s just in multiplayer, but I’m pretty sure it works in single as well.