The people who voted for the mid age , can you tell me what you think? Why do you love knives and spears more than rifles and machine guns, as love cavalry more than tanks? The cosmos of the Ensemble Studios has been rejected by you, as a one Casual players really feel Frustrate. After four years of exciting volley fire, you wish to go back to shoot bows and arrows again. I really feel helpless. I think I will wait for the discount. So far, the fourth generation looks no different from the second generation, only the skin is changed
I actually like the route aoe4 is going since I feel that late Middle Ages are more interesting than the Early parts of the Middle Ages.
You can buy AOE3 DEïŒThe whole game is gunpowder, the screen is also very beautiful, is a very good game, different from other versions of the play.
I for one wouldnt have cared, and I was let downa fter teaser 1 showed medieval again.
But the game changes a LOT from age 2, its enough.
And I do not believe the council was able to change the setting, only comment on it. But of course I am not 100% sure.
We do have some RTS in the 1st/2nd WW though, something between age 3 and that time may be amiss, not sure.
Anyways they probably did so to get a new basis, because this is basically the last hope for big AAA RTS to become more regular again.
So I would support the game, even if only to get a chance that a potential age 5 MAY be set in the newer time. Although tbh I think they would go the antique route again at first .
Age of Empires is about the creation or origen of Empires, not the destruction of the final few empires.
In AoE you level up by entering a new Age, not entering a new year.
Empires in AoE existed for 1000s of years , the battles of ww1 lasted 4 years in total.
This might be an interesting setting for a war game, perhaps Command and conquer generals but not AoE.
Before AoE4 was announced, I always imagined it would be from 1800-1918 or up to 1945.
well, going from industrialization up to world wor 2 would still be possible. It isnt 1000 Years, but enough technological and political advancement.
Although balancing may be very hard. Probably another reason they didnt go that route.
Well they can do what they want but I wouldnât buy that one personally.
It wouldnât fit Age of Empiresâ core gameplay. Even Bruce Shelly was aware of that. I remember a interview post-Ensemble with him stating that (if I find it I will post the source).
Basically, in WW1 (which I think you are refering to) changed warfare dramatically: cavalry and meele combat was basically obsolete, replaced with a heavy focus on artillery und mashine guns. While Age had both in the past, they were only one part. Image Age2 with only archers and mangonels. Pretty boring, right? If you want to make an RTS in that era, you have to redesign it from the ground up - and we will get Company of Heroes, but not a Age of Empires that deserves that name.
And before anyone brings it up: that image on the last page of the art book of the Age3 Colllectors Edition was never a plan, but merly an artist at ES having some fun. ES never hat any plan beyond Age3, and even that was in question for some time. For more background info on that time and ES in general, i would recommend to read Jason Schreiers âBlood, Sweat & Pixelsâ, which as a section on Halo Wars and gives a lot of behind the scenes info during the last years of ES:.
I do believe it would still be possible, but yes, stuff would have to change.
4 main reasources may stay very similar though.
And you would have much more infantry focus, but different subtypes of infantry. It would be a change, but not impossible, and it would be possible to stay true to the age formula. However It IS indeed not easy, and hardly worth the effort instead of making a new CoH or new IP in WW1/2.
The only RTS in the world that can make a card system is III. It is not a problem to make more innovations in 4. The lron Harvesters are a good example of theww1, but they chose a conservative project.
from beginning to end
Lets see. âEmpiresâ
AoE3 American civs (other than Aztecs)
Burgundians
Sicilians
Polish
Bohemians
Franks
Teutons
Italians
Portuguese
Spanish
Japanese
Chinese
Britons
Celts
The list probably goes on.
Maybe like, a handful of all the civs in the game, lol. IF they even attain empire status
An empire is a sovereign state made up of several territories and peoples subject to a single ruling authority, often an emperor.
This was hyperbole. The one Empire that existed for 1000 years was the Eastern Roman Empire that evolved from the Roman empire to the Eastern Roman Empire and later to the Byzantine Empire.
But the timeline of AoE2 is from +/- 500AD to +/- 1500 AD , thus 1000 years of wars,battles and content.
Where WW1 consited of 4 years of war. Hense I feel WW1 will be ill fitting for AoE.
A Command and conquer Generals game set in WW1 will be brilliant however.
Looking once more at Viking Arb vs Viking arb gameplay of the pro scene haha
Victorian Era-WW1, roughly 1k years
Besides, it doesnât have to be apart of the main series, AoM doesnât cover a certain timeline, it covers mythologies
I would have been excited for it to go either way. I am happy it went medieval, but hope they have innovated and changed more from AOE 2⊠like will I have to perpetually buy farms? ewwâŠ
I think had it gone WW1 there would be a lot of potential to go AOE style but it would have to change so much it would be very risky as whether fans would accept it.
For instance the resources are all wrong⊠it would need to be Food, Ammunition, Fuel, and coin, maybe even steel too.
so you basically buy units and buildings with food steel and coin. but you have like a power bar or something that is like a production value of how much fuel and ammunition you can maintain. so in a battle this depletes pretty fast unless your production is very good. If your enemy cuts off your fuel lines, then slowly reserves could dwindle and all vehicles immobilized until you get fuel again. Things like this could spark more melee battles.
And there certainly were some cavalry units in WW1, and trench warfare was often a melee mess. If you make it easier to make troops than it is to make lots of ammo (accuracy as well, war statistics are terrible for wasted ammo) then battles will have to settle down and flare up, giving time for regrouping and planning counter strikes on important map sites.
Which in stead of mines I see it more SC style where the map has sites you can build oil extractors and steel mills that are strategic and then upgrade. ammunition would have to come from home country trickles and/ or factories. coin and food could be done in different ways too⊠I see far less settler building in this type of game.
I bet come clever mods could make it with aoe 4 engine.
The problem with the WW and WW II for a RTS is that there is a problem with the resources. Practically, I havenât seen many classical RTS in this period. There are many, COH, CaC etc. But non of them has the resource managment system from the clasical RTS games. It is more close to DoW resource system. âVery simplifyâ. In other games it would be ok. But for an AOE game, I donât know.
The games I know that have involved and this period of time and are clasical RTS games are Empire Earth I and II ( which practically covers the period from caves till space. )
WW II period is not a period that helps the creation of a clasical RTS game. Personally I like much more their period of time they pick.
For me, the medieval period is just much more interesting. I think warfare starts to get a bit boring after the introduction of wide scale firearms.
You can achieve a lot more diversity in a medieval setting than a 20th century setting. I think the biggest loss is on the melee front. Most 20th century games are basically just people standing or lying on hills shooting at each other from a distance.